Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 are currently pending with claims 10, 11, 13, 17, and 20 being cancelled.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejection over Van der Ven in view of DeVaudreuil and Li has been overcome in view of the present amendment and response. Li discloses the use of polypropylene regrind in the foam layer and the skin layer. Therefore, the combination of Van der Ven, DeVaudreuil and Li fails to disclose or suggest a multilayer sheet where a foam layer comprises a polyethylene regrind.
So has the rejection over Van der Ven in view of Boswell and Li.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Sun et al. (US 2015/0014879).
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0137804 to Van der Ven et al. (hereinafter “Van der Ven”) in view of 6,114,025 to DeVaudreuil et al. (hereinafter “DeVaudreuil”) and US 2015/0014879 to Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”).
As to claims 1, 14-16, 18, and 19, Van der Ven discloses a foamed film comprising five film layers: a foamed layer, an intermediate layer on both sides of the foamed layer, an outer layer on both sides of the intermediate layer (paragraph 23). The foamed layer comprises LDPE, and LLDPE (paragraph 27). The foamed layer comprises a blend of LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE (paragraph 28). The examiner equates the intermediate layer to the claimed polymeric-lamination layer.
Van der Ven also discloses that the foamed film has large surface roughness resulting in a low gloss and a reduction of the print finish (paragraph 5). This is a clear indication that an ink layer is printed onto the outer layer.
Van der Ven does not explicitly disclose:
the foamed layer comprising (a) a base resin composed of (i) a polyethylene and (ii) an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, an ethylene-ethylacrylate copolymer, an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer, or any combination thereof; and (b) a polyethylene-based regrind component;
the intermediate layer comprising regrind.
Devaudreuil, however, discloses a film/foam laminate comprising a foam layer 14, a laminate layer 12 on both sides of the foam layer, a liner layer 16 on one of the laminate layers, and an outer shell layer 18 on other laminate layer (figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
10: film/foam laminate
14: foam layer
12: laminate layer
16: liner layer
18: outer shell layer
The foam layer comprises 1-90 wt% of LLDPE and 10-99 wt% of a resiliency modifier resin (column 2, lines 60-65) wherein the resiliency modifier resin comprises an ethylene-vinyl acetate or an ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (column 4, lines 30-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an ethylene-vinyl acetate or an ethylene acrylic acid copolymer disclosed in Devaudreuil in the foam layer disclosed in Van der Ven, motivated by the desire to enhance resiliency.
Sun, however, discloses a multilayer sheet comprising an inner skin layer, an outer skin layer and a foam core sandwiched between the inner and outer skin layers (paragraph 38). Each layer of the multilayer sheet includes at least one HDPE base resin (paragraph 38). The HDPE base resin is either 100% virgin HDPE; or a combination of virgin HDPE and polyethylene regrind derived from recycled bottles (paragraphs 237 and 238). Sun discloses that the polyethylene regrind is present in an amount 20-80 wt% based on the total weight of the foam layer.
Sun does not explicitly disclose the skin layer obtained from a composition comprising a combination of 20-80 wt% of virgin HDPE and 80-20 wt% of polyethylene regrind. However, Sun discloses that both the foam core and the skin layer include the same base resin. Therefore, using virgin HDPE and HDPE regrind in the skin layer, similar to what is done in the foam layer, would be an obvious choice to achieve the same benefits of cost effectiveness and reduced environmental pollution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the regrind from Sun in the foam layer and the intermediate layer disclosed in Van der Ven, motivated by the desire to lower the cost of material and help reducing environmental pollution without compromising the weight, density and the flexural modulus of the foamed film.
As to claims 2-5, Van der Ven discloses that the intermediate layer comprises a blend of LDPE with LLDPE and/or HDPE (paragraph 29).
As to claims 6-9, and 19, Van der Ven discloses that the foamed layer comprises a blend of LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE (paragraph 28).
As to claim 12, Van der Ven discloses that the foamed film has large surface roughness resulting in a low gloss and a reduction of the print finish (paragraph 5). This is a clear indication that an ink layer is printed onto the outer layer.
Van der Ven does not explicitly disclose the ink layer provided on both outer layers. However, the foamed film has a symmetrical structure; printing the designs on both outer layers would improve user convenience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print the designs on both outer layers motivated by the desire to improve user convenience.
As to claims 21 and 22, Van der Ven discloses that the outer layer comprises a blend of LDPE with LLDPE and/or HDPE (paragraph 30).
As to claims 23-25, Van der Ven discloses that each layer contains appropriate amounts of additives including pigments corresponding to the claimed colorant.
Response to Arguments
The claim is not rendered obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Van der Ven, Devaudreuil and Li. However, new combination of Van der Ven, Devaudreuil and Sun suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Ven et al. in view of Sun and US 2015/0307264 to Boswell et al. (hereinafter “Boswell”).
As to claims 1, 14-16, 18, and 21, Van der Ven discloses a foamed film comprising five film layers: a foamed layer, an intermediate layer on both sides of the foamed layer, an outer layer on both sides of the intermediate layer (paragraph 23). The foamed layer comprises LDPE, and LLDPE (paragraph 27). The foamed layer comprises a blend of LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE (paragraph 28). The examiner equates the intermediate layer to the claimed polymeric-lamination layer.
Van der Ven also discloses that the foamed film has large surface roughness resulting in a low gloss and a reduction of the print finish (paragraph 5). This is a clear indication that an ink layer is printed onto the outer layer.
Van der Ven does not explicitly disclose:
the foamed layer comprising (a) a base resin composed of (i) a polyethylene and (ii) an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, an ethylene-ethylacrylate copolymer, an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer, or any combination thereof; and (b) a polyethylene-based regrind component;
the intermediate layer comprising regrind.
Boswell, however, discloses a container comprising a laminate including a first non-foamed polyethylene layer, a second non-foamed polyethylene layer and a foamed polyethylene layer sandwiched between the first and second non-foamed polyethylene layers (paragraphs 9-13). The laminate further includes a printed layer defining an outermost surface of the container (paragraph 13). The foamed polyethylene layer comprises polyethylene and a small amount of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and/or ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (paragraph 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an ethylene-vinyl acetate or an ethylene acrylic acid copolymer disclosed in Boswell in the foam layer disclosed in Van der Ven, motivated by the desire to enhance resiliency.
Sun, however, discloses a multilayer sheet comprising an inner skin layer, an outer skin layer and a foam core sandwiched between the inner and outer skin layers (paragraph 38). Each layer of the multilayer sheet includes at least one HDPE base resin (paragraph 38). The HDPE base resin is either 100% virgin HDPE; or a combination of virgin HDPE and polyethylene-based regrind derived from recycled foam bottles (paragraphs 237 and 238). Sun discloses that the regrind is present in an amount 20-80 wt% based on the total weight of the foam layer.
Sun does not explicitly disclose the skin layer obtained from a composition comprising a combination of 20-80 wt% of virgin HDPE and 80-20 wt% of polyethylene regrind. However, Sun discloses that both the foam core and the skin layer include the same base resin. Therefore, using virgin HDPE and HDPE regrind in the skin layer, similar to what is done in the foam layer, would be an obvious choice to achieve the same benefits of cost effectiveness and reduced environmental pollution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the regrind from Sun in the foam layer and the intermediate layer disclosed in Van der Ven, motivated by the desire to lower the cost of material and help reducing environmental pollution without compromising the weight, density and the flexural modulus of the foamed film.
As to claims 2-5, Van der Ven discloses that the intermediate layer comprises a blend of LDPE with LLDPE and/or HDPE (paragraph 29).
As to claims 6-9, and 19, Van der Ven discloses that the foamed layer comprises a blend of LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE (paragraph 28).
As to claim 12, Van der Ven discloses that the foamed film has large surface roughness resulting in a low gloss and a reduction of the print finish (paragraph 5). This is a clear indication that an ink layer is printed onto the outer layer.
Van der Ven does not explicitly disclose the ink layer provided on both outer layers. However, the foamed film has a symmetrical structure; printing the designs on both outer layers would improve user convenience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print the designs on both outer layers motivated by the desire to improve user convenience.
As to claims 21 and 22, Van der Ven discloses that the outer layer comprises a blend of LDPE with LLDPE and/or HDPE (paragraph 30).
As to claims 23-25, Van der Ven discloses that each layer contains appropriate amounts of additives including pigments corresponding to the claimed colorant.
Response to Arguments
The claim is not rendered obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Van der Ven, Boswell and Li. However, new combination of Van der Ven, Boswell and Sun suggests the claimed invention.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights