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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/8/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered with respect to the lined-through foreign references; see the annotated IDS included with this Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 18, 23, 28 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 16 and 18: The claims contain multiple recitations of the unit kg/m3. Change this term changed to kg/m3 to reflect that the 3 is an exponent, not a multiplier.
Regarding claim 23: In the phrase “L is -R’2Si-“, change the 2 to a subscript to conform to the conventions of the art wherein a subscript is used to indicate the number of groups bonded to an atom. Similarly, change -Si(R)3 to -Si(R)3.
Regarding claim 28: The claim states that claimed film “is” recited properties. Replace “is” with “has” or “is characterized by” to reflect that these are properties possessed by the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29: The claim states that claimed film “is” recited properties. Replace “is” with “has” or “is characterized by” to reflect that these are properties possessed by the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-30 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 16 recites the phrase “a soluble fraction at 35 °C determined with cross-fractionation chromatography (CFC) as defined in the experimental part”. Wherever possible, claims are to be complete in themselves, with references to other parts of the disclosure only permitted when there is no practical way to define the invention in words. As written, claim 16 is therefore indefinite as it is unclear what methodology the claim is intended to require for measuring the solubility at 35 °C.
Additionally, note that the claim does not specify the solvent in which the claimed copolymer is required to have the claimed solubility. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a polymer’s solubility is dependent on the solvent in which it is tested. As such, claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear what solvent the polymer is required to be tested in to determine whether the required solubility parameter is met.
Claims 17-30 depend from claim 16 and do not correct this deficiency. The claims are therefore indefinite per the same rationale as claim 16.
Regarding claim 17: Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 16, the phrase “determined as described in an experimental part” is indefinite because it requires the recited property to be measured by a specific process, but it is not clear what process steps are required.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitations “fractions (A-1) and (A-2)” and “ethylene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrases to refer to ethylene-1-butene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2) so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Additionally, the phrase “a density of fractions (A-1) and (A-2) is in a range of from 925 to 960 kg/m3” is indefinite. As written, this limitation could be interpreted to require (1) that the density of the combination of fractions (A-1) and (A-2) is in the range of 925 to 960 kg/m3 or (2) that one of fractions (A-1) and (A-2) is required to have a density in the range of 925 to 960 kg/m3. Similarly, it is unclear whether the phrase “the MFR2” is intended to refer to (1) the MFR2 of component (A) as recited in independent claim 16, (2) the MFR2 of one of fractions (A-1) and (A-2), or (3) the MFR2 of component (B) recited in claim 16.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites the limitations “multimodal copolymer (P)”, "ethylene polymer component (A)" and “ethylene polymer component (B)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrases to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)”, "ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A)" and “ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites broad ranges for the MFR2 values of component (A) and component (B), and the claim also recites narrower ranges for these two properties. Further note that the claim uses the term “and/or” to link each of these ranges; the inclusion of the word “and” indicates that the various ranges are not recited as alternatives to one another. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites the limitations “multimodal copolymer (P)” and “multimodal polymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrases to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Additionally, claim 20 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for both the 1-butene content and 1-hexene content of the claimed multimodal copolymer. The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 recites the limitation “multimodal copolymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrase to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Additionally, claim 21 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for both the 1-butene content of component (A) and the 1-hexene content of component (B). The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 22: Claim 22 recites the limitations “multimodal copolymer (P)”, "ethylene polymer component (A)", and “ethylene polymer component (B)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrases to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)”, "ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A)" and “ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Additionally, claim 22 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for the amounts of component (A) and component (B) in the multimodal copolymer. The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 23: Claim 23 recites the limitation “multimodal copolymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrase to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Similarly, there is no antecedent basis for the terms R1 and R2. It is suggested that applicant amend these terms to be R1 and R2, which are the variables depicted in the recited formula.
Regarding claim 24: Claim 24 recites the limitation “multimodal copolymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrase to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 16, the phrase “determined with cross fractionation chromatography (CFC) as described in the experimental part” is indefinite because it requires the recited property to be measured by a specific process, but it is not clear what process steps are required.
Finally, claim 24 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for both the SF@35 °C/density amount of soluble fraction. The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 25: Claim 25 recites the limitation “multimodal copolymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrase to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 16, the phrase “determined as described in the experimental part” is indefinite because it requires the recited property to be measured by a specific process, but it is not clear what process steps are required.
Finally, claim 25 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for each of the molecular weight ratio, ratio of breadth at half peak height, and delta of Mw(LCF)-Mw(HCF). The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 26: Claim 26 recites the limitation “multimodal copolymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrase to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 27: Claim 27 recites the limitation “multimodal copolymer (P)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that applicant amend these phrase to state “multimodal polyethylene copolymer (P)” so that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Additionally, claim 27 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for the amount of the multimodal polyethylene copolymer in the film. The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 28: Claim 28 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow ranges for the instrumented puncture test impact and dart drop impact properties. The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 29: Claim 29 recites a combination of broad and/or narrow range for the tensile modulus. The recitation of broad ranges and narrow ranges renders the claims indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 22: As noted earlier in this Action, claim 22 recites broad and narrow ranges for the amounts of components (A) and (B). As currently written, claim 22 specifically states that component (A) may be present in an amount of 35.0 to 50.0 wt% component (B) may be present in an amount of 50.0 to 65.0 wt; note that these ranges are already recited in independent claim 16 (see lines 3-4). Claim 22 therefore does not further limit the scope of the parent claim, as it reads on the compositions comprising the same amounts of components (A) and (B) as the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 and 23-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following references are relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention.
Tupe et al, WO2016/198271, discloses a multimodal polyethylene copolymer comprising a first polymer which is preferably an ethylene/butene copolymer (page 7: line 1) and a second polymer which is preferably an ethylene/-hexene copolymer (page 11: line 21). Said multimodal polyethylene copolymer is characterized by a density of 906 to 925 kg/m3 (page 5: lines 30-31) and a hexane soluble fraction less than or equal to 4.50 wt% (page 6: lines 16-17).
Note that Tupe does not provide any broad disclosure regarding the MFR (190 C, 2.16 kg) of the prior art multimodal polyethylene copolymer. Furthermore, the inventive examples are calculated to have a MFR21/MFR2 of about 83 or higher from the data presented in Table 3. Tupe therefore does not teach or suggest the production of a composition having MFR21/MFR2 of 22 to 50 as required by the instant claims.
Helland et al, WO03/066699, discloses a multimodal composition comprising a blend of an ethylene/1-butene copolymer and an ethylene/1-hexene copolymer (see Example 2), wherein the final composition has a density of 919 kg/m3, MFR2 of 0.78, MFR21/MFR2 of 38, and a hexane soluble content of 0.3 wt%. Note that Helland the ethylene/1-butene copolymer is prepared in a single reactor-i.e., it is a single copolymer. Helland does not teach the production of a composition wherein the ethylene/1-butene copolymer is a blend of first and second ethylene/1-butene copolymer, said blend having the required properties of density, MFR2, and 1-butene content.
The prior art of record does not teach nor does it suggest the production of a composition which simultaneously meets the claimed limitations of an ethylene/1-butene component having the recited properties and being a blend of first and second ethylene/1-butene copolymers, and an overall composition having a MFR21/MFR2 or 22 to 50 and SF35C/density of 0.0007 or lower. The claims are therefore allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/JEFFREY S LENIHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights