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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 12/11/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application; with claims 15 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Semaan et al. (WO 2020/207940 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Semaan”.
Regarding claim 1, Semaan teaches a polyethylene film, comprising an outer layer (layer A), a core layer (layer B) and an inner layer (layer A) (claims 1, 5 and 13; page 6, lines 23-26; page 7, lines 5-8; and examples 1, 2). Semaan teaches that the core layer (B) is made of a core layer composition comprising a component (b1), which is a recycled low density ethylene polymer in an amount of at least 50 wt.% (claim 13; 65-75 wt.%), based on the total weight of the core layer composition, and a slip agent (claim 5). Semaan also teaches that the inner layer(A) is made of an inner layer composition comprising a component (a1; page 6, lines 23-26; page 7, lines 5-8; examples 1, and 2), which is a linear low density ethylene polymer having a density of from 910 to 925 kg/m3 and an MFR2 of from 0.5 to 2.0 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133. The use of the film as a “sealant film” is a matter of intended application.
Regarding claim 2, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the component is an ethylene copolymer having a density of from 916 to 920 kg/m3 (page 7, lines 5-8), and an MFR2 of from 1.2 to 1.8 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133 (page 6, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 3, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the inner layer composition further comprises a component, which is an ethylene-based plastomer; by teaching to use a multimodal polymer of ethylene with at least two different comonomers selected from alpha-olefins having from 4 to 10 carbon atoms, which multi modal polymer of ethylene has a density in the range from 910 to 935 kg/m3 (overlapping the range of 860-915), and a Mw/Mn of 2 to 8 (overlapping the range of below 8) defining plastomeric properties.
Regarding claim 4, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the inner layer composition comprises a slip agent in an amount of from 50 to 5000 ppm, and/or an anti-block agent in an amount of from 50 to 5000 ppm, each being based on the total weight of the inner layer composition (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the component AC (core layer, b1) has an MFR2 of from 0.25 to 1.0 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133, and/or a density of from 910 to 940 kg/m3 (claim 13).
Regarding claim 8, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the core layer composition comprises from 50 to 5000 ppm of the slip agent, based on the total weight of the core layer composition (claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the inner layer composition comprises from 20 to 60 wt. % of the component AI, and optionally from 40 to 80 wt. % of the component BI, each being based on the total weight of the inner layer composition; by teaching 5 to 25 wt.% of (a1), 50 to 90 wt. % (a3) (claim 3).
Regarding claim 16, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the component AI (inner layer, a2) is a multimodal ethylene terpolymer having a density of from 916 to 920 kg/m3 (page 13, lines 12-17); and an MFR2 of from 1.2 to 1.8 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133 (page 13, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 17, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the component BI (inner layer, a1) is a copolymer of ethylene and a C3 to C10 alpha-olefin (claim 13) having an MFR2 of from 0.5 to 2.0 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133 (page 6, lines 23-26), and/or a density of from 880 to 912 kg/m3 (claim 13).
.
Regarding claim 18, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the component BC (core layer, b2) is a multimodal ethylene terpolymer (claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the component BC (core layer, b2) is present in an amount of from 10 to 50 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core layer composition. (claim 13).
Regarding claim 20, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the inner layer composition further comprises from 100 to 3000 ppm of the slip agent and from 200 to 4000 ppm of the anti-block agent, each being based on the total weight of the inner layer composition (claim 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 5, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Semaan et al. (WO 2020/207940 A1), in view of Farkas et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0370201 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Farkas”.
Regarding claim 5, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the layers comprise of slip agents. But Semaan fails to explicitly teach the use of fatty acid amides, such as erucamide, oleamide or stearamide, and combinations thereof as slip agents. However, Farkas teaches the use of slip agent of erucamide or other fatty acid amide, such as, oleamide. The slip agent lowers the coefficient friction of the film and allows it to slide readily over various surfaces (para. {0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Farkas and use a known technique of using slip agents that comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of fatty acid amides, such as erucamide, oleamide or stearamide, and combinations thereof, because that would lower the coefficient friction of the film and allows it to slide readily over various surfaces (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 11, and 13, Semaan, in view of Farkas teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the layers comprise of slip agents, wherein the slip agent lowers the coefficient friction of the film and allows it to slide readily over various surfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the composition and processing parameters would be optimized so that the final articles have desired frictional properties. Therefore, maintaining the polyethylene sealant film to have a dynamic coefficient of friction after 7 days of up to 0.30, determined according to ASTM D 1894, determined according to ASTM F 2029; ASTM F 88 (as claimed in claim 11); and the laminated polyethylene film to have a dynamic coefficient of friction after 4 days of up to 0.30, determined according to ASTM D1894 (as claimed in claim 13), would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Semaan et al. (WO 2020/207940 A1), in view of Pey et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0346440 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Pey”.
Regarding claim 10, Semaan teaches a polyethylene sealant film, comprising of inner core, and outer layers. But Semaan fails to explicitly teach that the outer layer is made of an outer layer composition, which is different from the inner layer composition. However, Pey teaches in an exemplary embodiment where the sealant of the multilayer film comprises a sealant outer layer, a sealant inner layer, and a sealant core layer between the sealant outer layer and the sealant inner layer, wherein the multilayer film may comprise in each of the layers a polyethylene, in the form of a polyethylene composition comprising polyethylene with different densities (para. [0087]). The resultant laminate films are employed to prepare stand-up pouches (SUPs), with sufficient stiffness-related and toughness-related properties to ensure package integrity without distortion and rupture, especially during packaging and transportation (para. [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Pey and use polyethylene of different density (composition) for the different layers including inner and outer layer, because that would allow to provide sufficient stiffness-related and toughness-related properties to ensure package integrity without distortion and rupture, especially during packaging and transportation by optimizing the inner and outer layer composition.
Regarding claims 12, and 14, Semaan, in view of Pey teaches a polyethylene sealant film, wherein the resultant laminate films adhered to a substrate, are employed to prepare stand-up pouches (SUPs) (equivalent to an article), with sufficient stiffness-related and toughness-related properties to ensure package integrity without distortion and rupture, especially during packaging and transportation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject
matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a polyethylene sealant film comprising “wherein the core layer composition further comprises a component BC, which is a linear low density ethylene polymer having an MFRs of from 0.5 to 5 g/10 min, determined according to ISO 1133, and a density of from 920 to 940 kg/m3”
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on 12/11/2025, see page 5, for the 102 rejection of independent claim 1, has been fully considered. Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1 has been considered, but is not persuasive. The examiner takes the position that the use of the film as a sealant film is a matter of intended application. Additionally, Semaan teaches that the core layer (B) is made of a core layer composition comprising a slip agent (claim 5). Finally, the argument that Semaan does not teach an inner layer that contains solely LLDPE is also not persuasive, as the claim recitation uses the word “comprising” which is open ended. Therefore, The Examiner maintains that based on the teaching of Semaan, the rejection set forth in this office action address the scope of the claim, and is relevant.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to the rejection of dependent claim 7, under 102 rejections have been fully considered, and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, and the claim has been indicated as having allowable material.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the independent claim, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742