DETAILED OFFICIAL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2023/0166486, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after the Final Rejection dated 29 May 2025 (hereinafter “FOA”). 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under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the FOA has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 November 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The addition of “non-silylated” [0059], i.e. “non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer” – which is not supported by the original disclosure – is shown below, emphasized with italics.
[0059] In an embodiment, the interior ply includes a non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer, which can provide impact and/or fatigue resistance to the liner. In one or more embodiments, the non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer includes a density in a range of 0.865 to 0.900 g/cm3. An exemplary non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer[[s]]is ADFLEX Q100, available from Equistar Chemicals, LP, Rotterdam, Netherlandsis a polypropylene-based rubber-modified polymer[[s]].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The amendments to the specification (amended/replacement paragraph [0059]) have not been entered.
The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended, and new claims 17-18 have been added. As such, claims 1-18 remain pending and are under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to the claims, taken in conjunction with Applicant’s arguments presented in the Remarks filed 24 November 2025 and the Declaration of Kevin Nelson under 37 CFR 1.132, have overcome the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over “Scott et al” (WO 2020/068053 to Kelly et al.) [FOA, pp. 2-3, ¶4]. As such, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 24 November 2025 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, the term “non-silylated”, of the corresponding phrase “non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer”, constitutes introduction of new subject matter into the claims which is not described in the specification filed 14 October 2022. Specifically, the specification does not explicitly recite or reasonably imply that the propylene alpha-olefin copolymer disclosed throughout is non-silylated.
The specification recites that ADFLEX Q100 is an exemplary propylene alpha-olefin copolymer [0059]. The Declaration of Kevin Nelson under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 24 November 2025 (hereinafter “Declaration”) – relied upon by Applicant in support of the “non-silylated” amendment, and which has been fully considered by the undersigned Examiner – does not provide adequate evidence to support the full-scope of the negative claim limitation “non-silylated”.
The Examiner agrees that the Declaration [pp. 3-5] effectively demonstrates/evidences that ADFLEX Q100 (ADFLEX Q 100F) does not include polyoxyethylene-grafted polydimethylsiloxane (“PEO-g-PDMS”) as an adjuvant substance, and (thereby) PEO-g-PDMS is not affixed to the ADFLEX Q100 copolymer [p. 4, ¶7(ii)(c); p. 5, ¶7(ii)(d)-(ii)(e)]. Further, it is also agreed that ADLFEX Q100 does not comprise structural units based on silicone chemistry [p. 8, ¶11(d)]. However, even in light of the agreed-upon facts above, the mere recitation of ADFLEX Q100 in the original disclosure [spec, 0059] – which is otherwise silent regarding a degree of silylation of the propylene alpha-olefin copolymer or the absence of said silylation, let alone silent regarding ADFLEX Q100 itself being silylated or non-silylated – does not reasonably establish that one skilled in the art would have understood the negative limitation “non-silylated” to necessarily be present in the original disclosure. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
It is noted that the scope of the term “non-silylated”, and use thereof to characterize the general/broad “propylene alpha-olefin copolymer” in the disclosure [0059] (in addition to ADFLEX Q100), is significantly broader than a negative limitation (provided to illustrate basis of the issue) of, e.g. “the propylene alpha-olefin copolymer ADFLEX Q100 does not include polyoxyethylene-grafted PDMS”. The scope of the chemical process/conversion encompassed by the term “silylation”, and thereby the scope of the compounds excluded by the negative proviso “non-silylated”, is much broader than the evidence provided/relied upon in the Declaration regarding the absence of the PEO-g-PDMS adjuvant from ADFLEX Q100.
For the reasons above, it is concluded that the Declaration and corresponding evidence does not adequately support or establish that one skilled in the art would have understood the negative limitation “non-silylated” to necessarily be (and have been) present in the original disclosure. As such, the claimed term “non-silylated” constitutes new matter, and thereby the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
In order to overcome the 112(a) rejection, it is respectfully suggested to strike “non-silylated” in all instances from each of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. For examination on the merits, the claims are interpreted as-presented, i.e. in accordance with the amendments filed 24 November 2025.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 112(a) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 or claim 11 and therefore include, and do not remedy, the failure of claims 1 and 11 to comply with the written description requirement.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[claims 1 and 11] – the volume unit for liters (L) is absent after “208”, e.g. “a volume from 208 L (55 gallons) or greater”
[claim 1] – the recitation of “wherein the sidewall comprises an edge” [line 12] constitutes unnecessary repetition, as it is preceded by “a sidewall comprising an edge” [line 2]; respectfully suggested to strike the recitation at line 12
Appropriate correction is 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (WO 2020/068053; “Kelly”) (previously cited), in view of Eisenbarth et al. (US 2005/0031231; “Eisenbarth”) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a liner for bulk containers, said liner including at least one sidewall, e.g. a first sidewall and a second sidewall each comprising an edge, wherein the liner has a volume of 208 L or greater [Abstract; Figs. 1-3; p. 1 ln. 1-20; p. 2 ln. 1-21; p. 3 ln. 16-26; p. 6 ln. 3-5]. Each of the first sidewall and second sidewall include an interior ply comprising a multilayer film, and an exterior ply comprising a multilayer film, wherein the exterior ply and interior ply are discrete plies, characterized as having an adhesion therebetween (unsealed area) of from 0 g/in to 50 g/in [Abstract; p. 2 ln. 10; p. 3 ln. 25-26; p. 5 ln. 10-26; p. 6 ln. 20-21; p. 19 ln. 1-10]. The liner includes a seal(s) positioned at or near the edges of the sidewall(s) [Fig. 1; p. 6 ln. 1-8].
The interior ply of the first sidewall, and the interior ply of the second sidewall, are formed from a first polyethylene that is, linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), blended with a first polyolefin-silicone copolymer, e.g. EXFOLA (Mitsui Chemicals America) – the first polyolefin-silicone is present, relative to the weight of the (respective) interior ply, in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.%, and the LLDPE is present in an amount of 40-99.9 wt.% [p. 9 ln. 20–p. 11 ln. 9]. Thus, Kelly reasonably discloses/teaches each interior ply comprising at least 40 wt.% LLDPE and 0.1 wt.% polyolefin-silicone, thereby defining a total minimum of 40.1 wt.% relative to the weight of the interior ply.
Further, Kelly teaches that each interior ply may include, inter alia polypropylene, e.g. as a barrier material [p. 11 ln. 17-22]. That is, Kelly recognizes the use of propylene-based polymers in the liner. Further, Kelly teaches that each interior ply may include processing additives and/or be blended with other materials, including polyolefins [p. 10 ln. 17-25].
With respect to the difference(s) relative to the liner for a bulk container defined by claim 1, Kelly is silent regarding the interior plies comprising 5-50 wt.% of a non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer having a density from 0.865-0.900 g/cm3.
Eisenbarth is directed to liners for bulk containers (bulk bags) [Abstract; Figs. 1-2; 0002, 0011, 0014-0016]. Eisenbarth teaches that the liner is formed from ADFLEX Q 100F (Basell Polyolefins) [Abstract; 0016]. Eisenbarth teaches that ADFLEX Q 100F (hereinafter abbreviated “ADFLEX”) is a thermoplastic polyolefin exhibiting flexibility, very high softness, and low modulus; does not contain any slip or anti-blocking agents; is ideal for soft, heavy duty hygienic film; and is suitable/intended for use in modifying (i.e. blending with) LDPE or LLDPE to increase the mechanical characteristics and puncture resistance thereof, and to allow for downgauging (i.e. of resultant films) [Eisenbarth, p. 3]. Further, Eisenbarth teaches that ADFLEX is easily processed on conventional LDPE and LLDPE film lines [p. 3]. ADFLEX exhibits a density of 0.89 g/cm3 [p. 3]. In view of the disclosure/teachings set forth/cited herein, Eisenbarth constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention.
Given that Kelly (i) discloses that the (composition forming the) interior ply of each sidewall can include polyolefins blended with the LLDPE and polyolefin-silicone, and (ii) is directed to, or seeks to achieve, the liner exhibiting abuse/flex-cracking resistance and recognizes that liner experiences fatigue caused by product-weight [Kelly, Abstract; p. 1 ln. 4-7, 14-24] – in view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art – it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liner of Kelly by having blended ADFLEX (ADFLEX Q 100F) with the LLDPE and polyolefin-silicone which form (at least) the interior ply of the first sidewall and the second sidewall, (1) in order to increase the puncture resistance and mechanical characteristics, e.g. flexibility of the liner as a whole, (2) and/or because ADFLEX would have been readily known/recognized as a thermoplastic polyolefin suitable for use in hygienic and heavy duty film applications, (3) including modification of (i.e. blending with) LDPE or LLDE to impart the foregoing properties. See MPEP 2144.07; additionally/alternatively, see MPEP 2144.06(I).
In accordance with the foregoing modification, the interior ply of the first sidewall, and the interior ply of the second sidewall of the liner of Kelly would have been formed from LLDPE, polyolefin-silicone, and ADFLEX (density 0.89 g/cm3). Given that LLDPE defines at least 40 wt.% (up to 99.9 wt.%) of the interior ply, and the polyolefin-silicone defines at least 0.1 wt.% (up to 10 wt.%) of the interior ply, it would have been obvious/logical to have blended up to a maximum of 59.9 wt.% of ADFLEX with the LLDPE and polyolefin-silicone forming the interior ply, i.e. the amount of ADFLEX in forming each interior ply would have necessarily ranged from a nonzero amount up to 59.9 wt.%. Simply put, each interior ply would have comprised, relative to the total weight of the ply, 40-99.9 wt.% LLDPE, 0.1-10 wt.% polyolefin-silicone, and x wt.% ADFLEX, wherein 0 < x ≤ 59.9 wt.%.
The density of ADFLEX is within the claimed range of 0.865-0.900 g/cm3, and the amount of ADFLEX (greater than 0 wt.%, up to 59.9 wt.%) encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed range of from 5-50 wt.% relative to the interior ply weight (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). As such, the liner of Kelly, as modified above (hereinafter “modified Kelly”), reads on the liner for a bulk container defined by every limitation of claim 1. As evidenced by Applicant’s specification [0059] and the Declaration, ADFLEX Q 100F is a non-silylated propylene alpha-olefin copolymer.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Kelly discloses that the liner comprises a fitment attached to a sidewall [p. 2 ln. 18; p. 3 ln. 27-28; p. 6 ln. 9-19].
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Kelly discloses that the first polyethylene (LLDPE) may be a blend of polyethylene polymers, i.e. LLDPE blended with LDPE, VLDPE, ULDPE, MDPE, and/or mLLDPE [p. 11 ln. 1-9; p. 16 ln. 12-23; claims 1, 7, and 14; claims 18 and 21] (see MPEP 2144.06(I), MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Kelly discloses that the liner exhibits a flex crack failure time of greater than 144 minutes, such as 175 minutes or greater, or 235 minutes or greater, determined in accordance with ASTM D999-08, Method A2 [p. 3 ln. 11-13; p. 15 ln. 16-20; p. 17 ln. 25-30] (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In view of the aforecited disclosure of Kelly; and given that the interior ply of the first sidewall and the second sidewall of the liner of modified Kelly would have included the polyolefin-silicone and ADFLEX, the latter in an amount (wt.%) which encompasses the claimed range and thereby would have necessarily been within said range, there is a strong expectation, and it stands to reason, that the liner of modified Kelly would have necessarily exhibited/possessed a flex crack failure time of greater than 300 minutes as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(IV) and (V), MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II), MPEP 2144.05(I), MPEP 2145, and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claims 5-6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Kelly discloses throughout that each (first and second) sidewall, in addition to the interior ply and exterior ply, may include an intermediate ply interposed between the interior and exterior plies, wherein the interior ply, intermediate ply, and exterior ply of each sidewall are discrete plies exhibiting adjacent layer adhesion of 0-50 g/in, wherein the intermediate ply may include or be formed from the composition (LLDPE, polyolefin-silicone, and 0 wt.% < ADFLEX < 59.9 wt.%) of the interior ply [see citations above] (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The liner of modified Kelly, inclusive of the aforesaid intermediate ply, reads on each liner defined by claims 5-6.
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 5 above, Kelly discloses that the intermediate ply may comprise a multilayer film [p. 3 ln. 1-2, 11-26; p. 4 ln. 10-18; p. 6 ln. 20-27].
Regarding claims 8-9, in view of the rejection of claim 7 above, Kelly discloses that the interior, intermediate, and/or exterior plies of each sidewall are suitably coextruded, or may be laminated films [p. 6 ln. 28–p. 7 ln. 23].
Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection of claim 5 above, Kelly discloses that the interior, exterior, or intermediate ply of either sidewall of the liner may include an oxygen barrier comprising, inter alia ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) or polyamide [p. 3 ln. 7-9; p. 11 ln. 10–p. 12 ln. 23].
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the liner for a bulk container defined by each and every limitation of claim 11.
Regarding claims 12-16, the rejections of claims 2 and 4-6 above are incorporated herein by reference and, in view of the rejection of claim 11 above, read on each liner defined by claims 12-16.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 7 above, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liner defined by claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above, the rejection of claim 11 above incorporating therein the rejection of claim 1 reads on the liner defined by claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 8-11 of the Remarks filed 24 November 2025, as directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over “Scott et al” previously set forth in the FOA, have been fully considered and found persuasive. As such, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn, as stated above. It is noted that the Declaration of Kevin Nelson under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 24 November 2025 has been considered and is addressed above – see “Response to Amendment” (¶4-6) and “35 U.S.C. 112” (¶11-20) sections above.
New grounds of rejection are set forth above, made in view of newly cited prior art to Eisenbarth identified as a result of updated search and consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, 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 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782