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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
Claim 1 and claim 13 each recite that “the first skin layer is a slip layer and a composition thereof provides properties that comprise tear resistance”. While the background of the present specification (see page 2, last paragraph) recites that the “stretch wrap film is designed to incorporate a variety of desirable properties such as good cling or cohesion properties, high puncture resistance, high stress retention, good transparency, low haze, low or high degree of slip, low stress relaxation with time, high tear resistance in the transverse direction, good machine direction tear resistance, high resistance to transverse tear when under machine direction tension, producible in thin gauges, low specific gravity and thus high yield in area per pound, good tensile toughness, high machine direction ultimate tensile strength, high machine direction ultimate elongation, and low modulus of elasticity” and page 11, first paragraph of the present specification discloses the central layer includes layer having tear resistance, there is no support to recite that the first skin layer…and a composition thereof provides properties that comprise tear resistance”.
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, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichbauer (5,752,362 cited in IDS) in view of Kvamme et al. (US 2010/0047599 A1), Henderson et al. (US 2005/0048303 A1 cited in IDS) and Kinnan et al. (US 2014/0272443 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 9 and 10, Eichbauer discloses a stretch wrap film (multilayer cling film) comprising outside cling layer 10 (second skin layer), a first puncture resistant layer 20 (first core layer), a second puncture resistant layer 20 (second core layer) and an outside slip layer 40 (first skin layer) (see Figure 2 and col. 7, lines 26-33). That is, the first skin layer is a slip layer. The outer slip layer comprises about 5 to about 25 wt% of total film weight (see col. 8, lines 50-53). The outer cling layer comprises about 5 to about 25 wt% of total film weight (see col. 8, lines 45-50). The inner film layers of the puncture resistant film material (core layers) comprise about 20 to about 85 wt% of total film weight (see col. 8, lines 57-62). That is, each core layer (first core layer and second core layer) is about 10 to about 42.5 wt% of total film weight.
The outside slip layer comprises a linear low density polyethylene resin (LLDPE) having a density of from about 0.925 g/cm3 to about 0.945 g/cm3, and an MI value of from about 2.0 g/10 min to about 5.0 g/10 min (see col. 5, lines 11-14). The density of “about 0.925 g/cm3” of LLDPE meets presently claimed density of “about 0.920 g/cm3” of LLDPE. The outside cling layer comprises very low density polyethylene resin (VLDPE) (see col. 4, lines 42-46). VLDPE is same as ultra low density polyethylene (ULDPE) utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0041 of published application).
Eichbauer discloses the use of LLDPE having an MI of “about 2.0 g/10 min”, while the present claims require LLDPE having an MI of “about 1.0 g/10 min”.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed MI of LLDPE and that taught by Eichbauer are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the MI of LLDPE disclosed by Eichbauer and the MI disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the MI of LLDPE disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the MI disclosed in Eichbauer, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
The puncture resistant layer comprises a puncture resistant resin material such as a metallocene polyethylene (see col. 5-6, lines 65-12). Further, the puncture resistant layer can be a blend of the puncture resistant resin material and second resin material such as low density polyethylene (LDPE), wherein the second resin material is present in amount of at least 40 wt% (see col. 6, lines 34-47). Accordingly, the puncture resistant layer can be a blend of at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE. Further, the puncture resistant layers can be constructed with same resins or different resins to tailor the properties of the multilayer film (see col. 7, lines 41-43). Accordingly, the first puncture resistant layer (first core layer) can be 100 wt% metallocene polyethylene and the second puncture resistant layer (second core layer) can be a blend of at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and the at least 40 wt% LDPE.
Eichbauer does not disclose the outside slip layer comprises a high density polyethylene and an ionomer. Eichbauer does not disclose the outside cling layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer.
Kvamme et al. disclose a polymer blend comprising HDPE and LLDPE polymer (see Abstract). The HDPE has a melt index of 0.6 g/10 min or less and a density of at least 935 kg/m3, i.e. 0.935 g/cm3 (see page 9, claim 1). The HDPE is present in amount of up to 30 wt% and LLDPE is present in amount of 70 to 99 wt% of the blend (see page 9, claim 11). The films comprising the polymer blend provide increased production speeds, highly advantageous shrink properties, good mechanical properties and optical properties as well as low coefficient of friction (see paragraphs 0008, 0013, 0017 and 0103).
In light of motivation for using polymer blend comprising up to 30 wt% HDPE having density of at least 0.935 g/cm3 and melt index of 0.6 g.10 min or less, and 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE disclosed by Kvamme et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use up to 30 wt% of HDPE having density of at least 0.935 g/cm3 and melt index of 0.6 g.10 min or less blended with 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE of the outer slip layer (first skin layer) of Eichbauer in order to provide increased production speeds, highly advantageous shrink properties, good mechanical properties and optical properties as well as low coefficient of friction, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. do not disclose the outside slip layer comprises an ionomer. Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. do not disclose the outside cling layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer.
Henderson et al. disclose a multilayer comprising a base layer comprising a polyolefin and a tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin, wherein the ionomer resin can be Surlyn 1605, Surlyn 1652 and Surlyn 1901 (see Abstract and paragraphs 0036, 0037 and 0041). The ionomer resin is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0020 of published application). As evidenced by the present specification, Surlyn 1605 and Surlyn 1901 are ionomer of ethylene acid acrylate terpolymer, and Surlyn 1652 is ionomer of ethylene acid copolymer. The tear resistant additive is present in amount of about 5 to about 60 wt% of the base layer (see paragraph 0037). The tear resistant additive improves the film’s ability to resist tear under normal handling (see paragraph 0037).
In light of motivation for using about 5 to about 60 wt% of tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin disclosed by Henderson et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use about 5 to about 60 wt% of tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin of Henderson et al. in the outer slip layer of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. in order to improve the film’s ability to resist tear under normal handling, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. disclose the outer slip layer (first skin layer) comprising 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE, up to 30 wt% of HDPE and about 5 to about 60 wt% of ionomer resin. The outer slip layer (first skin layer) including LLDPE, HDPE and ionomer resin is identical to that presently claimed, without amounts of LLDPE, HDPE and ionomer resin overlapping with that presently claimed. Further, as noted above, Henderson et al. disclose that the ionomer resin is a tear resistant additive. Therefore, the outer slip layer (first skin layer) necessarily inherently provides properties that comprise tear resistance.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. do not disclose the outside cling layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer.
Kinnan et al. disclose a multi-layer stretch wrap film comprising an outer cling layer comprising 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of plastomer (elastomer) (see paragraphs 0015, 0017). The plastomer is ethylene copolymerized with C3-C10 -olefin (see paragraph 0017). That is, the plastomer is propylene-based polyolefin polymer (polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer). The cling layer enables the film to cling to itself when the film is wrapped on a load (see paragraph 0014).
In light of motivation for using an outer cling layer comprising 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of plastomer (elastomer) disclosed by Kinnan et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of plastomer (elastomer) in the outer cling layer of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. in order to enable the film to cling to itself when the film is wrapped on a load, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. disclose the outer slip layer (first skin layer) identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that the outer slip layer (first skin layer) of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. has a coefficient of friction as presently claimed.
Claims 4, 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichbauer (5,752,362 cited in IDS) in view of Kvamme et al. (US 2010/0047599 A1), Henderson et al. (US 2005/0048303 A1 cited in IDS) and Kinnan et al. (US 2014/0272443 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hawighorst et al. (US 2014/0319004 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. disclose the multilayer cling film as set forth above. While Eichbauer the first core layer comprising 100 wt% metallized polyethylene, and the second core layer comprising at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. do not disclose metallocene polyethylene is metallocene linear low density polyethylene.
Hawighorst et al. disclose a core layer comprising metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) which improves tensile strength and tear propagation resistance of the core layer (see paragraph 0075).
In light of motivation for using metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) in the core layer disclosed by Hawighorst et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) as the metallocene polyethylene in each of the first core layer and the second core layer in Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. in order to improves tensile strength and tear propagation resistance of the first core layer and the second core layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. disclose the multilayer cling film as set forth above. Given the outer cling layer (second skin layer) and the core layers of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. are identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the outer cling layer (second skin layer) has a cling force to the core layers as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. disclose the multilayer cling film as set forth above.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. disclose the outer slip layer (first skin layer) comprising 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE, up to 30 wt% of HDPE and about 5 to about 60 wt% of ionomer resin.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., and Kinnan et al. disclose a multi-layer stretch wrap film comprising an outer cling layer comprising 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. disclose the first core layer comprising 100 wt% metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE), and the second core layer comprising at most 60 wt% metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) and at least 40 wt% LDPE.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichbauer (5,752,362 cited in IDS) in view of Kvamme et al. (US 2010/0047599 A1), Henderson et al. (US 2005/0048303 A1), Kinnan et al. (US 2014/0272443 A1 cited in IDS) and Hawighorst et al. (US 2014/0319004 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 13-16, 19 and 20, Eichbauer discloses a stretch wrap film (multilayer cling film) consisting of outside cling layer 10 (second skin layer), a first puncture resistant layer 20 (first core layer), a second puncture resistant layer 20 (second core layer) and an outside slip layer 40 (first skin layer) (see Figure 2 and col. 7, lines 26-33). That is, the first skin layer is a slip layer. The outer slip layer comprises about 5 to about 25 wt% of total film weight (see col. 8, lines 50-53). The outer cling layer comprises about 5 to about 25 wt% of total film weight (see col. 8, lines 45-50). The inner film layers of the puncture resistant film material (core layers) comprise about 20 to about 85 wt% of total film weight (see col. 8, lines 57-62). That is, each core layer (first core layer and second core layer) is about 10 to about 42.5 wt% of total film weight.
The outside slip layer comprises a linear low density polyethylene resin (LLDPE) having a density of from about 0.925 g/cm3 to about 0.945 g/cm3, and an MI value of from about 2.0 g/10 min to about 5.0 g/10 min (see col. 5, lines 11-14). The density of “about 0.925 g/cm3” of LLDPE meets presently claimed density of “about 0.920 g/cm3” of LLDPE. The outside cling layer comprises very low density polyethylene resin (VLDPE) (see col. 4, lines 42-46). VLDPE is same as ultra low density polyethylene (ULDPE) utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0041 of published application).
Eichbauer discloses the use of LLDPE having an MI of “about 2.0 g/10 min”, while the present claims require LLDPE having an MI of “about 1.0 g/10 min”.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed MI of LLDPE and that taught by Eichbauer are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the MI of LLDPE disclosed by Eichbauer and the MI disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the MI of LLDPE disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the MI disclosed in Eichbauer, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
The puncture resistant layer comprises a puncture resistant resin material such as a metallocene polyethylene (see col. 5-6, lines 65-12). Further, the puncture resistant layer can be a blend of the puncture resistant resin material and second resin material such as low density polyethylene (LDPE), wherein the second resin material is present in amount of at least 40 wt% (see col. 6, lines 34-47). Accordingly, the puncture resistant layer can be a blend of at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE. Further, the puncture resistant layers can be constructed with same resins or different resins to tailor the properties of the multilayer film (see col. 7, lines 41-43). Accordingly, the first puncture resistant layer (first core layer) can be 100 wt% metallocene polyethylene and the second puncture resistant layer (second core layer) can be a blend of at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and the at least 40 wt% LDPE.
Eichbauer does not disclose the outside slip layer comprises a high density polyethylene and an ionomer. Eichbauer does not disclose the outside cling layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer. While Eichbauer disclose the first core layer comprising 100 wt% metallized polyethylene, and the second core layer comprising at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE, Eichbauer do not disclose metallocene polyethylene is metallocene linear low density polyethylene.
Kvamme et al. disclose a polymer blend comprising HDPE and LLDPE polymer (see Abstract). The HDPE has a melt index of 0.6 g/10 min or less and a density of at least 935 kg/m3, i.e. 0.935 g/cm3 (see page 9, claim 1). The HDPE is present in amount of up to 30 wt% and LLDPE is present in amount of 70 to 99 wt% of the blend (see page 9, claim 11). The films comprising the polymer blend provide increased production speeds, highly advantageous shrink properties, good mechanical properties and optical properties as well as low coefficient of friction (see paragraphs 0008, 0013, 0017 and 0103).
In light of motivation for using polymer blend comprising up to 30 wt% HDPE having density of at least 0.935 g/cm3 and melt index of 0.6 g.10 min or less, and 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE disclosed by Kvamme et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use up to 30 wt% of HDPE having density of at least 0.935 g/cm3 and melt index of 0.6 g.10 min or less blended with 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE of the outer slip layer (first skin layer) of Eichbauer in order to provide increased production speeds, highly advantageous shrink properties, good mechanical properties and optical properties as well as low coefficient of friction, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. do not disclose the outside slip layer comprises an ionomer. Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. do not disclose the outside cling layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer. While Eichbauer disclose the first core layer comprising 100 wt% metallized polyethylene, and the second core layer comprising at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., do not disclose metallocene polyethylene is metallocene linear low density polyethylene.
Henderson et al. disclose a multilayer comprising a base layer comprising a polyolefin and a tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin, wherein the ionomer resin can be Surlyn 1605, Surlyn 1652 and Surlyn 1901 (see Abstract and paragraphs 0036, 0037 and 0041). The ionomer resin is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0020 of published application). As evidenced by the present specification, Surlyn 1605 and Surlyn 1901 are ionomer of ethylene acid acrylate terpolymer, and Surlyn 1652 is ionomer of ethylene acid copolymer. The tear resistant additive is present in amount of about 5 to about 60 wt% of the base layer (see paragraph 0037). The tear resistant additive improves the film’s ability to resist tear under normal handling (see paragraph 0037).
In light of motivation for using about 5 to about 60 wt% of tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin disclosed by Henderson et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use about 5 to about 60 wt% of tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin of Henderson et al. in the outer slip layer of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. in order to improve the film’s ability to resist tear under normal handling, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. disclose the outer slip layer (first skin layer) comprising 70 to 99 wt% of LLDPE, up to 30 wt% of HDPE and about 5 to about 60 wt% of ionomer resin. The outer slip layer (first skin layer) including LLDPE, HDPE and ionomer resin is identical to that presently claimed, without amounts of LLDPE, HDPE and ionomer resin overlapping with that presently claimed. Further, as noted above, Henderson et al. disclose that the ionomer resin is a tear resistant additive. Therefore, the outer slip layer (first skin layer) necessarily inherently provides properties that comprise tear resistance.
Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. do not disclose the outside cling layer comprises a polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer. While Eichbauer disclose the first core layer comprising 100 wt% metallized polyethylene, and the second core layer comprising at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. do not disclose metallocene polyethylene is metallocene linear low density polyethylene.
Kinnan et al. disclose a multi-layer stretch wrap film comprising an outer cling layer comprising 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of plastomer (elastomer) (see paragraphs 0015, 0017). The plastomer is ethylene copolymerized with C3-C10 -olefin (see paragraph 0017). That is, the plastomer is propylene-based polyolefin polymer (polyolefin-based thermoplastic elastomer). The cling layer enables the film to cling to itself when the film is wrapped on a load (see paragraph 0014).
In light of motivation for using an outer cling layer comprising 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of plastomer (elastomer) disclosed by Kinnan et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 50 to 100 wt% ULDPE (ultra low density polyethylene) and 0 to 100 wt% of plastomer (elastomer) in the outer cling layer of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. and Henderson et al. in order to enable the film to cling to itself when the film is wrapped on a load, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Eichbauer disclose the first core layer comprising 100 wt% metallized polyethylene, and the second core layer comprising at most 60 wt% metallocene polyethylene and at least 40 wt% LDPE, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. do not disclose metallocene polyethylene is metallocene linear low density polyethylene.
Hawighorst et al. disclose a core layer comprising metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) which improves tensile strength and tear propagation resistance of the core layer (see paragraph 0075).
In light of motivation for using metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) in the core layer disclosed by Hawighorst et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metallocene linear low density polyethylene (mLLDPE) as the metallocene polyethylene in each of the first core layer and the second core layer in Eichbauer in view of Henderson et al. and Kinnan et al. in order to improves tensile strength and tear propagation resistance of the first core layer and the second core layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. disclose the outer slip layer (first skin layer) identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that the outer slip layer (first skin layer) of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. has a coefficient of friction as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. disclose the multilayer cling film as set forth above. Given the outer cling layer (second skin layer) and the core layers of Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al., Henderson et al., Kinnan et al. and Hawighorst et al. are identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the outer cling layer (second skin layer) has a cling force to the core layers as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments except as set forth below are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Applicants argue that in summary, Eichbauer provides that the unique properties of the invention are due to properties of the internal core layers of the multilayer film. Eichbauer does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to enhance the mechanical properties of the skin layers thereof.
While Eichbauer do not teach enhancing the mechanical properties of the first skin layer (outside slip layer) made of LLDPE, Kvamme et al. disclose blend of HDPE and LDPE provides good mechanical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use blend of HDPE and LDPE in Eichbauer to enhance the mechanical properties of the first skin layer (outside slip layer).
Applicants argue that in addition, Kvamme et al. does not teach providing HDPE in a slip layer of a multi-layer slip film that includes a first skin layer that is a slip layer, a second skin layer, and one or more core layers. The teachings of Kvamme et al. provide that the polymer blend enhances mechanical properties of mono- or multilayer films, but does not provide specifics regarding which layers of a multilayer film the polymer blend is to be used.
Given that Eichbauer disclose the first skin layer (outside slip layer) comprising LLDPE and Kvamme et al. disclose blend of HDPE and LLDPE provides increased production speeds, high advantageous shrink properties, good mechanical properties and optical properties as well as low coefficient of friction, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use blend of HDPE and LDPE instead of LLDPE in the first skin layer (outside slip layer) of Eichbauer. Further, properties such as increased production speeds, high advantageous shrink properties, good mechanical properties and optical properties as well as low coefficient of friction are applicable to any layers including the first skin layer (outside slip layer).
Applicants argue that further, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach, suggest, or motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the outside slip film layer disclosed in Eichbauer with an ionomer, which is taught by Henderson et al. to improve tear resistance of a base layer that is provided with one or two skin layers for an adhesive tab. As described herein, Eichbauer provides that the unique properties of the invention, including tear resistance, are due to properties of the internal core layers of the multilayer film. Eichbauer does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to enhance the mechanical properties of the skin layers thereof. In addition, Henderson et al. does not teach a multilayer slip film, and therefore does not teach providing an ionomer in a slip layer of a multi-layer film that includes a first skin layer that is a slip layer, a second skin layer, and one or more core layers. Henderson teaches improvement of a base layer with an ionomer for a tab, but does not teach such with respect to a skin layer of a multilayer stretch film.
Given that Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. disclose the first skin layer (outside slip layer) comprises polyolefin such as LLDPE and HDPE, and given that Henderson et al. provides a proper motivation for using tear resistant additive such as ionomer resin with polyolefin resin, Henderson is properly combined with Eichbauer.
Applicant also asserts that Henderson et al. is not analogous art. Henderson et al. discloses a multilayer film having an adhesive construction, i.e., a tab, for garments, such as diapers. "A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)." MPEP 2141.01(a). Regarding the first alternative, Henderson et al. is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention: Henderson et al. teaches an adhesive construction of a tab having a deadfold ability, and the claimed invention relates broadly to multilayer stretch films. Regarding the second alternative, the adhesive construction of a multilayer film of Henderson et al. would not be considered to be reasonably pertinent to the problem of providing a multilayer stretch film with enhanced slip/cling properties for pallet wrapping, as multilayer stretch films do not utilize an adhesive construction. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings of Henderson et al. with those of Eichbauer, as one skilled in the art would not be inclined to combine the teachings of a diaper tab to modify a multilayer stretch film.
Henderson et al. disclose a layer comprising polyolefin and a tear resistant additive such as an ionomer resin. Given that Eichbauer in view of Kvamme et al. disclose the first skin layer (outside slip layer) comprises polyolefin such as LLDPE and HDPE, and given that Henderson et al. provides a proper motivation for using tear resistant additive such as ionomer resin with polyolefin resin, Henderson can be combined with Eichbauer, regardless of the end-use of Henderson et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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