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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite “excluding any heterophasic copolymer”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification. It is noted that the cited phraseology clearly signifies a “negative” or “exclusionary” limitation for which the applicants have no support in the original disclosure. Negative limitations in a claim which do not appear in the specification as filed introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, Ex Parte Grasselli, Suresh, and Miller, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1983); 783 F. 2d 453. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 11 recite “a machine direction tearing resistance…greater than 1900 g”. While there is support for machine direction tear of 1900 to 3450 g (see paragraph 0054 of published application), there is no support for broad disclosure of the multilayer film having machine direction tear resistance of greater than 1900 g. That is, there is no support for values greater than 3450 g.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard et al. (5,902,684 cited in IDS) in view of German (US 2015/0030867 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 13-15, Bullard et al. disclose a multilayer film, thermoplastic stretch wrap film comprising a first outer cling layer, a first inner polymeric layer, a core layer, a second inner polymeric layer and a second outer cling layer (see Abstract, Figure 2 and col. 7, lines 19-31). The thickness of the multilayer film is from about 0.4 to about 3 mils, i.e. 10.2 to 76.2 microns (see col. 8, lines 39-40). The outer cling layers comprise about 10 to about 50 wt%, the inner polymeric layers comprise about 40 to about 85 wt% and the core layer comprises about 2 to about 50 wt% of the stretch wrap film (see col. 8, lines 41-52). Given that the Bullard discloses broad range for the weight percent of the core layer based on the entire stretch wrap film, the thickness of the core layer is also about 2 to about 50% of the total thickness of the multilayer film, and accordingly the thickness of the core layer of Bullard would overlap that presently claimed.
The outer cling layers comprise LLDPE resins having a density of about 0.890 to about 0.940 g/cm3 (see col. 3, lines 61-63). The LLDPE resins can be blended with 0 to 40 wt% of other resin such as high pressure low density polyethylene (i.e. high pressure LDPE) (see col. 4, lines 12-21). That is, the outer cling layers comprises 60 to 100 wt% of LLDPE and 0 to 40 wt% of high pressure LDPE. As evidenced by Hideshi et al., high pressure LDPE has a density of 0.915 to 0.935 g/cm3 (see Abstract).
The inner polymeric layers comprise a low dispersity polymer such as metallocene catalyzed polyethylene (see col. 5, lines 43-57). A specific example of low dispersity polymer includes metallocene-catalyzed linear low density polyethylene, i.e. mLLDPE (see col. 10, lines 5-7). The low dispersity polymer has a density of about 0.88 to about 0.94 g/cm3 (see col. 5, lines 14-18). The low dispersity polymer (i.e. mLLDPE) is present in amount of at least 60 wt% of the inner polymeric layer (see col. 5, lines 38-42).
The core layer comprises random copolymers of propylene and ethylene (see col. 6, lines 43-44). The random copolymer is present in amount of at least 50 wt% of the core layer (see col. 7, lines 14-18). The core layer is formed of a single layer of the core polymer (see col. 9, lines 64-65).
While Bullard et al. disclose the core layer comprising at least 50 wt% of random copolymer of propylene and ethylene, Bullard et al. do not random copolymer of propylene and ethylene is a propylene-based elastomer having a density of 0.855 to 0.877 g/cm3, and a crystallinity of the propylene-based elastomer is 2.5 wt% to 24 wt% and a melt-flow rate of 0.1 to 4 g/10 min. Bullard et al. does not disclose the propylene-based elastomer is an isotactic propylene-based polymer as presently claimed.
German discloses a composition comprising 80 to 99.5 wt% of a propylene-based elastomer which is a copolymer comprising at least about 60 wt% of propylene-derived units and about 5 to 25 wt% of ethylene-derived units, wherein the propylene-based elastomer has crystallinity of about 2 to about 65%, density of about 0.850 to about 0.920 g/cm3 and MFR of about at least 2 g/10 min and an isotacticity index greater than 0%, i.e. isotactic propylene-based polymer having substantially isotactic sequences (see Abstract and paragraphs 0035, 0040, 0043, 0044).The composition improves cling performance in stretch-cling films (see Abstract and paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0031). Given that the copolymer encompasses random copolymer, propylene-based elastomer is random copolymer (see paragraph 0014).
In light of motivation for using propylene-based elastomer disclosed by German as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use propylene-based elastomer of German as the random propylene-ethylene copolymer in Bullard et al. in order to improve cling performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Bullard et al. in view of German disclose the core layer comprising propylene-based elastomer as presently claimed. Given that the core layer can comprise only propylene-based elastomer and given that the core layer comprises about 2 to about 50 wt.% of the stretched wrap film, it is clear that the stretch wrap film or multilayer film comprises about 2 to about 50 wt.% propylene-based elastomer.
Regarding claim 10, Bullard et al. in view of German disclose the multilayer film that is a stretch wrap film (see Abstract). Bullard et al. in view of German do not disclose a stretch hood formed from the multilayer film.
While there is no disclosure that the stretch wrap film is a stretch hood as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. stretch hood, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art stretch wrap film and further that the prior art structure which is a stretch wrap film identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Bullard et al. in view of German disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. Further, Bullard et al. disclose the multilayer film has a machine direction rear as determined by ASTM D1922 of at least about 175 g/mil (see col. 7, lines 60-64), which overlaps with that presently claimed. Alternatively, given that the multilayer film Bullard et al. in view of German is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the multilayer film of Bullard et al. in view of German has presently claimed properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 2015/0056392 A1) disclose a composition comprising a polyolefin elastomer that improves rheological properties and flowability of composition without comprising other properties such as tensile strength at break and compression set (see Abstract and paragraph 0006). The polyolefin elastomer can be a random copolymer (see paragraph 0036). The polyolefin elastomer can be a propylene-based elastomer having at least about 60 wt% of propylene-derived units and about 5 to 25 wt% of ethylene-derived units, wherein the propylene-based elastomer has crystallinity of about 2 to about 65%, density of about 0.850 to about 0.900 g/cm3 and MFR of about at least 2 g/10 min and an isotacticity index greater than 0% (see paragraphs 0043, 0049, 0053, 0054, 0049).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787