DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant’s amendment dated 15 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendment dated 15 May 2026. For this reason, this action is properly made final.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WILKIE (WO-2017210403-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, WILKIE teaches a multilayer film where the core layer comprises a blend of a polyolefin polymer and a polybutene-1 copolymer with ethylene having over 75 wt% 1-butene (Abstract). WILKIE teaches in Example 1 a three-layer film (p. 15, lines 23-24) where the central layer contains 50-80wt% LYB Adsyl 6C30F or 7410XCP Terpolymer, 20-40wt% of LYB Koattro DP8310M polybutene-1 copolymer, and 0-10wt% of a hard resin (p. 16, lines 1-8). The amount of hard resin includes 0% which allows for compositions which satisfy the requirement that the polymer composition consists of (A) and (B). Note that Adsyl 6C30F and Koattro DP8310M are the same substances used for components (A) and (B) in the instant examples (cur spec: [0010], [0011], [0069]). In Example 8, Sample 2 (p. 38 Table), WILKIE teaches a composition containing 70 wt% Adsyl 6C30F terpolymer and no hard resin (p. 37, lines 5-6) and 30wt% polybutene-1 copolymer is DP8310M (p. 37, line 30; see p. 17 line 7 for LyndellBasell Koattro DP8310M being the full name of this commercial product). This amount is within the 70-95wt% for the (A) component and 5-30 wt% of the (B) component that are recited by the claim.
WILKIE teaches that its Koattro DP8310M component is a copolymer of 1-butene and ethylene has a melt flow rate of 3.5 dg/min (equivalent to g/10 min) (190°C, 2.16 kg) and a melting point of 94°C (p. 17, lines 6-8) which are within the 1.0-5.5 g/10min and 83-108°C recited by the claim. WILKIE does not teach the ethylene content and the flexural modulus of its Koattro DP8310M component. Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence to show that the Koattro DP8310M component taught by WILKIE has an ethylene content of 3.7wt% and a flexural modulus of 120 MPa (cur spec: Table 2). These are within the 3.0-4.2wt% ethylene and 50-250 MPa ranges recited for the (B) component by the claim.
The claim recites that the propylene polymer composition (A) comprises (A1) and (A2), which allows for other components, and that the sum of the amounts of (A1) and (A2) total to 100wt%, so any amounts taught by WILKIE would need to be adjusted to a basis of the total of (A1) and (A2), as needed, in order to compare to the recited amounts. WILKIE teaches that its Adsyl 6C30F component is a Ziegler-Natta catalyzed random terpolymer of propylene, ethylene and butene with a melt flow rate (230°C, 2.16 kg) of 5.5 dg/min (equivalent to g/10 min) (p. 16, lines 27-29) which is within the 1.0-15.5 g/10 min that is recited by the claim. WILKIE teaches a melt flow rate 230°C which is different from the recited 190°C. It is presumed that the Adsyl 6C30F component with a MFR of 5.5 g/10min at (230°C, 2.16 kg) taught by WILKIE would have a MFR at (190°C, 2.16 kg) would have a MFR within recited range of 1.0-15.5 g/10min because the recited range is broad and because WILKIE teaches the same Adsyl 6C30F component used in the instant examples. WILKIE does not characterize its Adsyl 6C30F as an A1/A2 blend of propylene-1-butene copolymer and propylene-ethylene-1-butene terpolymer and does not teach the ethylene and 1-butene content of this component. Here, the specification of the current invention is used as evidence that the Adsyl 6C30F taught by WILKIE is a copolymer/terpolymer blend with an A1/A2 ratio of 25wt%/75wt%, a 1-butene content in A1 of 12.0wt%, an overall ethylene content of 0.9 wt% and a an overall 1-butene content of 14.5 wt% (cur spec: Table 1). These are all within the ranges recited for A1/A2 (15-35wt%/65-85wt%), 1-butene content in A1 (9-15wt%), overall ethylene content (0.5-2.5wt%) and overall 1-butene content (10.0-19.0 wt%).
Regarding Claim 3, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches an A component of Adsyl 6C30F (p. 16, lines 1-8) and evidence from the instant specification discloses that the Adsyl 6C30F taught by WILKIE has an A1 amounts of 25wt% (cur spec: Table 1) leaving a remaining amount of 75 wt%. Both of these are within the narrower ranges of 19-31wt% and 69-81wt% that are recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 10, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches a B component of Koattro DP8310M as a copolymer of 1-butene and ethylene (p. 16, lines 1-8, p. 17, lines 6-8) and the evidence of from the instant specification shows that the Koattro DP8310M taught by WILKIE has an ethylene content of 3.7 wt% (cur spec: Table 2) which is within the narrower range of 3.2-4.0wt% that is recited by the Claim 4 and the 3.3-3.9wt% range that is recited by Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 5, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches that its B component Koattro DP8310M has a MFR of 3.5 g/10min (p. 17, lines 6-8) which is within the narrower range of 2.1-4.8 g/10min that is recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 8, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches an A component of Adsyl 6C30F (p. 16, lines 1-8) and evidence from the instant specification discloses that the Adsyl 6C30F taught by WILKIE has C4 content in A1 of 12.0wt% which is within the 10-14wt% recited by Claim 6 and also within the 10.5-13.5wt% recited by Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 7, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches an A component of Adsyl 6C30F (p. 16, lines 1-8). WILKIE teaches that Adsyl 6C30F contains a random terpolymer of propylene, ethylene and butene which is predominately propylene as is recited by (A2) (p. 16, lines 27-29) but WILKIE does not teach the ethylene and 1-butene content of this terpolymer. The evidence in the instant specification for the Adsyl 6C30F taught by WILKIE (cur spec: Table 1) also does not disclose the monomer content of the (A2) component. But one would inherently expect that the Adsyl 6C30F component taught by WILKIE would be within the scope of the invention and would meet all the recited limitations for the A component and its substituents as it is the same compound used for the A component in the instant specification and its examples (cur spec: [0010], [0011], [0069]).
Regarding Claim 9, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches an A component of Adsyl 6C30F (p. 16, lines 1-8) and evidence from the instant specification discloses that the Adsyl 6C30F taught by WILKIE has an overall ethylene and 1-butene content of 0.9wt% and 14.5 wt% which are within the 0.7-1.9wt% and 12.0-16.0wt% ranges recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches that its B component Koattro DP8310M has a melting point of 94 °C (p. 17, lines 7-8) which is within the range of 84-103°C recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 12, WILKIE teaches the composition of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches a B component of Koattro DP8310M as a copolymer of 1-butene and ethylene (p. 16, lines 1-8, p. 17, lines 6-8) and the evidence of from the instant specification shows that the Koattro DP8310M taught by WILKIE has a flexural modulus of 120 MPa (cur spec: Table 2) which is within the narrower range of 80-210 MPa recited by the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, WILKIE teaches the invention of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches an A component of Adsyl 6C30F (p. 16, lines 1-8) which has a MFR of 5.5 g/10min (230°C, 2.16 kg) (p. 16, lines 27-29). WILKIE teaches a melt flow rate 230°C which is different from the recited 190°C. It is presumed that the Adsyl 6C30F component with a MFR of 5.5 g/10min at (230°C, 2.16 kg) taught by WILKIE would have a MFR at (190°C, 2.16 kg) would have a MFR within recited range of 3.1-12.2 g/10min because the recited range is broad and because WILKIE teaches the same Adsyl 6C30F component used in the instant examples.
Regarding Claims 14-15, WILKIE teaches the invention of Claim 1 where WILKIE teaches its composition as the core layer in a multi-layer film (Abstract, Examples, such as Example 1, p. 15, line 22 to p. 16, line 12). WILKIE teaches that the Example 8, Sample 2 composition, used in the Claim 1 rejection, demonstrates that the presence of hard resin in the core structure is not an essential requirement of its composition (p. 39, lines 3-5).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILKIE (WO-2017210403-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, WILKIE teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. WILKIE teaches three-layer films (p. 15, lines 23-24) where the central core layer contains 50-80wt% LYB Adsyl 6C30F or 7410XCP Terpolymer, 20-40wt% of LYB Koattro DP8310M polybutene-1 copolymer, and 0-10wt% of a hard resin (p. 16, lines 1-8). Note that Adsyl 6C30F and Koattro DP8310M are the same substances used for components (A) and (B) in the instant examples (cur spec: [0010], [0011], [0069]). WILKIE teaches that the hard resin in the core structure is not an essential requirement of its composition (p. 17, line 24; p. 39, lines 3-5). The ranges taught by WILKIE for (A) and (B) overlap with the recited requirement of 72-93% of component (A) and 7-28wt% of component (B) by the claim. WILKIE exemplifies a core layer resin composition which contains only (A) and (B) (p. 38 Table, Example 8, Sample 2), but not a composition within the ranges recited by Claim 2, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of WILKIE and form compositions with amounts of (A) and (B) that are within the range taught by WILKIE that are also within the range recited by the claim. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). For more discussion see MPEP 2144.05-I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments addressing informalities have overcome the objections set forth in the previous office action. These objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that WILKIE describes a composition which includes a hard resin which is now excluded from the amended claims. In response, WILKIE generally teaches amounts for its hard resin which include 0%, so it is not required. WILKIE teaches an exemplary embodiment (Example 8, Sample 2) which contains amounts of (A) and (B) within the recited range and no hard resin and teaches that the hard resin is not considered essential (p. 17, line 24; p. 39, lines 3-4).
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 DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-4821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, ARRIE L REUTHER can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/D.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights