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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claim 10 of Group II, is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of claims 1-9 of Group I, was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a force at 5% strain in the machine direction”. What type of force is it, and how is it related to the strain in the machine direction? For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as encompassing any type of force measured in the film when a 5% strain is applied in the machine direction.
In addition, it is also unclear whether the “.” symbol is a decimal point or is a typographical error for which the correct symbol is a comma. For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation is used.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “XNBB is defined as,” because there is no definition following the phrase. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, in both of the above instances, clarification with amendment, accompanied by relevant citation(s) from the specification are required.
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.
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 1-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campos (US 2014/0329077), as evidenced by, and/or in view of Konaganti (US 2021/0032450), and as evidenced by, and/or in view of Larios (US 2015/0360449).
Regarding claim 1, Campos teaches a film ([0004]) comprising:
from 1 to 5 wt% ([0014]) which is within the claimed range of 1 to 15 wt.%, of an anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized (graft polar groups … maleic anhydride or acrylic acid [0013]) ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (co-polymers of the base polymer [0013] of ethylene, of propylene [0007]);
from 40 to 60 wt% (polymer [0007]) which overlaps the claimed range of from 20 to 59 wt.%, of a linear low density polyethylene ([0007]) having and a melt index (l₂) of from 4 to 8 g/10 min (fluidity rate [0007]) which is within the claimed range of from 0.1 g/10 min to 10.0g/10 min; and
from 40 to 60 wt% ([0011]) which is within the claimed range of from 40 to 70 wt.%, of an inorganic filler (mineral load [0011]) selected from the group consisting of calcium carbonate, barium sulfate, talc, glass spheres, and a combination thereof ([0008]); and
wherein wt.% is based on total weight of the film; and wherein the film has a stretch ratio of 2.5:1 ([0003]) which is within the claimed range of at least 2:1.
Although Campos is silent regarding a density of the linear low density polyethylene, it is commonly within a range of from 0.900 g/cm³ to 0.940 g/cm³, as evidenced by Konaganti.
Konaganti teaches that linear low density polyethylene can have a density of about 0.918 g/cm3 ([0385]).
Campos fails to teach that the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer has a melting point of less than 100°C.
However, Campos teaches that the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer is an adhesive (consists of [0015]).
Konaganti teaches that for an ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (polyethylene terpolymer [0068]), a hot tack onset temperature is desirably from 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0299]) which is just above the melting point of the ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer, such that the melting point of the ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer is less than 100°C, for the purpose of providing the desired adhesiveness (tack [0299]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (b) in the film of Campo, with a melting point of less than 100°C, in order to obtain the desired adhesiveness, as taught by Konaganti.
In addition, Campos teaches that the film is a non-breathable film (not breathable [0006]) which commonly has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of not more than 100 g/m2[Symbol font/0x2A]day, as evidenced by Larios.
Larios teaches that a non-breathable film ([0071]) has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of not more than 100 g/m2[Symbol font/0x2A]day (g/m2/24 hours [0071]) which is within the claimed range of less than 1,100 g/m2[Symbol font/0x2A]day.
In the alternative, Campos teaches that the film is a non-breathable film (not breathable [0006]) but is silent regarding the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the film.
However, Campos teaches that the film is a non-breathable film (not breathable [0006]).
Larios teaches that a non-breathable film ([0071]) has a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of not more than 100 g/m2[Symbol font/0x2A]day ([0071]) which is within the claimed range of less than 1,100 g/m2[Symbol font/0x2A]day.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the film of Campos, as modified by Konaganti, with a WVTR that is within a range of less than 1,100 g/m2[Symbol font/0x2A]day, in order to obtain the desired non-breathable water vapor barrier property, as taught by Larios.
Regarding claim 2, Campos teaches that the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized (graft polar groups … maleic anhydride or acrylic acid [0013]) ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (co-polymers of the base polymer [0013] of ethylene, of propylene [0007]) has an anhydride or acid content of 1 wt.% (adhesive consists of a co-polymer of polyethylene with maleic anhydride [0014-0015]) which is within the claimed range of from 0.1 to 2 wt.%, where wt.% is based on a total weight of the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized (graft polar groups … maleic anhydride or acrylic acid [0013]) ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (co-polymers of the base polymer [0013] of ethylene, of propylene [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Campos teaches that the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer is a maleic anhydride (graft polar groups … maleic anhydride [0013]) functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer r(co-polymers of the base polymer [0013] of ethylene, of propylene [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Campos teaches that the inorganic filler (mineral load [0011]) is calcium carbonate ([0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Campos fails to teach that the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer has a melting point of less than 65°C.
However, Campos teaches that the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer is an adhesive (consists of [0015]).
Konaganti teaches that for an ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (polyethylene terpolymer [0068]), a hot tack onset temperature is desirably 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0299]) which is just above the melting point of the ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer, such that the melting point of the ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer is less than 65°C, for the purpose of providing the desired adhesiveness (tack [0299]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the anhydride and/or carboxylic acid functionalized ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (b) in the film of Campo, with a melting point of less than 65°C, in order to obtain the desired adhesiveness, as taught by Konaganti.
Regarding claim 6, Campos, as modified by Konaganti, is silent regarding a basis weight of the film.
However, Campos teaches that the film is a non-breathable film (not breathable [0006]).
Larios teaches that a non-breathable film ([0071]) can have a basis weight of between about 10 to 20 gsm ([0062]) which is within the claimed range of from 5 to 50 gsm, for the purpose of providing the desired film strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a basis weight within a range of from 5 to 50 gsm, to the film of Campos, as modified by Konaganti, in order to obtain the desired film strength, as taught by Larios.
Regarding claim 9, Campos teaches a laminate of the film in adhering contact with a nonwoven film (lamination … of … polyethylene film with an unwoven polypropylene fabric [0001]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campos, as evidenced by, and/or in view of Konaganti, and as evidenced by, and/or in view of Larios, as applied to claims 1-6, 9 above, and further in view of Farley (US 2003/0215659).
Campos, as modified by Konaganti, and Larios, teaches the film as described above.
Regarding claim 7, Campos, as modified by Konaganti, and Larios, is silent regarding a force at 5% strain in the machine direction.
However, Farley teaches that a film can have a force of 2.7 N/15 mm (Table VIII [0281]) at 5% strain in the machine direction (5% A, Table VIII [0281])m for the purpose of providing the desired tack strength (Table VIII [0281]), which is within the claimed range of greater than 2.000 N/15 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a force at 5% strain in the machine direction, that is within a range of 2,000 N/15 mm at 5% strain in the machine direction, to the film of Campos, as modified by Konaganti, and Larios, in order to obtain the desired tack strength, as taught by Farley.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights