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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 15-28 are currently pending. Claims 15-28 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-27 recites properties of the multilayered polyethylene film according to claim 15. Claim 15 is drawn to a multilayer film comprising a first layer (a) and a second layer (b). The properties recited in claims 23-27 are determined on a 3-layered blown film (e.g., specification 0241-0247 and the claims as originally filed). There does not appear to be support in the specification for the properties across the breadth of all film structures e.g., a 2-layer film/non-blown film.
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.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson et al. (WO 2019/081611).
Regarding claim 15, Jamieson discloses a multilayer film comprising at least two layers (page 1, lines 1-5). Layer (A) acting as a sealing layer and a layer (B) as a core layer (page 5, lines 1-5). The Layer (A) including a multimodal polymer of ethylene produced using a metallocene catalyst (page 17 line 3- page 18, line 5). The multimodal polymer of ethylene comprising a linear low density polyethylene having a density of 915 to 930 kg/m3 (page 6, lines 1-5), overlapping the claimed density of 910 to 916 kg/m3; and a MFR2 of 0.5 to 10 g/10 min (page 6, lines 15-20), overlapping the claimed MFR2 of 0.5 to 2.5 g/10 min. As Jamieson teaches the multimodal polymer in layer (A) being 60 wt% to 100 wt%, other materials such as LDPE or additives are optional (page 10, lines 10-20 and page 24, lines 25-30), overlapping the claimed 60 to 100 wt%. Lastly, as applicant places no limitations on the fractions/components of the ethylene polymer component, an any ethylene can be subdivided into individual fractions/components the polymer of Jamieson will consist of the ethylene polymer component as claimed.
Layer (B) comprising a multimodal ethylene copolymer or terpolymer, which may be Ziegler-Natta catalyzed (page 14, lines 15-20) having a density of 910 to 940 kg/m3 (page 10, lines 25-30); and a MFR5 in a range of 0.1 to 10 g/10 min (page 11, lines 8-10), overlapping the claimed range of 0.3 to 4.0 g/10 min. Jamieson teaches that layer (B) may include up to 30 wt% of the multimodal ethylene polymer (A) (page 14, lines 25-30), thus teaching addition of a second multimodal metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene. Polymer (A) having a density of 915 to 930 kg/m3 (page 6, lines 1-5), overlapping the claimed density of 910 to 925 kg/m3; and a MFR2 of 0.5 to 10 g/10 min (page 6, lines 15-20), overlapping the claimed MFR2 of 0.5 to 2.5 g/10 min. As Jamieson teaches other material as optional (page 15, lines 1-5), Jamieson teaches 70 to 100 wt% of the multimodal ethylene copolymer or terpolymer, overlapping the claimed 60 to 99 wt%.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 16 and 22, Jamieson teaches the film comprising an outer layer (C) with layer (B) a core layer between layers (A) and (C) (page 5, lines 5-7).
Jamieson teaches layer (C) comprising the multimodal polymer of ethylene (A) which is metallocene catalyzed (page 17 line 3- page 18, line 5); has a density of 915 to 930 kg/m3 (page 6, lines 1-5), overlapping the claimed density of 910 to 925 kg/m3; and a MFR2 of 0.5 to 10 g/10 min (page 6, lines 15-20), overlapping the claimed MFR2 of 0.5 to 2.5 g/10 min. Jamieson teaches layer (C) may comprise LDPE having a density of 905 to 940 kg/m3 and MFR2 of 0.1 to 20 g/10 min (page 10, lines 15-20), overlapping the claimed density of 910 to 940 kg/m3 and MFR2 of 0.05 to 2.0 g/10 min.
Jamieson teaches the multimodal polymer added in an amount of at least 60 to 100 wt% and LDPE added in an amount of 1 to 20 wt% (page 24, lines 25-30), overlapping the 70 to 99 wt% and 1 to 30 wt% (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, Jamieson teaches the multimodal polymer of ethylene of layer (A) having a MFR21/MFR2 of 13 to 35 (page 6, lines 20-25), overlapping the claimed range of 22 to 50 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Jamieson teaches the multimodal polymer of ethylene (A) may include a copolymer of ethylene with 1-butene and 1-hexene (page 6, lines 25-30).
Jamieson does not teach at total amount of 1-butene or 1-hexene in weight percentage. However, Jamieson teaches that the difference between comonomer type and content between the butene and hexene components contributes to the advantageous sealing properties (page 9, lines 10-15), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as comonomer content through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Jamieson teaches the core copolymer may include a multimodal ethylene terpolymer (Bt) including a LMW ethylene homopolymer component and a HMW ethylene component is a terpolymer of ethylene, 1-butene, and 1-hexene (page 13, lines 10-15 and lines 25-30). The LMW polymer having a lower molecular weight than the HMW component (page 13, lines 5-10), has a MFR2 of 50 to 3000 g/10 min (page 14, lines 1-5), overlapping the claimed range of 200 to 800 g/10 min (MPEP 2144.05); density of 940 to 975 kg/m3 (page 14, lines 5-6), overlapping the claimed range of 940 to 980 kg/m3 (MPEP 2144.05); a comonomer content in a range of 0.5 to 8.0 mol% (page 13, lines 15-20), overlapping the claimed range of 0 to 2.5% (MPEP 2144.05). The higher molecular weight component having a lower MFR2 and lower density than the lower molecular weight component (page 14, lines 10-11).
Jamieson does not disclose the MFR2 according to ISO 1133 or density according to ISO 1183, however, an overlapping range would be expected as patentability is not based upon method of measurement but whether or not the property would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Jamieson teaches the multimodal polymer of ethylene of layer (A) having a MFR21/MFR2 of 13 to 35 (page 6, lines 20-25), overlapping the claimed range of 13 to 40 (MPEP 2144.05).
Jamieson teaches the polymer having a lower MW component (Ai) and higher molecular weight component (Aii) (page 7, lines 15-16).
Component (Ai) having a MFR2 of 1 to 50 g/10 min (page 7, lines 15-20) overlapping the claimed 1.0 to 10.0 g/10 min and a density of 925 to 950 kg/m3 (page 9, lines 15-20, overlapping the claimed density range of 930 to 950 kg/m3 (MPEP 2144.05).
Jamieson teaches the MFR2 and density of Ai is higher than Aii (page 9, lines 15-20 and 25-30).
Jamieson does not expressly teach a MFR2 for component Aii. However, given a MFR2 of component Ai of 1 to 50 g/10 min, and a teaching that the MFR2 of Ai is higher than the MFR2 of Aii, the range of MFR2 of Aii would be greater than 0 to less than 50 g/10 min, overlapping the claimed 0.2 to 2.5 g/10 min.
Regarding claim 23, Jamieson teaches a sealing initiation temperature less than 100oC (page 28, lines 13-15), overlapping the claimed below 76oC. While not teaching a film thickness of 60 µm, an overlapping range would still be expected given Jamieson teaches sealing at lower temperatures at different film thicknesses (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Jamieson teaches a hot tack temperature of between 82 and 95oC according to ASTM F 1921-28, method B (page 28, lines 5-10), overlapping the claimed less than 90oC (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 25, Jamieson teaches a hot tack force of 3.0 N or more according to ASTM F 1921-98, method B (page 28, lines 1-5), overlapping the claimed at least 5.6 N or more (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 26, Jamieson does not teach a dart-drop impact strength on a 60 µm 3-layered blown film. However, as Jamieson teaches the same claimed film, this property would be expected from the film of Jamieson.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claim 27, Jamieson teaches a sealing initiation temperature less than 100oC (page 28, lines 13-15), overlapping the claimed below 76oC. While not teaching a film thickness of 60 µm, an overlapping range would still be expected given Jamieson teaches sealing at lower temperatures at different film thicknesses.
Jamieson further teaches one of parameters b or c: a hot tack temperature of between 82 and 95oC according to ASTM F 1921-28, method B (page 28, lines 5-10), overlapping the claimed range of 65 to 88 oC (MPEP 2144.05).
a hot tack force of 3.0 N or more according to ASTM F 1921-98, method B (page 28, lines 1-5), overlapping the claimed at least 5.6 N or more (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 28, Jamieson teaches the film may be fore packaging food stuffs (page 3, lines 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 03/06/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, due to the amendments a new 35 U.C.C. 112(a) rejection over claims 23-27 has been made.
Applicant’s arguments over Jamieson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jamieson does not teach a mLLDPe-1 that consists of an ethylene polymer component consisting of an ethylene polymer fraction (A-1), an ethylene polymer fraction (A-2), and an ethylene polymer component (B).
Any ethylene can be subdivided into individual fractions/components. Applicant has not provided any structure or properties limiting the structure of or defining the fractions/components.
Applicant further argues that Jamison does not suggest using a mLLDPE to improve the films sealing initiation temperature and hot tack temperature.
Jamison expressly teaches that the ethylene polymer contributes to highly advantageous sealing and hot tack properties (page 9, lines 10-15).
It is further noted that Jamison teaches overlapping ranges for these properties. It is noted that minimally data points outside of the claimed range, within the claimed range, and at or proximate the claimed endpoints of the range are suggested to establish criticality of a claimed range.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights