DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-3, 9, 11-14, and 19-20 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, 3, 11, 12, and 13 recite a broad range and a narrower range within the same claim thereby rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(c)(I). For purposes of examination, the claims will be read as reciting only the broadest ranges.
Claim 14 is rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 13.
Claim 14 recites exemplary language thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite, i.e. it is unclear as to whether the claimed impurities include species other than those recited. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claims 19 and 20 recite a method of using without setting forth any method steps thereby rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites the use of a product without setting forth any steps by which use can be made. Examiner suggests amending claims 19 or 20 to read either “A method of using the film according to claim 1…” or “A stretch wrap film comprising the film according to claim 1.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication WO 2018/233807 to Buit et al. cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 3 November 2023 (herein Buit) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2022/0227977 to Kleczek et al. (herein Kleczek).
Regarding claims 1-3, Buit teaches a multilayer stretch film (abstract) comprising a first skin layer, a second skin layer, at least one first inner layer, and at least one second inner layer (page 2, lines 1-5) wherein the at least one first inner layer and at least one second inner layer can be a first and second microlayer within two groups of microlayers within the stretch film (page 5, lines 18-30). Buit teaches that the two groups of microlayers are disposed on either side of a core layer wherein the core layer comprises only linear low density polyethylene (herein LLDPE) (page 6, lines 4-11), and a first sub-skin layer and second sub-skin layer are disposed between the groups of microlayers and the first and second skin layers (page 6, lines 20-23) such that the first skin layer, second skin layer, first sub-skin layer, second sub-skin layer, groups of microlayers, and core layer correspond to the first outer layer, second outer layer, layer A, layer B, layers C and D, and the core layer recited in the instant claims, respectively. Buit teaches that the first and second microlayers, as the first and second inner layers, can be at least one of a polypropylene (herein PP) terpolymer, a PP plastomer (corresponding to the claimed PP heterophasic copolymer), or a propylene-butene random copolymer (page 2, lines 4-6) and all the first microlayers and all the second microlayers can make up at least 10% of the thickness of the stretch film each (page 7, lines 1-4) such that the amount of PP plastomer present overlaps the claimed range recited in the instant claims. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Buit teaches that the core layers and the sub-skin layers can be made of the same material (page 6, lines 31-32) and the skin layers contain LLDPE (page 4, line 28 – page 5, line 5). Buit also teaches that the sub-skin layers each make up between 1 and 10% of the total thickness and the core layer makes up between 2 and 20% of the total thickness of the stretch film (page 7, line 30 – page 8, line 3).
Buit is silent as to the stretch film containing any recycled post-consumer waste material.
Kleczek teaches stretch films containing recycled polyethylene and virgin polyethylene (abstract) wherein the recycled polyethylene is a post-consumer recycled resin (herein PCR) (paragraph 0024). Kleczek teaches that the PCR and virgin polyethylene combine into a recycled polyethylene composition (paragraph 0029) that contains 0.1 to 100 wt% of PCR (paragraph 0031). Kleczek teaches that the recycled polyethylene composition can be used in a stretch film requiring LLDPE (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core and sub-skin layers of Buit to use the recycled polyethylene composition of Kleczek because it would reduce the generation of waste polyethylene (paragraph 0002).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining the layer thickness teachings of Buit with the PCR content teachings of Kleczek render a range of PCR content that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, the core layers and sub-skin layers of Buit as modified according to Kleczek would contain a blend of post-consumer and virgin LLDPE and no LDPE.
Regarding claims 4 and 5¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Buit as modified according to Kleczek teach a core layer and sub-skin layers containing PCR.
Regarding claims 6-9¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Buit teaches two groups of microlayers wherein the first microlayers contain a PP plastomer and the second microlayers contain a PP terpolymer or a propylene-butene random copolymer (page 2, lines 4-6). Buit also teaches that the first and second microlayers alternate within the groups of microlayers (page 5, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 10¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Buit as modified according to Kleczek has a first and second skin layer that does not contain PCR.
Regarding claim 12¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
The core and sub-skin layers of Buit as modified according to Kleczek contain a blend of virgin and post-consumer LLDPE, i.e. no LDPE.
Regarding claims 16 and 18¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Buit teaches that the stretch film is made via an extrusion process having 5 extruders A, B, C, D, and E wherein some extruders may extrude the same material (page 13, lines 26-30) such that the extruders provide the materials for the various layers of the stretch film. Buit as modified according to Kleczek would have an extruder for forming the sub-skin layers extruding a blend of post-consumer and virgin LLDPE and another extruder extruding the PP plastomer for the first microlayers.
Regarding claims 19 and 20¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Buit teaches a stretch wrap film (abstract). Buit is silent as to how much the film is stretched during wrapping; however the inventive examples of Buit demonstrate an ultimate stretch of at least 350% (Tables 2 and 4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buit and Kleczek as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2015/0140304 to Manrique et al. (herein Manrique).
Regarding claim 11¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Buit teaches that the PP plastomer can any suitable PP plastomer (page 2, lines 9-10).
Buit is silent as to the density and melt flow rate of the PP plastomer.
Manrique teaches a film comprising a propylene-based plastomer (abstract) wherein the film can be used as a stretch film (paragraph 0003). Manrique teaches that the plastomer has a density of 0.865 to 0.89 g/cm3 (paragraph 0047) and a melt flow rate at 210°C of 3 to 10 g/10 min (paragraph 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastomer of Buit to be the plastomer of Manrique because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buit and Kleczek as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2022/0145054 to Essers et al. (herein Essers).
Regarding claims 13-15¸ Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kleczek is silent as to the impurities present in PCR.
Essers teaches a composition comprising recycled polyethylene (abstract). Essers teaches that under DSD 329, recycled polyethylene can contain up to 6% by mass of impurities such as metals, glass, papers, stones, wood, textiles, organic waste (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PCR of Kleczek to follow the impurity limits taught by Essers because it is the standard by which impurities in recycled polyethylene is graded.
Examiner notes that pages 8 and 9 of the specification disclose that it is the impurities that result in the claimed gel counts; therefore, the PCR of Kleczek as modified to follow the impurities guidelines taught by Essers would meet the limitations of claim 15.
Claim(s) 1, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buit in view of Kleczek.
Regarding claim 1, Buit teaches a multilayer stretch film (abstract) comprising a first skin layer and a second skin layer (page 2, lines 1-5). Buit teaches that the stretch film comprises a first inner layer, a second inner layer, and a core layer disposed therebetween (page 3, lines 27-29) wherein the core layer comprises only LLDPE (page 4, lines 3-5), such that the first skin layer, second skin layer, first inner layer, second inner layer, and core layer correspond to the first outer layer, second outer layer, layer A, layer B, and central layer recited in the instant claims, respectively. Buit teaches that the first and second inner layers can be at least one of a polypropylene wherein PP) terpolymer, a PP plastomer (corresponding to the claimed PP heterophasic copolymer), or a propylene-butene random copolymer (page 2, lines 4-6) and the first and second inner layers make up 15 to 30% of the total thickness of the stretch film each such that the amount of PP plastomer present overlaps the claimed range recited in the instant claims. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Buit teaches that the skin layers contain LLDPE (page 4, line 28 – page 5, line 5). Buit also teaches that the core layer makes up between 2 and 20% of the total thickness of the stretch film (page 7, line 30 – page 8, line 3).
Buit is silent as to the stretch film containing any recycled post-consumer waste material.
Kleczek teaches stretch films containing recycled polyethylene and virgin polyethylene (abstract) wherein the recycled polyethylene is a post-consumer recycled resin (herein PCR) (paragraph 0024). Kleczek teaches that the PCR and virgin polyethylene combine into a recycled polyethylene composition (paragraph 0029) that contains 0.1 to 100 wt% of PCR (paragraph 0031). Kleczek teaches that the recycled polyethylene composition can be used in a stretch film requiring LLDPE (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core layer of Buit to use the recycled polyethylene composition of Kleczek because it would reduce the generation of waste polyethylene (paragraph 0002).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining the layer thickness teachings of Buit with the PCR content teachings of Kleczek render a range of PCR content that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, the core layer of Buit as modified according to Kleczek would contain a blend of post-consumer and virgin LLDPE and no LDPE.
Regarding claims 16 and 17¸Buit and Kleczek teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Buit teaches that the stretch film is made via an extrusion process having 5 extruders A, B, C, D, and E wherein some extruders may extrude the same material (page 13, lines 26-30) such that the extruders provide the materials for the various layers of the stretch film. Buit as modified according to Kleczek would have an extruder for extruding the PP plastomer of the first and/or second inner layers.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights