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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 21 recite the limitation "the ethylene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the claimed fractions are introduced in claim 17, while the current claims are dependent from claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (WO 2021/074785, of record).
Wang is directed to a composition comprising 50-99 weight percent of a metallocene catalyzed multimodal copolymer (claimed copolymer P) and 1 to 50 weight percent of recycled polyethylene (claimed recycling blend B) (Page 1, Lines 25-30 and Page 21, Liners 1-10).
With respect to said multimodal copolymer, Wang teaches the following makeup:
First ethylene copolymer, which can include hexene, has a density as low as “about” 0.920 g/cm3 and a melt index I2 (MFR2) of less than about 0.4 g/10 min (Page 11, Lines 26+- corresponds with claimed ethylene-hexene polymer component B),
Second ethylene copolymer, which can include butene, has a density below 0.967 g/cm3 and a melt index I2 (MFR2) of from about 100 to 10,000 g/10 min (Page 14, Lines 16+- corresponds with claimed ethylene-butene polymer component A),
The first ethylene copolymer has a loading between 30% and 90% and the second copolymer has a loading between 10% and 70% (Page 17, Lines 21+), and
The multimodal copolymer has a density from 0.930 g/cm3-0.970 g/cm3 and a melt index I2 (MFR 2) from about 0.1 to 12 g/10 min (Page 19, Lines 23+).
In regards to the density of the first ethylene copolymer, a density of “about” 0.920 g/cm3 is seen to suggest densities less than 0.920 g/cm3 and such would include a density, for example, of 0.915 g/cm3.
In regards to the claimed ratio between MFR21 and MFR2 (claims 16 and 20), one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the multimodal copolymer of Wang to satisfy the claimed invention since the claims are directed to a broad range of ratios and the multimodal copolymer of Wang has a density and a MFR2 that are consistent with the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the multimodal copolymer of Wang is extremely similar to that of the claimed invention and as such, it reasons that the claimed ratio would be satisfied in Wang.
Lastly, regarding claim 16 (and claims 25 and 26), the general disclosure of “recycled polyethylene”, disclosed as including postindustrial recycle and post-consumer recycled resins, would have been recognized as encompassing the claimed amount of ethylene units (a fair reading, for example, does not suggest the exclusive use of a blend formed with 100 weight percent of ethylene units- would include the presence of any number of common ethylene-based copolymers or mixtures and thus additional units, including C3 units associated with polypropylene).
With respect to claims 17, 18, and 21, a density and a melt flow index can be the same such that any arbitrary portion of the multimodal copolymer can be viewed as fraction A-1 and a remainder of the copolymer can be viewed as fraction A-2.
As to claim 19, the multimodal copolymer of Wang has a melt index I2 or MFR2 between 0.1 and 12 g/10 min (Page 19, Lines 23+).
Regarding claim 22, the multimodal copolymer of Wang has a density between 0.930 g/cm3 and 0.970 g/cm3. It is well recognized that a prima facie case of obviousness can exist where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05). In such an instance, a density of 925 kg/m3 (0.925 g/cm3) is extremely close to a density of 930 kg/m3 (0.930 g/cm3) and thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the multimodal copolymer of Wang in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 23 and 27, the loadings identified above fully encompass those required by the claimed invention.
As to claim 24, the specific type of metallocene complex appears to be directed to the method of forming the multimodal copolymer and such fails to further define the structure of the claimed composition including a multimodal copolymer (lack of evidence that the specific type of catalyst results in a materially different multimodal copolymer). Also, Wang teaches the use of metallocene catalysts (Page 21, Lines 1+) and such is seen to encompass the claimed metallocene catalysts.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, as detailed above, the general disclosure of “recycled polyethylene”, disclosed as including postindustrial recycle and post-consumer recycled resins, would include the presence of any number of common ethylene-based copolymers or mixtures and thus additional units (including polypropylene- C3 units).
With respect to claims 28-30, Wang is broadly directed to a molded article prepared from a given composition (Page 3, Lines 31+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a general disclosure as encompassing any number of applications for the disclosed composition, including in a film assembly. It is emphasized that polyethylene compositions are extensively used in film assemblies designed for both food applications and non-food applications. With specific respect to claim 29, given that the polyethylene composition of Wang is extremely similar to that of the claimed invention, it reasons that the claimed properties would be present in the film assembly (and method) of Wang (appears to be a direct function of the polyethylene composition).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fell (WO 2005/14680) is directed to a bimodal polyethylene composition comprising a low molecular weight polymer (copolymer of ethylene and1-butene) and a high molecular weight polymer (copolymer of ethylene and 1-hexene), wherein said low molecular weight polymer has MFR2 between 1 and 400 g/10 min and a density between 905 kg/m3 and 975 kg/m3 and a composition as a whole has MFR2 between 0.4 and 100 g/10 min and a density between 870 kg/m3 and 940 kg/m3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights