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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 1 recites “any of claim 1”, which should be “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21, line 1 recites “any of claim 1”, which should be “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25, line 1 recites “any of claim 1”, which should be “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 34, line 1 recites “any of claim 1”, which should be “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35, line 1 recites “any of claim 1”, which should be “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14-16, 21, 25, 28, 32, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2014/0154477 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Shimo et al. (JPH11140244A) and Dobreski (4,430,457 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Shimo et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 14-16, 21, 25, 28 and 35, Chu et al. disclose a multilayer film comprising a bulk layer and a microlayer section (see paragraph 0066). The bulk layer (heat seal layer) comprises VLDPE, LLDPE, LDPE, polypropylene, etc. (see paragraphs 0066 and 0159). That is, the bulk layer can comprise 100 wt% of polyolefin such as VDLPE, LLDPE, LDPE or polypropylene. Given that bulk layer is identical to the heat seal layer as presently claimed, bulk layer will necessarily function as heat seal layer. Given that the bulk layer is identical to heat seal layer as presently claimed, the bulk layer has a seal initiation temperature as presently claimed and a calculated composite melt index as presently claimed.
The microsection comprises a microlayer (reclaim layer) comprising a recycled polymer in amount of up to 100 wt%, i.e. scrap content of 0 to 100 wt% (see paragraph 0067). The microlayer can comprise polyethylene such as VLDPE (see paragraphs 0160). Further, additional polymers can be added in microlayer (see paragraph 0157). For instance, microlayer can include EVOH, polyamide such as PA6, etc. (see paragraph 0157). That is, microlayer can include blend of polyethylene and EVOH. The microlayer can also include blend of polyethylene, EVOH and polyamide, wherein EVOH and polyamide reads on two distinct heat resistant polymers.
Chu et al. do not disclose microlayer (reclaim layer) as presently claimed.
Shimo et al. disclose a resin composition comprising an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (A), polyamide resin such as nylon-6 (PA-6) (B), an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer such as ethylene-acrylic acid as a compatibilizer (C) and a thermoplastic resin such as polyethylene such as very low density polyethylene (VLDPE) (D) (see Abstract and paragraphs 0025, 0021, 0028, 0029, 0032, 0041). The resin composition contains 4 to 45 wt% of the thermoplastic resin (D), and 1 to 20 wt% of the total amount of polyamide resin (B) and the ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer (C) (see paragraphs 0060, 0062). Accordingly, the amount of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (A) is 35 to 95 wt%. Further, a weight ratio of polyamide resin (B) to ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer (C) is 2:98 to 70:30 (see paragraph 0061). Based on the weight ratio of (B) and (C), and the total amount of (B) and (C), the amount of polyamide (B) is 0.02 to 14 wt% (0.02 = 2 x 1/100 and 14 = 70 x 20/100) and the amount of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer (C) is 0.98 to 6 wt% (0.98 = 98 x 1/100 and 6 = 30 x 20/100) The resin composition has excellent barrier properties, mechanical strength, flexibility, drawability, melt stability, scrap recovering properties, heat adhesion, coating properties, fouling resistance, transparency and compatibility (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using a resin composition disclosed by Shimo et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the resin composition of Shimo et al. in the microlayer of Chu et al. in order to provide excellent barrier properties, mechanical strength, flexibility, drawability, melt stability, scrap recovering properties, heat adhesion, coating properties, fouling resistance, transparency and compatibility, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the microlayer (reclaim layer) comprises 35 to 95 wt% of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, 0.02 to 14 wt% of polyamide resin such as nylon-6 (PA-6), 0.98 to 6 wt% of an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer such as ethylene-acrylic acid as a compatibilizer and 4 to 45 wt% of polyethylene such as VLDPE. Accordingly, the heat resistant polymers (ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and polyamide) comprise 49 to 95.02 wt% the total weight of the microlayer (reclaim layer).
Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. do not disclose microlayer (reclaim layer) comprises antioxidant as presently claimed.
Dobreski discloses an antioxidant such as BHT can be added to composition comprising polyethylene resins in order to provide protection against degradation during processing (see col. 1, lines 36-47). The amount of antioxidant is about 100 to about 1000 ppm, i.e. about 0.01 to about 0.1 wt% (see col. 1, lines 47-79).
In light of motivation for using antioxidant such as BHT in amount of about 0.01 to about 0.1 wt% disclosed by Dobreski as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use antioxidant such as BHT in amount of about 0.01 to about 0.1 wt% in the microlayer (reclaim layer) of Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. in order to provide protection against degradation during processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski disclose microlayer identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, microlayer (reclaim layer) necessarily inherently has a calculated composite melt index and a seal initiation temperature as presently claimed.
Further, given that the heat seal layer and the reclaim layer are identical to that presently claimed, the reclaim layer has a seal initiation temperature higher than the seal initiation temperature of the heat seal layer as presently claimed.
Given that the multilayer layer including the heat seal layer and the reclaim layer of Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski are identical to that presently claimed, the microlayer (reclaim layer) necessarily inherently has properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 32, Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski disclose the multi-layer film structure as set forth above. The bulk layer (heat seal layer) comprises 100 wt% of polyolefin as noted above. The microlayer (reclaim layer) comprises 35 to 95 wt% of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, 0.02 to 14 wt% of polyamide resin, 0.98 to 6 wt% of an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer and 4 to 45 wt% of polyethylene as noted above. Therefore, the microlayer (reclaim comprises) 40 to 86 wt% of polyolefin (40 = 35 + 0.98 + 4 and 86 = 100 - 14), wherein each of the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer, the ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid random copolymer and polyethylene reads on polyolefin. Given that Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski disclose the heat seal layer comprises 100 wt% of polyolefin and the reclaim layer comprises 40 to 86 wt%, it is clear that the total amount of polyolefin in the multilayer film will necessarily overlap with that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 34, Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski disclose the multi-layer film structure as set forth above. The bulk layer (heat seal layer) comprises 100 wt% of polyolefin as noted above. That is, the heat seal layer contains 0 wt% polyamide. The microlayer (reclaim layer) comprises 0.02 to 14 wt% of polyamide as noted above. Accordingly, the amount of polyamide in the multilayer structure is 0.02 to 14 wt%.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2014/0154477 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Shimo et al. (JPH11140244A) and Dobreski (4,430,457 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Shi et al. (US 2016/0288475 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 20, Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski et al. disclose the multi-layer film structure as set forth above. While Chu et al. disclose bulk layer (heat seal layer) can comprise 100 wt% of polyolefin, Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski et al. do not disclose heat seal layer has a total polyolefin content from 90 to 99 wt% based on the total composition of the heat seal layer.
Shi et al. disclose a bulk layer made of polyolefin such as polyethylenes (see paragraph 0027). The bulk layer can comprise about 100 to about 10,000 ppm of antiblock additives that aid in controlling friction and/or adhesion of adjacent film surfaces (see paragraphs 0025 and 0029). Accordingly, the amount of antiblock additives is 0.01 to 1 wt%.
In light of motivation for using 0.01 to 1 wt% of antiblock additives disclosed by Shi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 0.01 to 1 wt% of antiblock additives in the bulk layer of Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al. and Dobreski et al. in order to aid in controlling friction and/or adhesion of adjacent film surfaces, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Chu et al. in view of Shimo et al., Dobreski et al. and Shi et al. disclose the bulk layer (heat seal layer) comprising polyolefin and 0.01 to 1 wt% of antiblock additives. Therefore, amount of polyolefin is necessarily 99 to 99.99 wt% in the bulk layer (heat seal layer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 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.
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
Prosecution Insights