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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the phrase “different from the second low density polyethylene having a density of 0.919 g/cm3 to 0.940 g/cm3 and a melt index of 0.3 to 5 g/10 min” in lines 16-17. This is believed to be a typographical error. Claim 1 should instead recite “different from the second low density polyethylene having a density of 0.919 g/cm3 to 0.940 g/cm3 and a melt index of 1.2.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosa et al. (US 20180186947 A1) (previously cited) in view of Singh et al. (US 20170165948 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Rosa teaches a multilayer film with a matte surface comprising an outer layer and a second layer in adhering contact with the outer layer (Rosa, Abstract, Par. 0008, 0033-0036). Rosa teaches the outer layer comprises less than 50 wt.% a first low density polyethylene (the second polyethylene of Rosa) having a density of less than 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) of 20 g/10 minutes or less (Rosa, Par. 0007-0008, 0010, 0022, and 0025), which overlaps the claimed ranges of 30 to 99.5 wt.%, 0.919 to 0.940 g/cm3, and 0.3 to 5 g/10 minutes respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Rosa teaches the second layer may have the same polyethylenes as the first layer and thus comprises less than 50 wt.% a second low density polyethylene (the second polyethylene of Rosa) having a density of less than 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) of 20 g/10 minutes or less (Rosa, Par. 0007-0008, 0010, 0022, 0025, and 0033), which overlaps the claimed ranges of 1 to 80 wt.%, 0.919 to 0.940 g/cm3, and 1.2 to 5 g/10 minutes respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I. The second layer further comprises at least 50 wt.% a second polyethylene (the first polyethylene of Rosa, HDPE) having a density of at least 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) of 0.9 g/10 minutes or less (Rosa, Par. 0007-0008, 0010, 0015-0016, 0018, and 0033), which overlaps the claimed ranges of 20 to 99 wt.%, 0.925 to 0.970 g/cm3, and 0.8 to 10 g/10 minutes respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Rose therefore teaches the second polyethylene and the second low density polyethylene are different as they have different densities and melt indices. Rosa teaches the outer layer has a gloss of less than 20 when measured at 45° according to ASTM D 2457 (Rosa, Abstract, Par. 0007, and 0037), which lies within the claimed range of less than 50 and therefore satisfies the claimed, see MPEP 2131.03.
Rosa is silent regarding the outer layer comprising 0.1 to 20 weight percent of polymer particles having a core and a shell structure wherein the core comprises a first polymeric material having a first refractive index and the shell comprises a second polymeric material having a second refractive index that is different from the first refractive index.
Singh teaches a multilayer film having at least one matte surface comprising an outer layer (skin layer) and a second layer (base layer) (Singh, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0004-0005). Singh teaches the second layer may comprise a blend of polyolefins such as polyethylenes (Singh, Par. 0004-0009). Singh teaches the outer layer comprises a thermoplastic polymeric material such as polyethylene, such as LDPE, and from 5-80 wt.% of polymer particles (Singh, Par. 0004-0011), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 20 wt.% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Singh teaches polymeric particles have a central core that make up no more than 60 wt.% of the particles, and thus also comprise a shell around the core of other material and are core/shell particles (Singh, Par. 0015-0019). Singh teaches the particles have a core comprising a first polymeric material having a first refractive index and a shell comprising a second polymeric material having a second refractive index (Singh, Par. 0012-0019).
Rosa and Singh are analogous art as they both teach multilayer films comprising an outer polyethylene layer forming a matte surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the polymer particles of Singh in the outer layer of Rosa. This would allow for a matte surface with enhanced light diffusion (Singh, Par. 0002 and 0018-0019).
Regarding claims 3, modified Rosa teaches the particles comprise greater than 70 wt.% acrylic monomers (Singh, Par. 0004 and 0022-0023), and the core makes up no more than 60 wt.% of the particles (Singh, Par. 0019), and therefore teaches the shell makes up at least 40 wt.% of the particles. Therefore, the shell comprises an acrylic polymer.
Regarding claim 4, modified Rosa teaches the polymer particles have an average size of 0.5 to 15 µm, including a size of 1 to 10 µm (Singh, Par. 0012), which is the same as the claimed range of from 1 to 10 µm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosa et al. in view of Singh et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chen et al. (CN 111361248 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rosa teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Rosa further teaches the outer layer comprises an HDPE (Rosa, Par. 0016).
Modified Rosa is silent regarding the outer layer further comprising a compatibilizer.
Chen teaches a matte polyethylene film comprising a matte layer which comprises an HDPE resin, another material, and a compatibilizer (Chen, Par. 0014-0016).
Modified Rosa and Chen are analogous art as they both teach matte polyethylene films comprising a matte layer (outer layer of modified Rosa) comprising an HDPE and another material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the compatibilizer of Chen in the outer layer of modified Rosa. This would allow for improved compatibility of the polyethylene resin of the outer layer of modified Rosa, as well as a synergistic effect on matting and uniformity (Chen, Par. 0077).
Regarding claims 6, modified Rosa teaches the compatibilizer is a polyolefin grafted with a maleic anhydride group, such as maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene (Chen, Par. 0020).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rosa teaches the compatibilizer is a maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene (Chen, Par. 0020). While modified is silent regarding the density of the polyethylene, modified Rosa discloses HDPE as types of polyethylenes, and teaches that the compatibilizer is used to improve compatibility in a layer with HDPE (Chen, Par. 0015 and 0077). In the absence of a specific teaching of the density of polyethylene, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use HDPE as the polyethylene in the maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene as that is the type of polyethylene it is being used to improve compatibility with. Therefore, Modified Rosa renders obvious a compatibilizer that is maleic anhydride grafted high density polyethylene.
Regarding claim 8, modified Rosa teaches the compatibilizer is present in an amount of 4 to 34 parts, based on a total of 59 parts (using 4 parts compatibilizer, or 89 parts using 34 parts compatibilizer) to 154 parts (using 4 parts compatibilizer, or 184 parts using 34 parts compatibilizer) (Chen, Par. 0015). This results in a weight percent of compatibilizer of from 2.5 to 38 wt.% (4/154 to 34/89), which overlaps the claimed range of up to 10 weight percent and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 9, modified Rosa teaches the first polyethylene and the second polyethylene are each high density polyethylene (Rosa, Par. 0016).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rosa teaches the multilayer film can be printed on and bonded to other substrates to provide different features for packaging, and thus satisfies the limitation of a label comprising the multilayer film (Rosa, Par. 0014 and 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 11, modified Rosa teaches a package comprising the multilayer film (Rosa, Par. 0010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC § 112 recited in the previous office action.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112 recited in the previous office action have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejections over prior art, Applicant argues that Rosa does not teach that the second layer comprises a second low density polyethylene having a density of 0.919 g/cm3 to 0.940 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) of 1.2 to 5 g/10 minutes. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Rosa teaches a multilayer film an outer layer and a second layer (Rosa, Abstract, Par. 0008, 0033-0036). Rosa teaches the outer layer comprises less than 50 wt.% a first low density polyethylene (the second polyethylene of Rosa) having a density of less than 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) of 20 g/10 minutes or less (Rosa, Par. 0007-0008, 0010, 0022, and 0025). Rosa teaches the second layer may have the same polyethylenes as the first layer and thus comprises less than 50 wt.% a second low density polyethylene (the second polyethylene of Rosa) having a density of less than 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt index (I2) of 20 g/10 minutes or less (Rosa, Par. 0007-0008, 0010, 0022, 0025, and 0033), which overlaps the claimed ranges of 1 to 80 wt.%, 0.919 to 0.940 g/cm3, and 1.2 to 5 g/10 minutes respectively and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Applicant has not indicated how this polyethylene (the second polyethylene or Rosa, interpreted as the second low density polyethylene) does not satisfy the claimed second low density polyethylene. Therefore, Rosa satisfies the limitation of the second low density polyethylene and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782