DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment and response filed on June 17, 2026 has been entered. 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 Claims 8-10, 14-16, and 27-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 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 the newly added limitation to claim 1 of “wherein one or both of the inner and outer sealing layers comprise a blend of two or more copolymers”, the instant specification defines “copolymers” on page 8, lines 24-30 as being “biopolymers, terpolymers and copolymers of four or more constituents polymer parts”. WO ‘308 discloses on page 8, lines 11-19 “The sealing layers will generally comprise one or more polyolefinic homopolymers, one or more polyolefinic copolymers, or mixtures of two or more thereof. By ‘copolymers’ in this sense is meant any number of constituent polymer parts (such as ethylene, propylene, butene or any olefin having up to ten carbon atoms), so that bipolymers, terpolymers and copolymers of four or more constituent polymer parts are all included, for example. Both random and block copolymers are included in this definition, and the sealing layers may additionally or alternatively comprise blends of one or more homopolymers, copolymers or mixtures thereof. In preferred embodiments of the present invention, the inner and / or outer sealing layers comprise copolymers of propylene/ethylene, of propylene/butene, or of propylene/ethylene/butene, or of blends thereof.” (Emphasis added). Further, claim 13 of WO ‘308 specially claims a sealing layer comprising a blend of polyolefinic copolymers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a blend of polyolefinic copolymers as the sealing layers in WO ‘308 and to have selected the copolymers based on the preferred amounts of C2, C3, and C4 set forth above, motivated by the disclosure in WO ‘308 that blends of copolymers can be used for the sealing layers.
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 June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous claim objection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment.
The argument that the reliance on pages 11, lines 9-16 of WO ‘308 is directed to a terpolymer and there is no teaching or suggestion of the C4 content in any other type of copolymer is not persuasive because the present specification defines “copolymers” on page 8, lines 24-30 as being “biopolymers, terpolymers and copolymers of four or more constituents polymer parts”. See paragraph 8 above, that sets forth the obviousness rationale for this newly added claim limitation.
The argument that this section [of WO ‘308] only relates to a single component in the inner and/or outer sealing layer and does not consider the C4 content of blends of two or more copolymers is not persuasive because, if a blend of two or more copolymers were to be used in the sealing layers of WO ‘308, as explicitly disclosed in WO ‘308, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the blend would desirably contain copolymers having the disclosed preferred amounts of C4 set froth in the WO ‘308. That is, using a blend of copolymers having the disclosed preferred amounts of C4 would yield a sealing layer having a C4 content of the overall layer of greater than 10 mol%.
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 previously on the record, 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 herein 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 and herein could not have been done in practice without impermissible hindsight 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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