DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment and response filed on February 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-32 are pending.
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 1-6, 12, 14-21, 27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pub 2020/0017669) as evidenced by Rosato et al. (Plastic Product Material and Process Selection Handbook).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, US ‘669 discloses a biaxially oriented [0206] polyethylene film structure that can comprise at least three layers [0204], wherein the layers comprise 5-80 wt% of a first polyethylene which is an ethylene copolymer (claim 1, [0071]) and 5-80 wt% of a second polyethylene which can be a homopolymer (claim 1, [0122]). The density of the first polyethylene can be up to 0.975 g/cm3 [0076]. The density of the second polyethylene can be up to 0.985 g/cm3 [0129]. The polyethylene homopolymer can comprise a nucleating agent [0234]. US ‘669 does not specifically disclose a working example or embodiment that combines the claimed features of a film structure comprising at least three adjacent layers wherein each layer contains a first polyethylene having a density of greater than 0.940 g/cm3 and a second polyethylene having a density of greater than 0.950 g/cm3. However, as noted above, US ‘669 does disclose the polyethylene blend can be used to form multilayer film structures and that the polyethylene components can have a density within the presently claimed ranges. Rosato discloses that it is well known in the polyethylene art that density affects the properties of articles formed from a polyethylene. For example, see Tables 2.3 and 2.4 (pages 46 and 47), that illustrate that tensile strength and stiffness increase with density and impact strength and flexural strength decrease with density. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to formed a multilayer structure containing at least three adjacent layers of polyethylene, as disclosed in US ‘669, wherein the polyethylene components are high density polyethylene, motivated by the desire to obtain a multilayer film having high tensile strength, as evidenced by Rosato.
Regarding claims 16 and 27, these claims differ from claims 1 and 12, respectively, only in that claim 1 recites that the film structure comprises “at least three adjacent layers” and claim 16 recites that the film structure comprises “a core layer; a first skin layer adjacent to a first side of the core layer; and a second skin layer adjacent to a second side of the core layer”. From a broadest reasonable interpretation standpoint, the scope of these limitations are deemed to be equivalent. Accordingly, it is deemed that the disclosure that the polyethylene blend of US ‘669 can be used to manufacture multilayer films that contain at least three layers [0204] reads on both of these claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, US ‘669 discloses that the polyethylene homopolymer can have a density of rom about 0.951 g/cm3 to about 0.975 g/cm3 [0130].
Regarding claims 3 and 18, US ‘669 discloses that the polyethylene homopolymer can have a melt index within the presently claimed range [0131].
Regarding claims 4 and 19, US ‘669 discloses that a third polyethylene that can be a second ethylene homopolymer can be present within the claim amount (claim 1, [0146]) and the melt ratio of the first ethylene homopolymer and second homopolymer can be from 15 to 50 (claim 36).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, US ‘669 discloses that the first polyethylene can have a density of 0.855 g/cm3 to 0.965 g/cm3 [0107], which overlaps with the presently claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 sets forth that “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”.
Regarding claims 6 and 21, US ‘669 discloses that the first polyethylene can have a melt index within the presently claimed range [0109].
Regarding claims 14, 29, and 31, US ‘669 discloses a haze value of less than 15 percent [0218].
Regarding claims 15, 30, and 32, US ‘669 discloses the multilayer film can have desired clarity properties [0207], but does not specifically disclose any clarity values of the film structure. Based on the disclosure in US ‘669 that the film structure can have desired clarity properties and that the film structure has the same haze values and uses the same materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared the film structure of US ‘669 wherein the film structure exhibits a clarity of greater than 80%, motivated by the desire to obtain a film structure having desired optical properties.
Claims 7-11, 13, 22-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pub 2020/0017669) as evidenced by Rosato et al. (Plastic Product Material and Process Selection Handbook) in view of Wang (US Pub 2018/0079898).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 22-24, US ‘669 does not disclose that the first polyethylene has a MW distribution of 3.0 to 20.0 or 8.5 to 20.0 or a Mz of at least 500,000 g/mol. US ‘898 discloses a similar polyethylene blend that has a first polyethylene that has a MW distribution of 3.0 to 13.0 (claim 7, [0014], [0049]) and a Mz of 400,000 to 520,000 g/mol [0161]. US ‘898 states that the disclosed polyethylene blends are useful in the formation of films [0001]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a polyethylene having a MW distribution and Mz within the claimed ranges, as disclosed in US ‘898, in the manufacturing of the multilayer film structure of US ‘669, motivated by the desire to use a MW distribution and Mz that was suitable for use in a polyethylene blend that can be formed into a film.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, US ‘669 does not disclose the amount of nucleating agent that can be used. US ‘898 discloses that it is known in the polyethylene art to use 100 to 3000 ppm of a nucleating agent [0018]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the nucleating agent of US ‘669 within the instantly claimed amount of 100 to 3000 ppm, as taught by US ‘898, motivated by the desire to use a conventionally known amount of nucleating agent in the polyethylene blend.
Regarding claims 11 and 26, US ‘669 does not disclose the use of a salt of a dicarboxylic acid as the nucleating agent. US ‘898 discloses that it is known in the polyethylene art to use a salt of dicarboxylic acid as the nucleating agent [0235]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a salt of dicarboxylic acid as the nucleating agent in the polyethylene of US ‘669, as taught by US ‘898, motivated by the desire to use a conventionally known nucleating agent in the polyethylene blend.
Regarding claims 13 and 28, US ‘669 does not disclose the blend polyethylene comprising 90-99.5 wt% of the first polyethylene and 0.5-10 wt% of the second polyethylene. As stated above, US ‘669 discloses a blend comprising 5-80 wt% of the first polyethylene and 5-80 wt% of the second polyethylene. Thus, US ‘669 overlaps with the amount of second polyethylene but does not overlap with the amount of the first polyethylene. However, it is known in the art, as taught in US ‘898, to include a first polyethylene in an amount of up to 95 wt% (claim 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have discovered workable ranges of the first polyethylene by routine experimentation and the teachings of US ‘898, motivated by the desire to optimize the properties of the film resulting from the polyethylene blend.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim objections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the present amendment.
Applicant argue that Wang ‘669 discloses a polyethylene blend comprising a first polymer having a density of 0.855 to 0.965 g/cm3 and a second polymer having a density of about 0.985 g/cm3, but these density ranges are simply provided in passing. It is further argued that the density ranges actually taught in Wang ‘669 are much lower and outside of the claimed ranges. This argument is not persuasive because these density ranges overlap with the presently claimed density ranges. Additionally, the fact that Wang ‘669 disclose preferred density ranges outside of the claimed density ranges or includes examples and embodiments of polyethylene components having a density outside of the presently claimed range does not negate the literal disclosure of the broader density ranges that overlap with the presently claimed density ranges.
Additionally, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to apply the teachings of Wang ‘669 to biaxially oriented films. Specifically, it is argued that Wang ‘669 is almost entirely directed toward blown film applications and there is no teaching or suggestion in Wang ‘669 that a HDPE composition having a density of at least 0.950 g/cm3 could be successfully used in a BOPE film application. This argument is not persuasive because Wang ‘669 specifically states that “[t]he polyethylene composition disclosed herein can be used in a wide range of manufactured articles…Non-limited examples of such manufactured articles include…oriented films, machine direction and biaxially oriented films” [0206]. Further, Wang ‘669 discloses an embodiment where the polyethylene composition is stretched in two directions, i.e., MD and TD directions [0200].
Further, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that blown films require different polyethylene properties than a biaxially oriented film, since the method of making the films greatly differs. While this statement is true, this does not overcome the specific teachings noted above in Wang ‘669. It is noted that the prior art rejection is not an anticipation rejection over Wang ‘669 but rather an obviousness rejection (see paragraph 5 above). It is recognized that Wang ‘669 does not disclose a specific working example that combines the claimed features of a film structure comprising at least three adjacent layers wherein each layer contains a first polyethylene having a density of greater than 0.940 g/cm3 and a second polyethylene having a density of greater than 0.950 g/cm3. However, as noted above, US ‘669 does disclose the polyethylene blend can be used to form multilayer film structures and that the polyethylene components can have a density within the presently claimed ranges. Rosato discloses that it is well known in the polyethylene art that density affects the properties of articles formed from a polyethylene. For example, see Tables 2.3 and 2.4 (pages 46 and 47), that illustrate that tensile strength and stiffness increase with density and impact strength and flexural strength decrease with density. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to formed a multilayer structure containing at least three adjacent layers of polyethylene, as disclosed in US ‘669, wherein the polyethylene components are high density polyethylene, motivated by the desire to obtain a multilayer film having high tensile strength, as evidenced by Rosato. See MPEP 2143, KSR rationale (E). That is, based on using the teachings of Wang ‘669, one skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used the higher density polyethylene ranges as a roadmap to prepare a multilayer film having the claimed densities.
Lastly, with respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 7-9 and 22-24, it is argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the properties of a polyethylene composition are not independently selectable. This argument is not persuasive because Wang ‘898 is relied upon to show that it is known in the art to use polyethylene compositions having the claimed molecular weight distribution and Mz within the presently claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have discovered workable molecular weight distributions and Mz ranges through routine experimentation based on the combined disclosures of Wang ‘669 and Wang ‘898.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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