DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 9/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Fiebig discloses the core layer contains a C5 to C12 alpha-olefin comonomer with a polypropylene and Wang discloses a xylene solubles content of 9.0 to 18 wt% whereas the instant claims are directed to a xylenes solubles content of 0.5 to 5 wt% This is not found persuasive because each layer of Fiebig is a polypropylene-based layer which would still meet the limitations as claimed and the solubles content is not claimed in the independent claim and it is also not required in the dependent claim. Therefore, at least the independent claim does not provide a contribution over the prior art and the prior art is still applicable.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2-5 and 8-11 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.
Claims 2-5 and 8-11 each recite a range within a range signified by the terms “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “most preferably” and the subsequent ranges for each relevant . The claims 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.
Claims 2-4 each recite “comprises and preferably consists of..”. It is not clear as to the scope of the claims since “comprising” is an open group and “consisting of” is a closed group. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner assumes the limitation to read “comprising”. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiebig et al. (EP 2540497 B1) in view of Wang et al. (EP 2965908 B1) and Stadlbauer et al. (US 20110040061).
Fiebig discloses a multilayer cast film. Concerning claims 1 and 8-9, Fiebig discloses the multilayer cast film comprises a core layer a sealing layer, and an outer layer, wherein each layer comprises up to 100% polypropylene material (para. 0015-0032). With respect to the outer layer, Fiebig discloses the outer layer comprises a polypropylene homopolymer and/or an ethylene propylene copolymer. Concerning claim 7, the layers are formed by extrusion coating (para. 0027). Regarding claim 11, the thickness of the core layer is 20 to 100 microns and the outer layer and sealing layers are each 2 to 50 microns and 0.5 to 30 microns respectively, wherein the sum of the thicknesses would include and encompass the claimed total thickness and the coating weight for the outer and sealing layers of Fiebig would include and encompass the claimed ranges (para. 0023-0026). However, Fiebig is silent to the material characteristics of the ethylene propylene copolymer or the polypropylene homopolymer.
Wang discloses an ethylene propylene random copolymer that has a MFR of 0.8 to 25 g/10 min, a Tm of 128°C to 138°C and number of 2,1 regio defects of at most 0.4% (para. 0008-0081). While it is noted that Wang is silent to the 3,1 regio defect content, since the materials are the same as that claimed and formed by a single site catalyst, the sum of the 2,1 and 3,1 regio defects would include and encompass the claimed range. With respect to claims 4 and 5, the ethylene propylene random copolymer is formed by a single site catalyst, has the claimed MFR, MWD, crystallization temperature and overlapping range hexane extractables content and xylene soluble content (para. 0015-0032). With respect to claim 6, the ethylene propylene random copolymer are formed from polymer fraction having overlapping contents (para. 0017-0021). The ethylene propylene random copolymer of Wang provides layers that have good optical properties (para. 0039). As such, for good optical properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the material of Wang as the outer layer of Fiebig.
Stadlbauer discloses a short-chain branched polypropylene homopolymer. With respect to the propylene homopolymer as claimed, Stadlbauer discloses the polypropylene has at least a MFR of up to 10 g/10 min, a Tm of higher than 148°C, a MWD of 1 to 8, and a XCS of 0.60 to 1.00 wt% (para. 0018-0040). The polypropylene homopolymer can be formed from fractions of different polypropylene homopolymers (para. 0046). While it is noted that Stadlbauer is silent to the to specific fractional amounts for each fraction, the disclosure of a bimodal polypropylene homopolymer having different fractions would include and encompass the claimed ranges given it is a bimodal MWD. With respect to claim 10, since the material is the same as that claimed, the sealing initiation temperature of the polypropylene homopolymer of Stadlbauer would include and encompass the claimed range. The polypropylene of Stadlbauer possesses an improved balance between mechanical and processing properties (para. 0007). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polypropylene homopolymer of Stadlbauer as the polypropylene homopolymer of Fiebig.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783