DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Withdrawn Rejections
1. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 14-15, 18, 21 and 23-31 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s clarifications with calculations accompanied by relevant citations from the specification, in the response filed on September 19, 2025, which demonstrate that the limitation of “peel cling of about 2 gm to about 120 gm” is fully supported by the specification.
2. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a/1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 15, 18, 21, 23-25, 28-31 over Baccaro as the primary reference, as evidenced by Sabic and Somers, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of claims 29 and 31, and Applicant’s clarifications with calculations accompanied by relevant citations from the specification, in the response filed on September 19, 2025, which demonstrate that the limitation of “peel cling of about 2 gm to about 120 gm” is fully supported by the specification.
3. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 14 and 26-27 over EP-917952-A2 in view of Best and Somers, as the primary combination of references, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s clarifications with calculations accompanied by relevant citations from the specification, in the response filed on September 19, 2025, which demonstrate that the limitation of “peel cling of about 2 gm to about 120 gm” is fully supported by the specification.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “the nonwoven is for a personal hygiene product”. Does it mean that the nonwoven itself is a personal hygiene product; a starting material for a component of a personal hygiene product; or a starting material component of a personal hygiene product? For the purposes of examination, all three interpretations are deemed to be within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the “personal hygiene product” is. Is it anything that is used for personal hygiene, in which case, it can even be the nonwoven itself, in the form of a nonwoven wipe, or is it restricted to certain types of personal hygiene products, in which case, where are the limits of the scope of the claim? For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation is used.
With regard to claim 25, it is unclear what ± variations are within the scope of the limitation of “about 1.7”. For the purposes of examination, ± 0.3 is deemed to fall within the scope in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary.
Clarification accompanied by relevant citation(s) from the specification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 18, 21, 23 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccaro (WO 2018/234274 A) in view of Vinck (US 2014/0248480), as evidenced by Sabic (Cohere 8570).
With regard to Claims 15, 29, Baccaro discloses a film for wrapping (paragraph 0002) in Example 1 that is multilayer, and comprises a five-layer structure (paragraph 0099) comprising two outer layers and a core layer (paragraph 0015) therefore extending between and interconnecting the outer layers. The outer layers can be but are not required to be identical (the same; paragraph 0084). Either outer layer can therefore also be the inner layer spaced apart from the outer layer. The outer layer A comprises LDPE and the inner layer E comprises Cohere 8570 (paragraph 0099). Because five layers are disclosed, the structure is identical to a structure having a core layer having a first sublayer C, a second sublayer B and third sublayer D, wherein the first sublayer C is located between the second sublayer B and the inner layer E ([0099]). Each sublayer consists of Supeer 8115, therefore consisting of 100% Supeer 8115 by weight, and Supeer 8115 is a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (paragraph 0097), such that the core layer comprises 100% LLDPE by weight of the core layer. Each sublayer may instead comprise a second linear low density polyethylene, therefore different from the first, because two or more linear low density polyethylenes are disclosed (blends, paragraph 0039, first ethylene copolymer, second ethylene copolymer [0057]). The film comprises 82% linear low density polyethylene by weight ((25%+40%+25%, Supeer 8115) x 100/ (10%LDPE 2501N0W + (25%+40%+25%, Supeer 8115) + 10% Cohere 8570), paragraph [0099]) which is within the claimed range of about 35% to about 90%.
The Cohere 8570 disclosed by Baccaro is a plastomer, as evidenced by Sabic (first page).
In addition, TNPP is not disclosed by Baccaro (entire reference). Accordingly, each layer of the film is therefore free from TNPP.
The claimed peel cling is not disclosed by Baccaro.
However, Baccaro teaches that the film for wrapping ([0002]) is a cling film wrap ([0009]).
Vinck teaches that a cling film wrap needs to have a level of tack that is high enough to allow the film to releasably adhere to the article being wrapped and to itself, while being low enough to allow the film to be removed from the article, or removed from a roll containing the film ([0002]). Vinck teaches that this level of tack requires a peel cling which is desirably within a range of from 80 gm to about 150 gm (cN [0048]) which overlaps the claimed range of about 2 gm to about 120 gm, or of about 10 gm to about 120 gm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the cling wrap film of Baccaro, with a peel cling that is within a range of about 2 gm to about 120 gm, or of about 10 gm to about 120 gm, in order to obtain the desired level of tack that is high enough to allow the film to releasably adhere to the article being wrapped and to itself, while being low enough to allow the film to be removed from the article, or removed from a roll containing the film, as taught by Vinck.
With regard to Claim 18, the thickness of the multilayer film disclosed by Baccaro is 1 mil (25 µm, paragraph 0098) which is within the claimed range of about 0.7 mils to about 4 mils.
With regard to Claim 21, the outer layer A of the multilayer film disclosed by Baccaro comprises 100% LDPE by weight of the outer layer A (LDPE 2501N0W, paragraph 0099).
With regard to Claim 23, the second sublayer B of the multilayer film disclosed by Baccaro is 25% by weight of the film and the first sublayer is 40% by weight of the film (paragraph 0090).
With regard to Claims 30-31, Baccaro discloses a film for wrapping (paragraph 0002) in Example 1 that comprises a five-layer structure (paragraph 0099), comprising two outer layers and a core layer (paragraph 0015) therefore extending between and interconnecting the outer layers. The outer layers can be but are not required to be identical (the same; paragraph 0084). Either outer layer can therefore also be the inner layer. The outer layer A comprises LDPE and the inner layer E comprises Cohere 8570 (paragraph 0099). Because five layers are disclosed, the structure is identical to a structure having a core layer having a first sublayer C, a second sublayer B and third sublayer D ([0099]). Each sublayer consists of Supeer 8115, therefore consisting of 100% Supeer 8115 by weight, and Supeer 8115 is a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (paragraph 0097), such that the core layer comprises 100% LLDPE by weight of the core layer. Each sublayer may instead comprise a second linear low density polyethylene, therefore different from the first, because two or more linear low density polyethylenes are disclosed (paragraph 0039). The film comprises 82% linear low density polyethylene by weight ((25%+40%+25%, Supeer 8115) x 100/ (10%LDPE 2501N0W + (25%+40%+25%, Supeer 8115) + 10% Cohere 8570), paragraph [0099]) which is within the claimed range of about 35% to about 90%.
The Cohere 8570 disclosed by Baccaro is a plastomer, as evidenced by Sabic (first page).
In addition, TNPP is not disclosed by Baccaro (entire reference). Accordingly, each layer of the film is therefore free from TNPP.
The claimed peel cling is not disclosed by Baccaro.
However, Baccaro teaches that the film for wrapping ([0002]) is a cling film wrap ([0009]).
Vinck teaches that a cling film wrap needs to have a level of tack that is high enough to allow the film to releasably adhere to the article being wrapped and to itself, while being low enough to allow the film to be removed from the article, or removed from a roll containing the film ([0002]). Vinck teaches that this level of tack requires a peel cling which is desirably within a range of from 80 gm to about 150 gm (cN [0048]) which overlaps the claimed range of about 2 gm to about 120 gm, or of about 10 gm to about 120 gm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the cling wrap film of Baccaro, with a peel cling that is within a range of about 2 gm to about 120 gm, or of about 10 gm to about 120 gm, in order to obtain the desired level of tack that is high enough to allow the film to releasably adhere to the article being wrapped and to itself, while being low enough to allow the film to be removed from the article, or removed from a roll containing the film, as taught by Vinck.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 14, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccaro (WO 2018/234274 A) in view of Vinck (US 2014/0248480) and Zäh (US 5852159), as evidenced by Sabic (Cohere 8570).
With regard to Claim 1, Baccaro discloses a film for wrapping (paragraph 0002) in Example 1 that is multilayer and comprises a five-layer structure (paragraph 0099), comprising two outer layers and a core layer (paragraph 0015) therefore extending between and interconnecting the outer layers. The outer layers can be but are not required to be identical (the same; paragraph 0084). Either outer layer can therefore also be the inner layer spaced apart from the outer layer. The outer layer A comprises LDPE and the inner layer E comprises Cohere 8570 (paragraph 0099). Because five layers are disclosed, the structure is identical to a structure having a core layer having a first sublayer C, a second sublayer B and third sublayer D, wherein the first sublayer C is located between the second sublayer B and the inner layer E ([0099]). Each sublayer consists of Supeer 8115, therefore consisting of 100% Supeer 8115 by weight, and Supeer 8115 is a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (paragraph 0097), such that the core layer comprises 100% LLDPE by weight of the core layer. Each sublayer may instead comprise a second linear low density polyethylene, therefore different from the first, because two or more linear low density polyethylenes are disclosed (blends, paragraph 0039, first ethylene copolymer, second ethylene copolymer [0057]). The film comprises 82% linear low density polyethylene by weight ((25%+40%+25%, Supeer 8115) x 100/ (10%LDPE 2501N0W + (25%+40%+25%, Supeer 8115) + 10% Cohere 8570), paragraph [0099]) which is within the claimed range of about 35% to about 90%.
The Cohere 8570 disclosed by Baccaro is a plastomer, as evidenced by Sabic (first page).
In addition, TNPP is not disclosed by Baccaro (entire reference). Accordingly, each layer of the film is therefore free from TNPP.
The claimed peel cling is not disclosed by Baccaro.
However, Baccaro teaches that the film for wrapping ([0002]) is a cling film wrap ([0009]).
Vinck teaches that a cling film wrap needs to have a level of tack that is high enough to allow the film to releasably adhere to the article being wrapped and to itself, while being low enough to allow the film to be removed from the article, or removed from a roll containing the film ([0002]). Vinck teaches that this level of tack requires a peel cling which is desirably within a range of from 80 gm to about 150 gm (cN [0048]) which overlaps the claimed range of about 2 gm to about 120 gm, or of about 10 gm to about 120 gm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the cling wrap film of Baccaro, with a peel cling that is within a range of about 2 gm to about 120 gm, or of about 10 gm to about 120 gm, in order to obtain the desired level of tack that is high enough to allow the film to releasably adhere to the article being wrapped and to itself, while being low enough to allow the film to be removed from the article, or removed from a roll containing the film, as taught by Vinck.
In addition, Baccaro teaches a package comprising a product (packaging for silage [00060]), where the multilayer film ([0060]) is wrapped around the product (silage [0002]), and where the inner layer of the multilayer film which is a cling film ([0009]) is arranged to cling to and hence to contact the product (protect the content [0002]). Baccaro fails to teach that aside from silage ([0002]), the product is also a nonwoven.
However, Zäh teaches that films that are used to package silage are also used to package nonwovens that are used during silage harvesting, for the purpose of providing the same protection (lines 4-9 of col. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have packaged as a product, using the multilayer film of Baccaro, a nonwoven instead of silage, in order to provide the same protection, as taught by Zäh.
With regard to Claim 2, the outer layer A of the multilayer of Baccaro comprises LDPE (paragraph 0099).
With regard to Claim 3, the inner layer E of the multilayer film of Baccaro comprises Cohere 8570 (paragraph 0099) which is a plastomer, as evidenced by Sabic (first page).
With regard to Claim 5, because five layers are disclosed in the multilayer film of Baccaro, the structure is identical to a structure having a core layer having a first sublayer C, a second sublayer B and a third sublayer D, wherein the first sublayer C is located between the second sublayer B and the inner layer E ([0099]).
With regard to Claim 6, each sublayer of the multilayer film of Baccaro, may instead comprise a second linear low density polyethylene, therefore different from the first, because two or more linear low density polyethylenes are disclosed (blends, paragraph 0039, first ethylene copolymer, second ethylene copolymer [0057]).
With regard to Claim 7, each sublayer consists of Supeer 8115 in the multilayer film of Baccaro, therefore consisting of 100% Supeer 8115 by weight, and Supeer 8115 is a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (paragraph 0097), such that the core layer comprises 100% LLDPE by weight of the core layer.
With regard to Claim 9, although Baccaro, as modified by Vinck and Zäh, as evidenced by Sabic, fails to teach that the nonwoven is for a personal hygiene product, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. If there were to be any differences in structure or chemistry, these differences are presumed to be minor and obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, the nonwoven can be used as a wipe which qualifies as a personal hygiene product.
With regard to Claim 14, the multilayer film of Baccaro is a cling film ([0009]) which clings to and hence directly contacts the product (protect the content [0002]). Since TNPP is not disclosed by Baccaro (entire reference), each layer of the film is therefore free from TNPP, and hence TNPP is not transferred from the multilayer film to the product.
With regard to Claim 26, the inner layer E of the multilayer film of Baccaro comprises 100% of Cohere 8570 (paragraph 0099) which is a plastomer, as evidenced by Sabic (first page).
With regard to Claim 27, the outer layer A of the multilayer film disclosed by Baccaro comprises 100% LDPE by weight of the outer layer A (LDPE 2501N0W, paragraph 0099).
With regard to Claim 28, the thickness of the multilayer film disclosed by Baccaro is 1 mil (25 µm, paragraph 0098) which is within the claimed range of about 0.7 mils to about 4 mils.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccaro in view of Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, as applied to claims 15, 18, 21, 23 and 29-31 above, and further in view of Best (US 2007/0260016).
With regard to claim 24, Baccaro, as modified by Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, discloses the multilayer film comprising the first sublayer comprising a first and second LLDPE as discussed above. Baccaro, as modified by Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, fails to disclose that the first LLDPE is in an amount of at least 50% by weight and that the second LLDPE is in an amount of up to 50% by weight.
However, 50% of the first LLDPE and 50% of the second LLDPE, is the simplest and hence most obvious combination to try, for the purpose of providing the desired combination of physical properties.
Best teaches that in a film for wrapping (cling, wrap film, paragraph 0093) comprising a blend of LLDPEs, each LLDPE is varied in the amount of 0.1 to 99.9% by weight, starting with the most obvious amount of 50% (paragraph 0075), for the purpose of providing the desired improvement in both mechanical and optical properties (clarity, paragraph 0132). Best is in the same field of endeavor, which is cling film wrap as evidenced by paragraph 0093.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have comprised each LLDPE, in an amount starting with about 50% by weight, in the first sublayer of the multilayer film of Baccaro, as modified by Vinck, in order to obtain an improved combination of mechanical and optical properties, and further, to have varied the amount within a range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, such that the first LLDPE is in an amount of at least 50% by weight, and the second LLDPE is in an amount of up to 50% by weight, in order to tailor the desired combination of mechanical and optical properties, as taught by Best.
Although the disclosed range of amount is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 25, Baccaro, as modified by Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, discloses the multilayer film as discussed above, but fails to disclose the claimed ratio of Elmendorf Tear in the transverse direction (TD) to Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD) of about 1.7.
However, Baccaro teaches that the film for wrapping ([0002]) is a cling film wrap ([0009]).
Best teaches that a cling film wrap (paragraph 0093) can have a ratio of Elmendorf Tear in the transverse direction (TD) to Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD) of about 1.7 (18.7/10.8, Example 105, Table 27 [0272]; 1.89, Example 14, Table 3 [0233]; 1.6, 375/235, Example 69, Table 18 [0255]), for the purpose of obtaining a cling wrap film (paragraph 0093) with the desired combination of TD tear strength and MD tear strength. Best is in the same field of endeavor, which is films as evidenced by paragraph 0093).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the multilayer film of Baccaro, as modified by Vinck, with a ratio of Elmendorf Tear in the transverse direction (TD) to the Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD) of about 1.7, in order to obtain the desired combination of TD tear strength and MD tear strength that is suitable for a cling film wrap, as taught by Best.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccaro in view of Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, as applied to claims 15, 18, 21, 23 and 29-31 above, and further in view of Manrique (US 2015/0140304).
Baccaro, as modified by Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, discloses the multilayer film as discussed above. Baccaro as modified by Vinck, as evidenced by Sabic, fails to disclose the claimed ratio of Elmendorf Tear in the transverse direction (TD) to Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD) of about 1.7.
However, Baccaro teaches that the film for wrapping ([0002]) is a cling film wrap ([0009]) for silage applications ([0002]).
Manrique teaches that a cling film wrap (paragraph 0002, 0006) can have a ratio of Elmendorf Tear in the transverse direction (TD) (cross direction [0052], CD, Fig. 2 [0015]) to Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD) of about 1.7 (Fig. 2), for the purpose of providing a cling film wrap that is well suited for use in silage applications (paragraph 0002). Manrique is in the same field of endeavor, which is cling film wrap for silage applications as evidenced by paragraphs 0002, 0006.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the multilayer film of Baccaro, with a ratio of Elmendorf Tear in the transverse direction (TD) to Elmendorf Tear in the machine direction (MD), of about 1.7, in order to obtain a cling film wrap that is well suited for use in silage applications, as taught by Manrique.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new secondary reference(s) in the new combinations of references in the new grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular work week between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights