DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 7, 8, 11, and 12, please replace “the range” with “a range” (four occurrences).
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 16, please replace “same as for” with “same as that of”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 2, 3, 5, and 6, please replace “the range” with “a range” (four occurrences).
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 8, 10 and 12, please replace “the range” with “a range” (three occurrences).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “most preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of density (line 5) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “yet more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of MFR2 (lines 6 and 7) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiments of MFR2 of ethylene polymer fractions (line 9 to page 5, line 2) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 5, line 1, please replace “fractions” with “fraction”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 5, line 2, please replace “fractions” with “fraction”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 5, line 3, please replace “same as for” with “same as that of”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2 and 4, delete the hyphens that start each line.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of MFR2 (lines 2 and 3) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of MFR2 (lines 4 and 5) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of MFR2 (lines 6 and 7) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of ratio MFR21/MFR2 (line 3) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the range” with “a range”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of amount of 1-butene (line 3) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “the range” with “a range”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of amount of 1-hexene (line 5) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the range” with “a range”.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “even more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of amount of 1-butene (lines 3 and 4) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “the range” with “a range”.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of amount of 1-hexene (line 6) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of rheological polydispersity index (line 4) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of shear thinning index (line 6) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, replace “may be further characterized by” with “has”.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of shear thinning index (line 4) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 9, please replace “n is 1 to 2” with “n is 1 or 2”.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 7, line 12, please replace “p is 0 to 1” with “p is 0 or 1”.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “Blown” with “A blown”.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “Film” with “The blown film”.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “film is comprising” with “blown film comprises”.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “even more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of sealing initiation temperature (page 8, lines 1 and 2) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “Film” with “The blown film”.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “film is comprising” with “blown film comprises”.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of dart drop impact strength (line 3) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “Film” with “The blown film”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “film is comprising having” with “blown film comprises” or “blown film has”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “even more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of sealing initiation temperature (lines 3 to 5) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “even more preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of dart drop impact strength (lines 8 and 9) as separate dependent claims is recommended.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “Film” with “The blown film”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “films have” with “blown film has”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “the range” with “a range”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, replace the symbol “ > ” with “greater than”.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Although claim construction utilizing the terms “preferably” is no longer considered egregious, rewriting the limitation of preferable embodiment of tensile modulus (line 3) as a separate dependent claim is recommended.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at page 4, line 10 recites a rheological polydispersity index range of greater than 0.57 to 2.0 Pa-1. Claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the lower bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 0.58 to 2.0 Pa-1 or 1.9 to 2.0 Pa-1. For clarity, Applicant may claim a range with definite endpoints such as from 0.57 to 2.0 Pa-1 or define a range using inequality format, i.e., greater than 0.57 Pa-1 and less than 2.0 Pa-1.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at page 4, line 13 recites a shear thinning index range of greater than 1.80 to 10.0. Claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the lower bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 1.81 to 10.0 or 9.9 to 10.0. For clarity, Applicant may claim a range with definite endpoints such as from 1.80 to 10.0 or define a range using inequality format, i.e., greater than 1.80 and less than 10.0.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim recites limitations for ethylene polymer component (A), ethylene polymer component (B), and multimodal copolymer (P). Use of the conjunction “and” in line 3 renders claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the following limitations are claimed.
(A) and (B) and (P) = (A), (B), (P)
(A) and (B) or (P) = (A), (B)
(A), (P)
(P)
For clarity, Applicant may delete the conjunction “and” in line 3.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the ethylene-1-butene polymer” in line 4 of claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the ethylene-1-hexene polymer” in line 7 of claim.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at line 3 recites a dart drop impact strength of at least 500 g to 1200 g. Claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the lower bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 500 g to 1200 g or 1190 g to 1200 g. For clarity, Applicant may claim a range with definite endpoints such as from 500 g to 1200 g or define a range using inequality format, i.e., greater than 500 g and less than 1200 g.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at line 3 recites a dart drop impact strength of 700 g to more than 900 g. Enablement of a limitless, open-ended range notwithstanding, claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the upper bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 700 g to 910 g or 700 g to 9000 g.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at line 8 recites a dart drop impact strength of at least 500 g to 1200 g. Claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the lower bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 500 g to 1200 g or 1190 g to 1200 g. For clarity, Applicant may claim a range with definite endpoints such as from 500 g to 1200 g or define a range using inequality format, i.e., greater than 500 g and less than 1200 g.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at line 9 recites a dart drop impact strength of 700 g to more than 900 g. Enablement of a limitless, open-ended range notwithstanding, claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the upper bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 700 g to 910 g or 700 g to 9000 g.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim at line 9 recites a tensile modulus of > 150 MPa to 400 MPa. Claim is indefinite because it is unclear where the lower bound of claimed range lies exactly. For instance, it is unclear whether the range is set at 155 MPa to 400 MPa or 390 MPa to 400 MPa. For clarity, Applicant may claim a range with definite endpoints such as from 150 MPa to 400 MPa or define a range using inequality format, i.e., greater than 150 MPa and less than 400 MPa.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim provides for “use” of a film but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim at line 8 states that the MFR2 of ethylene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2) may be the same or different from each other. Independent claim 16 at line 14 stipulates that MFR2 of ethylene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2) are different from each other. Since MFR2 of ethylene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2) may be the same, claim 17 fails to limit further the subject of claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Subject of claims is patentably distinct over prior art listed in Applicant’s PTO-1449 and over references cited in the accompanying PTO-892. None of the references teaches the subject of instant claims. Claims are not in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights