DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (US 2009/0035545) in view of Opuszko (US 2007/0275196).
Regarding claim 1, Guenther discloses biaxially oriented polymeric film, i.e. machine direction oriented polymeric film, (0008) comprising an outer layer, i.e. first skin layer, comprising MMW HDPE such as L5885 (abstract, 0022, 0023, 0037), a core layer (0037) and inner layer, i.e. second skin layer, comprising EVA polymer, i.e. heat sealable polymer, (0037).
Guenther does not disclose heat seal temperature of the heat sealable polymer as presently claimed.
Opuszko discloses multilayer film for packaging (abstract, 0002) comprising a sealant layer (0036) wherein the sealant layer containing EVA resin having a softening temperature, i.e. sealant temperature, less than about 100 C to obtain desired oxygen transmission rate (0036-0038, 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific EVA of Opuszko in the second skin layer of Guenther to obtain desired oxygen transmission rate.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 1 wherein the heat sealable polymer further comprising LLDPE (Guenther: 0037) or ethylene propylene copolymer (Opuszko: 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 1, wherein the core layer comprises LDPE or LLDPE (0037).
Regarding claims 8 and 22-24, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 1, wherein Guenther discloses L5885 (0022) the same HDPE as discloses in the present specification and therefore it would have the same number average molecular weight. Further, Guenther discloses value of Mw/Mn is 2 to 6 and weight average molecular weight is less than 120,000 (0023) and therefore number average molecular weight of HDPE is 60,000 (120,000/2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (US 2009/0035545) in view of Opuszko (US 2007/0275196) and further in view of Gray et al. (US 2003/0030174).
Regarding claim 7, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 1, but fails to disclose mLLDPE.
Gray discloses multilayer film comprising outer layer, i.e. first skin layer, comprising MMW-HDPE (paragraphs 0037, 0053), inner layer comprising EVA (0053) and core or middle layer comprising equivalent and interchangeability of LDPE or m-LLDPE (paragraph 0053).
Given that Gray discloses the equivalence and interchangeability of using mLLDPE as presently claimed with using LLDPE as disclosed by Guenther in view of Opuszko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at presently claimed invention.
Claim(s) 25-28, 30 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (US 2009/0035545) in view of Opuszko (US 2007/0275196) and Rhee et al. (US 2005/0186376).
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Guenther discloses biaxially oriented polymeric film, i.e. machine direction oriented polymeric film, (0008) comprising an outer layer, i.e. first skin layer, comprising MMW HDPE such as L5885 (abstract, 0022, 0023, 0037), a core layer (0037) and inner layer, i.e. second skin layer, comprising EVA polymer, i.e. heat sealable polymer, (0037). Further, Guenther discloses additional layers (0036).
Guenther does not disclose heat seal temperature of the heat sealable polymer as presently claimed.
Opuszko discloses multilayer film for packaging (abstract, 0002) comprising a sealant layer (0036) wherein the sealant layer containing EVA resin having a softening temperature, i.e. sealant temperature, less than about 100 C to obtain desired oxygen transmission rate (0036-0038, 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific EVA of Opuszko in the second skin layer of Guenther to obtain desired oxygen transmission rate.
Guenther discloses additional layers but does not specifically disclose first and second sub skin layers.
Rhee discloses multilayer sheet wherein tie layers, i.e. sub-skin layers, are present between layers to obtain excellent bond strength between adjacent layers (0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tie layers of Rhee between the layers of Guenther in view of Opuszko to obtain excellent bond strength between adjacent layers. Given that the polymeric film of Guenther in view of Opuszko and Rhee discloses the same structure and material as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the polymeric film of Guenther in view of Opuszko and Rhee would have the same properties as claimed in present claim.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 25 wherein the heat sealable polymer further comprising LLDPE (Guenther: 0037) or ethylene propylene copolymer (Opuszko: 0056).
Regarding claim 30, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 25, wherein the core layer comprises LDPE or LLDPE (0037).
Regarding claims 32-35, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 25, wherein Guenther discloses L5885 (0022) the same HDPE as discloses in the present specification and therefore it would have the same number average molecular weight. Further, Guenther discloses value of Mw/Mn is 2 to 6 and weight average molecular weight is less than 120,000 (0023) and therefore number average molecular weight of HDPE is 60,000.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenther et al. (US 2009/0035545) in view of Opuszko (US 2007/0275196), Rhee et al. (US 2005/0186376) and further in view of Gray et al. (US 2003/0030174).
Regarding claim 31, Guenther in view of Opuszko discloses the machine direction oriented polymeric film of claim 25, but fails to disclose mLLDPE.
Gray discloses multilayer film comprising outer layer, i.e. first skin layer, comprising MMW-HDPE (paragraphs 0037, 0053), inner layer comprising EVA (0053) and core or middle layer comprising equivalent and interchangeability of LDPE or m-LLDPE (paragraph 0053).
Given that Gray discloses the equivalence and interchangeability of using mLLDPE as presently claimed with using LLDPE as disclosed by Guenther in view of Opuszko, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights