DETAILED ACTION
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
1. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the previous Action are withdrawn.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8 – 14, 16 – 18, 20 and 22 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0038533 A1) in view of Tholstrup et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,165,492) and Baystar and MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet and MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet (ExxonMobil) as evidenced by Babrowicz et al (U.S. Patent No. 2010/0256590 A1).
Best et al disclose a film (paragraph 0103) comprising a first component that is a polymer that is HDPE and a second component that is a polymer that is LLDPE (paragraph 0062) and conventional additives (paragraph 0089). The amount of LLDPE is 20% by weight (paragraph 0063). The HDPE and LLDPE are thermoplastic, because extrusion is disclosed (paragraph 0089). The melt flow rate of the HDPE is 0.1 to 1.0 dg/min (paragraph 0051). A multilayer film is also disclosed comprising layer structure ‘A/B/A’ (paragraph 0099). Each layer ‘B’ comprises the first polymer and second polymer (paragraph 0095) and each layer ‘A’ comprises HDPE (paragraph 0093). An outer layer and inner layer comprising HDPE and intermediate layer comprising the first polymer and second polymer are therefore disclosed. The intermediate layer comprises at least 50% by weight of the film because the thickness ratio of the layers is 20/60/20 (paragraph 0092). The film is biaxially oriented (paragraph 0089) and the machine direction is disclosed as one of the directions (paragraph 0110) and the film is stretched (paragraph 0111).
Best et al fail to disclose a super hexene LLDPE having the claimed melt flow rate and an anti — stick additive having a melting point of at least 115 degrees Celsius in the amount of about 1% to about 4% by weight and high density polyethylene that is bimodal having the claimed melt flow rate.
Tholstrup et al teach a film comprising ethylene bisoleamide for the purpose of lowering blocking tendency and also reducing the coefficient of friction (column 2, lines 1 – 40).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide ethylene bisoleamide in the film of Best et al in order to lower blocking tendency, therefore sticking tendency, and reduce the coefficient of friction as taught by Tholstrup et al. The amount of ethylene bisoleamide taught by Tholstrup et al is 0.1 to 2% by weight (column 2, lines 56 – 62). Babrowicz et al provide evidence that the melting point of ethylene bisoleamide is above 121 degrees Celsius (paragraph 0009).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the additive disclosed by Best et al to comprise ethylene bisoleamide in the amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight. The amount of HDPE, which is the remainder of the film, would therefore be greater than the amount of LLDPE.
Baystar teaches film comprising high density polyethylene that is M6410 for the purpose of obtaining compatibility with linear low density polyethylene (first page). Baystar is in the same field of endeavor, which is films as evidenced by first page.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the inner and outer layers disclosed by Best et al to comprise high density polyethylene that is M6410 in order to obtain compatibility with linear low density polyethylene as taught by Baystar. A high density polyethylene that is bimodal, having the claimed melt index would therefore be obtained.
MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet (ExxonMobil) teaches a film comprising high density polyethylene that is 7845 for the purpose of obtaining a high density polyethylene recommended for blending with linear low density polyethylene (7845.3; first page). MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet (ExxonMobil) is in the same field of endeavor, which is films as evidenced by first page.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the intermediate layer disclosed by Best et al to comprise high density polyethylene that is 7845 in order to obtain obtain a high density polyethylene recommended for blending with linear low density polyethylene as taught by MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet (ExxonMobil).
MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet teaches the use of super hexene having a density of 0.5 g/10 min that is SC74858 in the making of films for the purpose of obtaining films having excellent toughness and high strength (first page).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the LLDPE disclosed by Best et al to comprise super hexene LLDPE in order to obtain excellent toughness and high strength as taught by MatWeb Material Property Data Sheet. The claimed MD ultimate tensile strength would therefore be obtained.
With regard to Claims 4, 6 and 8 – 11, the first component is therefore a second polymer and the second component is a first polymer.
With regard to Claims 12 — 14, 16 – 18 and 20, because the slip agent disclosed in the specification is taught by Tholstrup et al, the claimed melting point is obtained.
With regard to Claims 22 – 23, the claimed ultimate tensile strength would therefore be obtained.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the previous Action have been considered and have been found to be persuasive. The rejections are therefore withdrawn.
However, Applicant argues, on page 6 of the remarks dated July 17, 2025, that in the examples Best et al disclose an ultimate tensile strength less than the claimed ultimate tensile strength. This is not persuasive because the invention is not limited to the examples.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC A PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1497. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC A PATTERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782