DETAILED 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 .
Withdrawn Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. §112, 1st paragraph, rejection(s) of claims 8, 10, 12-14 and 18, made of record in the office action mailed 09/10/2025, page 2 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed on 03/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habimana et al. (US 2015/0225557) in view of Prele et al. (WO 2015/132190) and Sharma et al. (US 2007/0066726).
Regarding claims 8, 10, Habimana discloses polymer composition comprises an organopolysiloxane dispersed in a thermoplastic organic polymer. The thermoplastic organic polymer and an organopolysiloxane are mixed at a temperature at which both the thermoplastic organic polymer and the organopolysiloxane are in liquid phases
to form a masterbatch (abstract). Compositions produced according to the invention, comprising thermoplastic organic polymer containing organopolysiloxane, can be employed in a variety of applications. Polyolefin and polyester compositions can be
extruded as films which are used for example as packaging materials (0062). As pointed out in the Applicants specification in paragraph 003, For the packaging industry, the typical structure is three layer films with a core layer and two opposite outer layers and thus the packaging film of Habimana would encompass a film having a core layer and two opposite outer layers. The invention extends to a masterbatch for the production of a polymer composition which composition comprises an organopolysiloxane dispersed in a thermoplastic organic polymer wherein the masterbatch is formed by mixing the thermoplastic organic polymer with an organopolysiloxane at a temperature at which both the thermoplastic organic polymer and the organopolysiloxane are in liquid phases, cooling the mixture to form a masterbatch in solid form (para 0064). Habimama discloses To get full benefits of the silicone masterbatch, one needs to get a very fine, homogeneous dispersion of the organopolysiloxane in a matrix of the thermoplastic organic polymer to ensure a long shelf life of this composition made out of two incompatible polymers. This requires thorough mixing of the thermoplastic organic polymer and the organopolysiloxane under high shear at a temperature at which both the thermoplastic organic polymer and the organopolysiloxane are in liquid phases when forming the masterbatch (para 0006). Compositions produced according to the invention, comprising thermoplastic organic polymer containing organopolysiloxane, can be employed in a variety of applications.
However, Habimana fails to disclose that the outer layer of the film comprises a masterbatch (M) by reactively mixing polymer and organopolysiloxane containing 0.01-2% alkenyl and having a molecular weight of 200000-2000000 and introducing masterbatch (M) in to polyolefin polymer (P) and wherein from 55-92 wt% of the organopolysiloxane (B) is not extractable in to xylene from the composition of step (ii), and wherein the coefficient of friction of the outer layers is from 0.05-0.5 and fails to disclose that the polyolefin polymer (A) is a functionalized with acrylates or maleic anhydride and polyolefin polymer (A) has a melt flow index of 8.5-12 g per 10 minutes.
Whereas, Prele discloses scratch resistance of a composition comprising a thermoplastic organic polymer (P) comprises reactively mixing a thermoplastic organic polymer (A) and an organopolysiloxane (B) in a first step (I) at a temperature at which the thermoplastic organic polymer (A) and the organopolysiloxane (B) are in liquid phases to form a masterbatch, wherein the organopolysiloxane (B) contains at least one functionality capable of reacting with the thermoplastic organic polymer (A) so that a copolymer of (A) and (B) is formed in the masterbatch during the reactive mixing, and in a second step (II) mixing the masterbatch with the composition comprising thermoplastic organic polymer (P) [abstract]. The functionality of the organopolysiloxane which is capable of reacting with the thermoplastic organic polymer A can be called a reactive functionality (para 0022) and the reactive functionality contain one of the following groups such as alkenyl, Si-H, amino (para 0023), when the reactive functionality is an alkenyl functionality, the organosiloxane can contain vinyl groups (para 0024). Prele discloses scratch resistant polymer composition comprises a blend of 99-90 parts by weight of the organic polymer (P) with 1 to 10 parts by weight of a masterbatch produced by reactively mixing a thermoplastic organic polymer A and an organosiloxane (B) [para 0017]. Prele discloses thermoplastic organic polymer (P) and thermoplastic organic polymer (A) is polypropylene (para 0037). The organosiloxane has a high molecular weight such as average molecular weight of 200,000 to 2,000,000 g/mole (para 0029). The thermoplastic polymer (A) can be polypropylene, polypropylene can be homopolymer or copolymer comprising propylene units. The polypropylene can have melt flow index of 10-2000 g/10 minutes as measured by ASTM D1238 at 230C and load of 2.16kg (para 0018). The thermoplastic organic polymer (P) can be the same nature than the thermoplastic organic polymer (A) (para 0016).
With respect to weight percent of vinyl functionalities, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges of vinyl functionalities through process optimization motivated by the desire to have desired strength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Whereas, Sharma discloses scratch resistant polymer composition (title) and functionalized olefin polymers is an olefin polymer grafted with acrylic acid, methyl acrylate (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include thermoplastic organic polymer (P) comprises reactively mixing a thermoplastic organic polymer (A) having melt flow index of 10-2000 g/10 minutes as measured by ASTM D1238 at 230C and load of 2.16kg and an organopolysiloxane (B) having a molecular weight of 200000-2000000 in claimed amount of Prele in the outer layer of Habimana motivated by the desire to have high scratch resistance properties and to avoid tearing with something sharp or rough and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the polyolefin polymer A of Habimana in view of Prele functionalized with acrylic acid, methyl acrylate as taught by Sharma motivated by the desire to have improved scratch resistant properties, good weatherability.
As Habimama in view of Prele discloses method of making a plastic packaging film as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that out of total wt% of organosiloxane, 55-92 wt% of the organopolysiloxane (B) would intrinsically not be extractable in to xylene from the composition of step (ii) and coefficient of friction of the outer layer would intrinsically be in the range of 0.05-0.5.
The Office realizes that the claimed properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making the claimed composition. Therefore, the claimed properties would be intrinsically be capable to be achieved by the plastic packaging film disclosed by the reference (See MPEP § 2112.01). If it is the Applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients and claimed amounts.
Regarding claim 12, Habimama discloses the organopolysiloxane can be a linear siloxane polymer such as a polydiorganosiloxane, or can be a branched organopolysiloxane, a cyclic organosiloxane polymer or a branched siloxane resin, or a mixture of two or more of these (para 0028).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habimana et al. (US 2015/0225557) in view of Prele et al. (WO 2015/132190) and Sharma et al. (US 2007/0066726) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Desjardins et al. (US 2014/0080970) or Kawasumi et al. (US 2013/0045347).
Regarding claims 13-14, Habimama in view of Prele and Sharma fails to disclose that the packaging film is made by extrusion lamination, co-extrusion.
Whereas, Desjardins discloses Novel catalyst compositions comprising three or more transition metals are effective in increasing catalyst efficiency, reducing polydispersity, and increasing uniformity in molecular weight distribution when used in olefin, and particularly, linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), polymerizations. The resulting polymers may be used to form differentiated products including, for example, films that may exhibit improved optical and mechanical properties (abstract). The polymers produced hereby may include a wide variety of products including, in particular embodiments, LLDPE, Films include blown or cast films formed by co-extrusion or by lamination useful as shrink film, cling film, stretch film, sealing film, oriented film, snack packaging, heavy duty bags, grocery sacks, baked and frozen food packaging, medical packaging (para 0047).
Alternatively, Kawasumi discloses shape-retaining films, processes for producing the same, packaging laminate films, packaging materials and processes for producing the same (para 0001). When a packaging laminate film is to be fabricated by extrusion lamination, it is important to adjust the temperature of the molten resin in order for the packaging laminate film to exhibit sustained shape retainability (para 0157). When intending to obtain a packaging laminate film by extrusion lamination, it is required to adjust the temperature of the adhesive to be extruded, lamination speed, lamination procedure, etc., such that the substantial temperature of the shape-retaining film does not exceed 120.degree. C (para 0158).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the packaging film of Habimama with cast or blown co-extrusion or extrusion lamination as taught by Desjardins or Kawasumi motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical and optical properties and to sustain shape retainability and desired flexibility.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habimana et al. (US 2015/0225557) in view of Prele et al. (WO 2015/132190) and Sharma et al. (US 2007/0066726) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Cao et al. (CN 105440431).
Regarding claims 18-19, Prele discloses thermoplastic organic polymer (P) and thermoplastic organic polymer (A) is polypropylene (para 0037). The organosiloxane has a high molecular weight such as average molecular weight of 200,000 to 2,000,000 g/mole (para 0029). The thermoplastic polymer (A) can be polypropylene, polypropylene can be homopolymer or copolymer comprising propylene units (para 0018). The thermoplastic organic polymer (P) can be the same nature than the thermoplastic organic polymer (A) (para 0016), however Habimana in view of Prele and Sharma fails to disclose that the polyolefin polymer (A) is a blend of polyolefins or is a terpolymer.
Whereas, Cao discloses polypropylene composition comprising scratch resistant particle, polypropylene A, where the crystalline polypropylene A is propylene homopolymer and propylene random copolymer and polypropylene composition has high scratch resistance properties and is suitable for vehicle (English abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the polyolefin polymer A of Habimana in view of Prele having a blend of propylene homopolymer and propylene random copolymer as taught by Cao motivated by the desire to have improved scratch resistant properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as stated above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX)
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached on 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights