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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 14-16, 20-22, 25, and 27-30 are pending. Claims 8-10, 14-16, and 27-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1, 3-6, 20-22, 25, and 30 being examined as being directed to the elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities. In line 2, the term “35%” should be changed to “35 mol%”.
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, 3-6, 20-22, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012/164308.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘308 discloses a naked collation film comprising polyolefin inner and outer sealing layers on the opposite surface of a polyolefin film, wherein the outer sealing layer is sealable to itself and to the inner sealing layer and both the inner and outer sealing layers comprise C2, C3, and C4 polyolefins (Examples 1 and 2, pg 11, lines 9-16).
Regarding the limitations (a) in claim 1 that at least one of the sealing layers has a C4 content of greater than 10 mol%, (b) in claim 4 that at least one of the sealing layers has a C4 content of greater than 10.5 mol%, (c) in claim 5 that the outer sealing layer has a C4 content of greater than 10 mol%, (d) in claim 6 that the inner and outer sealing layers has a C4 content of greater than 10 mol%, (e) in claim 20 that at least one sealing layer has a C4:C2 molar ratio of at least 1.2:1, (f) in claim 21 that at least one sealing layer has a C4:C3 molar ratio of at least 0.15:1, and (g) in claim 30 that at least one of the sealing layers has a C4 content of greater than 10 mol% and up to 35 mol%, these amounts and ratio are disclosed in the preferred amounts when a copolymer of propylene/ethylene/butene is used as the sealing layer (pg 11, lines 9-16). While the Examples in WO ‘308 do not set forth the mol % of the copolymers and terpolymers, one skilled in the art would have used the preferred ranges set forth in the disclosure (pg 11, lines 9-16) as guidance when preparing the copolymers and terpolymers of the Examples. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used one of the terpolymers illustrated below for the outer sealing layer. See MPEP 2143.I. Rationale (E).
The below calculations converts the disclosed weight percentages to the claimed mol% and ratio, wherein the C4 content is 25% and 12.5%, both of which are explicitly disclosed as being preferred amounts (pg 11, lines 14-16):
Monomer
Mol Mass
Preferred amounts
Mol%
ethylene (C2)
28.05 g/mol
5%
3.1%
propylene (C3)
42.08 g/mol
70%
65.6%
butene (C4)
56.11 g/mol
25%
31.3%
C4:C2 ratio = 10.0
C4:C3 ratio = 0.5
Monomer
Mol Mass
Preferred amounts
Mol%
ethylene (C2)
28.05 g/mol
2.5%
1.6%
propylene (C3)
42.08 g/mol
85%
82.3%
butene (C4)
56.11 g/mol
12.5%
16.1%
C4:C2 ratio = 10.0
C4:C3 ratio = 0.2
Regarding claim 3, inner and outer sealing layers comprising a copolymer of propylene/ethylene/butene is disclosed (pg 11, lines 9-10; Examples 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 22, the core layer can be a polyolefin homopolymer or copolymer (pg 18, lines 8-10).
WO ‘308 does not specifically disclose the melting point of the outer sealing layer being above 75C (claim 1) or 80C (claim 25). However, WO ‘308 discloses that the naked collation film can be heat sealed at a temperature of about 95C (pg 8, line 12). Further, as detailed above, WO ‘308 uses the same polyolefin copolymers and terpolymers as the materials for the outer sealing layer. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05.II.A, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the present instance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a naked collation film having an outer heat sealing layer that had a melting point above 80C, motivated by the desire to obtain a film that would not seal at temperatures below this temperature during application of the film in the wrapping process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over WO ‘308 have been withdrawn in view of the present amendments/arguments.
The arguments that the skilled artisan has no motivation to select the values cited in the previous Office action and there would be no expectation of success are not persuasive. As set forth in the Advisory Action of February 04, 2026, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use these values and other similar values based on the preferred butene content ranges disclosed in WO ‘308 on page 11, lines 15-16. As detailed above in paragraph 8, while the Examples in WO ‘308 do not set forth the mol % of the copolymers and terpolymers, one skilled in the art would have used the preferred ranges set forth in the disclosure (pg 11, lines 9-16) as guidance when preparing the copolymers and terpolymers of the Examples. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used one of the terpolymers illustrated below for the outer sealing layer. See MPEP 2143.I. Rationale (E).
The argument that the claimed invention demonstrates unexpected results is not supported by any evidence on the record. Further, the argument that selecting values as set forth in the previous Office action could not have been done in practice without undue experimentation is not persuasive. As set forth in the above paragraph, page 11, lines 9-16 provides a roadmap for the skilled artisan to prepare the copolymers and terpolymers set forth in the Examples.
Regarding the argument that WO ‘308 does not disclose the feature of “the outer sealing layer comprising at least one copolymer or terpolymer having a melting point above 75C”, this is addressed above in paragraph 12. Further, as noted in the previous Office action, the melting point of polymeric outer sealing layer determines at what temperature the sealing layer starts to melt and function as a heat sealable layer. Thus, the specific disclosure that the outer sealing layer can serve as a heat seal layer at 95C taken with the disclosure that the outer sealing layer contains the same compositional components make is reasonable to conclude that the claimed melting point limitation is inherently met by the naked collation film of WO ‘308. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the melting point of at least one of the polymeric materials of the outer sealing layer to be within the claimed range of above 75C motivated by the desire to obtain a naked collation film that has desired heat seal-ability properties. The argument that WO ‘308 references the heat-sealing temperature for the film rather than discussing the melting point of any particular component within the outer sealing layer is not persuasive. One skilled in the art would appreciate that the component(s) that make up the outer sealing layer would control the heat seal properties of the overall film, since the outer layer is the sealing layer of the naked collation film.
The argument that WO ‘308 requires an anti-block component comprising at least 0.2 wt% silicone, whereas the presently claimed invention does not, is not persuasive. Specifically, the claims are not commensurate in scope with this argument. That is, the claims are in open claim language and do not exclude the presence of an anti-block component. Moreover, the Examples in the present application include a silicone anti-block component (pg 13, lines 19-21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights