DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12 and 15) in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2024, 05/08/2025 and 08/21/2025 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites that wherein each of the at least first polyolefin layer (a) of the multilayer film, the at least second polyolefin layer (b) of the multilayer film, and the at least third polyolefin layer (c) of the multilayer film is prepared from at least one ethylene-based polymer resin; and wherein the at least one ethylene-based polymer resin is from 72 weight percent to 95 weight percent of the polymer resin blend composition and wherein the at least one ethylene-based polymer resin is….(iii) a metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin having a long chain branching value of from 0.001/1000 carbons to less than 0.1/1000 carbons…” while claim 1, on which claim 7 depends recites that “…the total concentration of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin having a long chain branching value of from 0.001/1000 carbons to less than 0.1/1000 carbons present in the multilayer film is from 5 weight percent to 28 weight percent based on the total weight of the polymer resin blend composition”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear how the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin can be present both in an amount of 72 weight percent to 95 weight percent of the polymer resin blend composition and in an amount of 5 weight percent to 28 weight percent based on the total weight of the polymer resin blend composition. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11, line 4 recites “conventional” multilayer film. It is not clear what is meant by a “conventional” or what is included in such a multilayer film.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta I et al. (US 2016/0237263 A1) in view of Tsuruta II (JP 2006124567 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Tsuruta II are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12 and 15, Tsuruta I et al. disclose a polyethylene laminate (multilayer) comprising an outer layer (first polyolefin layer) comprising 0 to 50 wt% of linear low-density polyethylene (aii), an intermediate layer (second polyolefin layer) comprising 10 to 40 wt% of high density polyethylene (bii) and 60 to 90 wt% of linear low-density polyethylene (bi) and an inner layer (third polyolefin layer) comprising 0 to 50 wt% of linear low-density polyethylene (cii), wherein the intermediate layer is disposed between the outer layer and the inner layer (see Abstract). The linear low-density polyethylene (aii, bi, cii) is a copolymer of ethylene and a-olefin such as hexene, i.e. ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer produced using a metallocene catalyst (see paragraphs 0062, 0070 and 0071). Each of the outer layer, the intermediate layer and the inner layer are monolayers.
Tsuruta I et al. do not disclose the outer layer, the intermediate layer and/or the inner layer comprising a metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin having a long chain branching value as presently claimed.
Tsuruta II discloses a film having good molding processability and excellent mechanical strength (see Abstract). The film is prepared from a polyethylene resin composition comprising 0.1 to 99.9 wt% of a linear low density polyethylene resin (A) such as ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer produced using metallocene catalyst and 0.1 to 99.9 wt% of polyethylenic resin (B) having density of 890 to 980 kg/m3, melt flow rate of 0.01 to 10 g/minutes and long chain branching value of 0.01 to 3/1000 carbons (see Abstract and paragraphs 0013, 0014, 0018, 0020, 0022, 0023). The polyethylenic resin is linear ethylene-a-olefin copolymer such as ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer produced using metallocene catalyst (see paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0030). While Tsuruta II do not explicitly disclose polyethylene resin is a linear low density polyethylene resin, given that polyethylene resin is linear, and has density, melt flow rate and long chain branching value that overlaps with that presently claimed and given that polyethylene resin is produced using metallocene catalyst, the polyethylene resin reads on a metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin having a long chain branching value as presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using 0.1 to 99.0 wt% of polyethylenic resin disclosed by Tsuruta II as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 0.1 to 99.0 wt% of polyethylenic resin in each of the outer layer, the intermediate layer and the inner layer comprising the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (aii, bi and cii) of Tsuruta I et al. in order to provide good molding processability and excellent mechanical strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the outer layer (first polyolefin layer) and the inner layer (third polyolefin layer) each comprise 0 to 50 wt% of metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (aii, cii) and 0.1 to 99.0 wt% of metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (aiii, ciii) having a long chain branching value as presently claimed. The intermediate layer (second polyolefin layer) comprises 10 to 40 wt% of the high density polyethylene (bii), 60 to 90 wt% of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (bi) and 0.1 to 99.0 wt% of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (biii) having a long chain branching value as presently claimed.
Accordingly, the total concentration of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (aiii, biii, ciii) having a long chain branching value as presently claimed in the multilayer film is at least 0.3 wt% (0.3 = 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the amount of metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin with the long chain branching in each of the outer layer, intermediate layer, and inner layer of the multilayer film of Tsuruta I in view of Tsuruta II in order to produce a multilayer film with an amount of metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin with the long chain branching, including that presently claimed, that has desired processability and mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuruta I et al. in view of Tsuruta II disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. The outer layer (first polyolefin layer) and the inner layer (third polyolefin layer) each comprise 0 to 50 wt% of metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (ii) and 0.1 to 99.0 wt% of metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (iii) having a long chain branching value as presently claimed. Further, the outer layer and the inner layer also include 20 to 80 wt% of HDPE (A) (iv) (see Abstract). Therefore, the total amount of ethylene-based resins (ii, iii and iv) in each of the outer layer and the inner layer overlaps with that presently claimed. The intermediate layer (second polyolefin layer) comprises 10 to 40 wt% of the high density polyethylene (iv), 60 to 90 wt% of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (ii) and 0.1 to 99.0 wt% of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer (iii) having a long chain branching value as presently claimed. The total amount of ethylene-based resins (ii, iii and iv) in the intermediate layer overlaps with that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Tsuruta I et al. in view of Tsuruta II disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. Given that the multilayer film including a metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin having a long chain branching value of from 0.001/1000 carbons to less than 0.1/1000 carbons is identical to that presently claimed with amounts overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping amounts, the multilayer would necessarily inherently have improvement in performance in dart strength as presently claimed.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta I et al. (US 2016/0237263 A1) in view of Tsuruta II (JP 2006124567 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Van Dun et al. (US 2003/0114595 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Tsuruta I et al. in view of Tsuruta II disclose the multilayer as set forth above. Tsuruta I et al. in view of Tsuruta II do not disclose the outer layer (first polyolefin layer) and the inner layer (third inner layer) comprising Ziegler-Natta catalyzed resin (ai, ci) as presently claimed.
Van Dun et al. disclose an interpolymer composition comprising a blend of about 10 to about 100 wt% of substantially linear ethylene-a-olefin polymer having a long chain branching value of about 0.01 to about 3/1000 carbons such as ethylene-co-1-hexene copolymer prepared using catalysts based on constrained geometry metal complexes which are metallocene catalysts and about 0 to about 90 wt% of heterogenous polymer such as ethylene-co-1-butene copolymer prepared by Ziegler Natta catalyst (see Abstract and paragraphs 0010, 0047, 00187, 0191, 0223). A film prepared from the interpolymer composition has good processing characteristics and good impact strength, puncture and stretchability properties (see Abstract and paragraph 0021).
In light of motivation for using 0 to about 90 wt% of heterogenous polymer such as ethylene-co-1-butene copolymer prepared by Ziegler Natta catalyst in combination with metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene resin comprising a poly(ethylene-co-1-hexene) copolymer resin having a long chain branching value of about 0.01 to about 3/1000 carbons disclosed by Van Dun et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 0 to about 90 wt% of heterogenous polymer (ai and ci) such as ethylene-co-1-butene copolymer prepared by Ziegler Natta catalyst in each of the outer layer and the inner layer (first polyolefin layer and third polyolefin layer) of Tsuruta I et al. in view of Tsuruta II in order to provide good processing characteristics and good impact strength, puncture and stretchability properties to the outer layer and the inner layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787