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 .
Preliminary amendment filed 8/19/2026 is made of record. Claims 1-14 are cancelled; and claims 15-20 are amended and currently pending in the application.
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 (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.
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 15, 17 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seeman et al (WO 2020/207940 A1).
It is noted that WO 2020/207940 A1 (WO) is being utilized for date purposes. However, US equivalent for WO, namely, Seeman et al (US 2022/0097351 A1) is referred to in the body of the rejection below. All column and line citations are to the US equivalent.
Regarding claim 15, disclose a multilayer collation shrink film comprising at least the following layers: a layer comprising at least the following components: (b1) recycled LORE and (b2) a multimodal terpolymer of ethylene and two α-olefin comonomers (abstract) which reads on the multimodal polymer in present claim 15. The multilayer collation shrink film has a layer comprising (b1) recycled LDPE and (b2) a multimodal terpolymer of ethylene and two α-olefin comonomers. The multimodal terpolymer b2 has a density in the range of 920 to 950 kg/m3 (paragraph 0096) which reads on the density of multimodal copolymer in present claim 15. The multimodal polyethylene terpolymer (b2) comprises (B-1) a lower molecular weight copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene (i.e., reads on ethylene-1-butene polymer component A in present claim 15); and (B-2) a higher molecular weight copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene (paragraphs 0086 and 0089-0090) which reads on ethylene-1-hexene polymer component B in present claim 15. The density of lower molecular weight component may be 930 to 980 kg/m3 (paragraph 0104) which reads on the density of ethylene-1-butene polymer A in present claim 15. The higher molecular weight component has a density of less than 915 kg/m3 (paragraph 0108) which reads on the density of ethylene-1-hexene polymer B in present claim 15. The MFR21 of the multimodal terpolymer b2 is preferably in the range of 10.0 to 100 g/10 min (paragraph 0098) which reads on the MFR21 of multimodal polymer in present claim 15. The lower molecular weight and higher molecular weight components are present in amount of 30 to 70 wt% (paragraph 0105) which reads on the wt% of ethylene-1-butene polymer component A and ethylene-1-hexene polymer component B in present claim 15. The higher molecular weight component has a MFR2 of less than 1.0 g/ 10 min (paragraph 0107) which reads on the MFR2 of ethylene-1-hexene polymer component B in present claim 15. The higher molecular weight component of multimodal polyethylene terpolymer b2 has a lower MFR2 than the lower molecular weight component (paragraph 0106) and MFR2 of ethylene-1-butene polymer component A of present claim 15 is implicit in MFR2 being greater than 1.0 g/10 min Recycled LDPE’s are known and include Ecoplast NAV 101 (paragraph 0127). Ecoplast NAV 101 has a density of 923.9 kg/m3 (i.e., reads on the density of mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend in present claim 15), MFR2 of 1.02 g/10 min (i.e., reads on melt flow rate of mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend in present claim 15), ethylene content is 90.67 wt% (see Table A and bridging paragraph page 32-33 of present application) which reads on total amount of ethylene units in present claim 15. The content of component b1 in layer B is from 60 to 95 wt% (paragraph 0121) which reads on amount of mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend in present claim 15. The amount of multimodal copolymer P of 5 to 40 wt% is implicit based on the amount of component b1 in layer B (i.e., reads on the amount of multimodal copolymer P in present claim 15).
Seeman et al are silent with respect to metallocene catalysed multimodal copolymer, and MFR2 of multimodal copolymer P.
However, regarding metallocene catalysed multimodal copolymer, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding MFR2 of multimodal copolymer P, it is known to one skilled in art that melt flow rate is inversely related to the molecular weight of a polymer. Given that MFR21 which is a measure of the molecular weight falls within the presently claimed range of 5 to 80 g/10 min, one skilled in art would have a reasonable basis to expect the multimodal copolymer P to inherently exhibit MFR2 falling within the range of 0.1 to 1.2 g/10 min, since MFR2 and MFR21 are different means of measuring the melt flow of a polymer which is inversely related to molecular weight. Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, multimodal polyethylene terpolymer (b2) comprises (B-2) a higher molecular weight copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene (paragraphs 0086 and 0089-0090). The higher molecular weight component has a MFR2 of less than 1.0 g/ 10 min (paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 19, MFR21 of the multimodal terpolymer b2 is preferably in the range of 10.0 to 100 g/10 min (paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 20, multimodal polyethylene terpolymer (b2) comprises (B-1) a lower molecular weight copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene (paragraphs 0086 and 0089-0090). The density of lower molecular weight component may be 930 to 980 kg/m3 (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 21, multimodal polyethylene terpolymer (b2) comprises (B-1) a lower molecular weight copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene and (B-2) a higher molecular weight copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene (paragraphs 0086 and 0089-0090). The lower molecular weight and higher molecular weight components are present in amount of 30 to 70 wt% (paragraph 0105).
Regarding claim 22, Recycled LDPE’s are known and include Ecoplast NAV 101 (paragraph 0127). Ecoplast NAV 101 has ethylene content is 90.67 wt% (i.e., reads on amount of ethylene units in present claim 22), iPP of 3.89 wt% (i.e., reads on continuous units having 3 carbon atoms in present claim 22) (see Table A and bridging paragraph page 32-33 of present application).
Regarding claim 23, Recycled LDPE’s are known and include Ecoplast NAV 101 (paragraph 0127). Ecoplast NAV 101 has isolated C3 content of 0.0 wt%, C4 content of 2.23 wt%, C6 content of 2.73 wt%, C7 content of 0.48 wt% and LDPE content of 33 wt% (see Table A and bridging paragraph page 32-33 of present application).
Regarding claim 24, Recycled LDPE’s are known and include Ecoplast NAV 101 (paragraph 0127). Ecoplast NAV 101 has a density of 923.9 kg/m3 and MFR2 of 1.02 g/10 min (see Table A and bridging paragraph page 32-33 of present application).
Regarding claim 25, content of component b1 in layer B is from 60 to 95 wt% (paragraph 0121) which reads on amount of mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend in present claim 25. The amount of multimodal copolymer P of 5 to 40 wt% is implicit based on the amount of component b1 in layer B (i.e., reads on the amount of multimodal copolymer P in present claim 25).
Regarding claim 26, collation shrink film has a layer comprising (b1) recycled LDPE and (b2) a multimodal terpolymer of ethylene and two α-olefin comonomers. (paragraph 0096) which reads on the film comprising composition of claim 15.
Regarding claim 27, given that film is formed from a composition comprising the components of present claim 25, it is the Office’s position that the film layer B, of Seeman et al, possesses the claimed properties (such as dart-drop impact strength (DDI) when determined according to ASTM D1709 method A on a 40 µm monolayer test blown film of 130 g to 500 g, a tensile modulus (measured on a 40 µm monolayer test blown film according to ISO 527-3) in machine (MD) as well as in transverse (TD) direction in a range of from 180 MPa to 350 MPa; an optomechanical ability (OMA) according to formula (I): Tensile Modulus (MD) [MPa] * DDI (g) / Haze (40 µm) [%] of films determined on a 40 µm test blown film of 1600 [MPa*g/%] to 5000 [MPa*g/%]). Case law holds that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 28, Seeman teach a method for manufacturing the film for secondary packaging (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6566. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/KARUNA P REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights