DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/5/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003146369 to Hiroyuki et al. (as found on the IDS dated 1/3/2024; the citations below refer to the English Machine Translation provided with the IDS dated 1/3/2024).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 7, Hiroyuki teaches a polymer composition [abstract] comprising 30-70% of an olefin polymer (A) [0007] thereby when considering the other components, the polymer composition can be considered to comprise 100 parts by mass of a polyolefin-based polymer (a) wherein (A) is preferably an ethylene homopolymer [0009] i.e., 100 parts by mass polyolefin-based polymer (a); 60-10 wt% of a polymer other than an olefin polymer (C) [0007] that is preferably polyamide resins [0023] i.e., 0.1-20 parts polar polymer (b) selected from a polyamide-based polymer (b2); and 30-5% of an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer (B) [0007] wherein the α-olefins of (B) have about 2-8 carbon atoms [0008] and is preferably modified with unsaturated carboxylic acid [0018] i.e., 0.1-25 parts acid modified polyolefin (d) wherein two or more of these polymers are used in combination [0008] i.e., 0.1-20 parts of comprising acid-modified polyolefin (c); wherein the ethylene-α-olefin copolymers have a MFR2 of 0.01-50 g/10 min [0017]. As such, it would be obvious to select a first acid modified ethylene-α- olefin copolymer with a MFR of 15-39 g/10 min and a second acid modified ethylene- α-olefin copolymer with a MFR of 0.01-15 g/10 min as the claimed MFR is within the range taught by Hiroyuki, and teaches the combinations of ethylene- α-olefin copolymers.
Hiroyuki does not teach the exact amount of polar polymer (b) as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Hiroyuki (10-60 wt%) overlap the instantly claimed range (0.1-20 parts) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4, Hiroyuki teaches the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer has a density of 0.85-0.915 [0017] thereby overlapping with the claimed range of 0.855 to 0.895 g/cm3.
Regarding Claim 5, Hiroyuki teaches the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer is subjected to a graft reaction in the presence of an unsaturated carboxylic acid in an amount of 0.5-5% by weight [0018] thereby overlapping instantly claimed graft ratio range of 0.1-1% by mass.
Regarding Claim 6, Hiroyuki teaches the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer of compound (B) comprises α-olefins having about 2 to 8 carbon atoms such as 1-butene [0008] reading on a ethylene/butene copolymer.
Regarding Claim 9, Hiroyuki teaches the polymer composition of claim 1 that has a moldability that is required for an easily openable container [0034] reading on a molded article.
Regarding Claim 10, Hiroyuki teaches a packaging container comprising a layer of the polymer composition of claim 1, a heat sealable surface, and a lid layer [0039] reading on multilayer packaging material.
Regarding Claim 11, Hiroyuki teaches the polymer composition of claim 1, wherein the components A, B, and C of Hiroyuki correspond to components A, C, and B of instant claims, and further teach a process that comprises the components being melt-kneaded [0036].
Regarding Claim 12, Hiroyuki teaches the multilayer packaging of claim 10, wherein the composition is melt-kneaded to form a laminated film having a two layer structure [0052] reading on melt-molding the components of A, B, and D.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2003146369 to Hiroyuki et al. (as found on the IDS dated 1/3/2024) in view of US20060211804 to Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 8, Hiroyuki teaches the polymer composition of claim 1, as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference wherein the polar polymer is polyamide [Hiroyuki, 0023].
Hiroyuki is silent regarding the polar polymer as an ethylene-vinyl-alcohol based copolymer with a content of 20mol% to 50 mol%.
However, Kim teaches a composition comprising polar polymers such as polyamides as well as ethylene vinyl alcohol-based copolymer (EVOH) [Kim, 0012] wherein the EVOH comprises 10-50 mol% ethylene [Kim, 0035]. Kim and Hiroyuki are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely compositions comprising polyolefins, polar polymers, and acid modified polyolefins. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute EVOH having 10-50 mol% ethylene for the polyamide used in Hiroyuki. The motivation is to increase processability when melt molding and to increase liquid barrier properties [0035].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states examples having a component (d) with an MFR in the claimed range achieve unexpectedly improved effects.
In response, the office respectfully disagrees, as comparative example 13 that has an MFR outside the claimed range has improved transparency, haze, tensile strength, amount of adherent foreign matter, and recyclability than nearly all other inventive examples and comparative examples.
Applicant states the claimed embodiments have good results for each of transparency, internal haze, tensile strength at break, recyclability, and the amount of adherent foreign matter, wherein comparative example 11 that does not comprise component (d) and comparative example 12 that comprises component (d) outside of the claimed range is inferior in the amount of adherent of foreign matter.
In response, the office respectfully disagrees as comparative example 6 comprises 30 parts of component (d) that is outside the claimed range of 0.1-25 parts and gives a similar amount of adherent foreign matter than inventive examples.
Applicant states examples 11 to 18 have excellent effect of having higher tensile breaking strength (26 MPa or higher) compared to comparative examples 11 and 12 ( 18 MPa and 26 MPa). Applicant states this result is unexpected as the inventive examples 11-18 tensile breaking strength falls between comparative example 11 (does not comprise (d)) and comparative example 12 (comprises (d) out of the claimed range). Applicant states inventive examples 11-18 have higher tensile strength at break than comparative examples 11 and 12.
In response, the office respectfully disagrees as comparative example 6 and comparative example 12 comprises 30 parts of component (d) that is outside the claimed range of 0.1-25 parts and gives a Tensile Strength at break of 27 MPa and 26 MPa respectively. Therefore there is no evidence to show unexpectedly improved results when the Tensile Strength at break values of the aforementioned comparative and inventive examples are overlapping.
Applicant states the amendment of limiting the range of the acid-modified polyolefin (c) to 0.1 to 20 parts by mass submits that the data of record is commensurate in scope with amended claim 1.
It is noted that this data is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. For example, the language of claim 1 is drawn to any polyolefin wherein applicant exclusively uses UF230 and EA7AD. This is the same issue with component (b) as there is only testing using EVOH DC3203RB, and component (c) as there are only as there are only 2 species tested. As such, there is no evidence that all claimed components of any polyolefin, any EVOH based copolymer/polyamide-based polymer, and any modified ethylene copolymer of ethylene and alpha olefins modified with unsaturated carboxylic acid or anhydride would have the same unexpected results.
Applicant states in the affidavit dated 6/5/2026 that the four-level rating system for the amount of adherent foreign matter test is not subjective and instead should be considered as being objective as there is no possible way to evaluate this property numerically.
In response, examiner agrees the amount of foreign matter test is semi-objective, based on the photos provided.
However, it is noteworthy that the recyclability test is not considered objective as the testing parameters are subjective when defined as “slightly deteriorated” and “deteriorated” as set forth in instant specification PG-PUB [0178].
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights