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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/17/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In this case, there is no concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the reference to Stadelhofer, J. et al. (1975), listed as item #8, under the non-patent literature section of the IDS, which is not in the English language.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 in lines 2 – 3 should be amended to “and a ratio of MIR / (Mz/Mw) is less than 10”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 7, 15 – 18 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.
Claim 1 recites in line 7, “a melt index ratio (I2.16/I21.6) of 10 to 50”. It is not clear if this is an error or if the Applicant intended to claim the melt index ratio as such. Note that the known customary definition in the art of melt index ratio (MIR) is defined as I21.6/I2.16. For example, Applicant specification paragraph [0050], defines the ratio as “(MIR, defined as I21.6/I2.16)”. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the melt index ratio as I21.6/I2.16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites in line 8, “Mw/Mn of 4 to 8”, which is inconsistent and is outside the Mw/Mn range disclosed in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, since claim 1 limits the polyethylene composition Mw/Mn to be of 5.5 or above, failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakoff et al. (US 2009/0156764 A1), in view of Loveday et al. (US 20040249091 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Malakoff et al. teaches a polyethylene composition comprising:
about 80 wt% to about 99 wt% ethylene-derived content (“Ethylene-based polymer compositions composed of blended polymers include at least 0.1 wt % and up to 99.9 wt % of the LLDPE” [0055]), and
about 1.0 wt% to about 20 wt% units derived from one or more C3 to C40 α-olefin comonomers, based on a total weight of the polyethylene composition (“from 0.1 to 50 wt. % of comonomer” [0018]-[0019], [0006], [0043]),
wherein the polyethylene composition comprises:
a density of 0.922 g/cm3 to 0.940 g/cm3 (“0.900 g/cm3 to about 0.955 g/cm3” [0020]
a melt index (I2.16) of 0.1 g/10 min to 5 g/10 min (“a melt index of from about 0.1 g/10 min to about 300 g/10 min” [0007], [0021]);
a melt index ratio (I2.16/I21.6) of 10 to 50 (“ a melt index ratio of from about 15 to about 45” [0007], [0022]);
a weight average molecular weight, Mw (LS) of 90,000 g/mol or above (“a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of from about 20,000 to about 200,000” [0007], [0030]);
a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) ratio (LS) of 1.5 to about 5 [0031];
a ratio of z-average molecular weight to weight-average molecular weight (Mz/Mw) of 2 to 5 (“from about 2.5 to about 3.2” [0032], [0093]);
a ratio of wt% comonomer at Mz (LS) to wt% comonomer at Mw (LS) of 1 to 5 (“from about 1.7 to about 3.5” [0007], [0032]);
a ratio of wt% comonomer at Mn (LS) to wt% comonomer at Mw (LS) of 0.1 to 0.9 (note this is nothing more than the inverse of the molecular weight distribution ratio, 1/(Mw/Mn) = 0.2 to about 0.6, see [0031]); and
a ratio of wt% comonomer at Mz (LS) to wt% comonomer at Mn (LS) of 2 to 10 (e.g., Mz/Mn = (Mz/Mw x Mw/Mn), therefore, since Malakoff et al. discloses that 1.7 <Mz/Mw<3.5, and that 1.5<Mw/Mn<5, a ratio of Mz to Mn would be about 2.55<Mz/Mn<17.5, overlapping the claimed range).
Malakoff et al. does not disclose a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) ratio (LS) of 5.5 or above.
Loveday et al. teaches an ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer (preferably C2 to C30 olefin(s) or alpha-olefin(s) [0049], [0057]-[0060]) having a density in the range of from about 0.87 g/cc to about 0.940 g/cc, that are “especially well suited for making films” (e.g., “oriented films” [0073], “in such forming operations as film, sheet, and fiber extrusion and co-extrusion as well as blow molding, injection molding and rotary molding” [0073]) having a new balance of film properties as compared to films commercially available metallocene produced resins of similar densities and melt index (MI) values [0041].
Loveday et al. discloses that the monomer supplied to the polymerization zone is regulated to provide a ratio of ethylene to alpha-olefin comonomer in proportion so as to yield a polyethylene of comonomer content, as a bulk measurement, preferably of from about 0.5 to about 5.0 mole % comonomer, to yield in bulk a resin of density preferably of from about 0.95 g/cc to about 0.915 g/cc. The reaction temperature, monomer residence time, and catalyst system component quantities molecular weight control agent (such as H2) are regulated so as to provide a resin, preferably a LLDPE resin of weight average molecular weight from about 25,000 to about 150,000, a number average molecular weight from about 3500 to about 60,000, so as to provide the resin, preferably a LLDPE resin, a molecular weight distribution value of from about 2.5 to about 7, preferably from about 3 to 7 [0077], [overlapping with the claimed molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) ratio (LS) of 5.5 or above].
At [0078], Loveday et al. discloses – inter alia – that the produced ethylene copolymers are more easily extruded into film products by cast or blown bubble film processing techniques with lower motor load, higher throughput and reduced head pressure, particularly the LLDPE resins of the invention, have for a comparable MI a higher weight average molecular weight and a broader MWD, greater melt strength and higher break velocity, and a new balance of stiffness and toughness and generally improved balance of tear and dart properties, as compared to EXCEED™ resins of comparable comonomer type and density, as well as a higher 1% secant modulus in the transverse direction and improved dart properties, and a higher energy specific output (ESO) value, by comparison to an EXCEED™ resin for conversion of it into a film.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Malakoff et al. polyethylene composition to comprise a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) ratio (LS) of 5.5 or above, by regulating production parameters such as the ratio of ethylene to alpha-olefin comonomer supplied to the polymerization zone, as well as the reaction temperature, monomer residence time, and catalyst system component quantities molecular weight control agent, so as to provide a LLDPE resin with a molecular weight distribution value of from about 2.5 to about 7, as suggested and taught by the prior art of Loveday et al. (e.g., from about 2.5 to about 7 [0077]), since Loveday et al. at [0078] teaches that the ethylene copolymers produced in this way, are more easily extruded into film products by cast or blown bubble film processing techniques with lower motor load, higher throughput and reduced head pressure, particularly the LLDPE resins of the invention, have for a comparable MI a higher weight average molecular weight and a broader MWD, greater melt strength and higher break velocity, and a new balance of stiffness and toughness and generally improved balance of tear and dart properties, as compared to commercially available resins. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 2, Malakoff/Loveday teaches the polyethylene composition of claim 1, wherein the C3 to C40 α-olefin comonomers is selected from the group consisting of 1-butene; 1-hexene, 1-octene, and combinations thereof (see e.g., Malakoff et al. [0018], and Loveday et al. [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Malakoff/Loveday teaches the polyethylene composition of claim 1,wherein the comonomer content is 6 wt.% to 12 wt.% (e.g., Malakoff et al. [0019] discloses “with from 0.1 to 50 wt % of comonomer, preferably, from 5 to 15 wt % of comonomer, and more preferably, from 2 to 20 wt % of comonomer”).
Regarding claim 4, Malakoff/Loveday teaches the polyethylene composition of claim 1, wherein the comonomer content is 7-10 wt% and the comonomer is 1-hexene (e.g., Malakoff [0019] discloses “with from 0.1 to 50 wt % of comonomer, preferably, from 5 to 15 wt % of comonomer, and more preferably, from 2 to 20 wt % of comonomer”, overlapping with the claimed range, and Malakoff et al. [0044] discloses “the alpha-olefin comonomer is hexene-1”).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the polyethylene composition of Malakoff/Loveday by selecting the portion of Malakoff et al. comonomer content range that corresponds to the claimed range, wherein the comonomer is 1-hexane, as suggested by Malakoff. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Malakoff/Loveday teaches the polyethylene composition of claim , further comprising:
z-average molecular weight (Mz) (LS) within the range from 200,000 g/mol to 500,000 g/mol (e.g., Malakoff [0030] discloses 25,000<Mw<150,000 and at [0032] discloses 2.2<Mz/Mw<3.5, therefore, z-average molecular weight can be found by calculating Mz/Mw x Mw = (2.2 x 25,000)<Mz<(3.5 x 150,000), approx. 55,000<Mz<525,000 overlapping the claimed range);
weight-average molecular weight (Mw) (LS) within the range from 50,000 g/mol to 110,000 g/mol (e.g., see Loveday [0070], [0080] “a weight average molecular weight of about 25,000 to 150,000”);
Mz/Mw ratio (LS) of 2 to 5 (see Malakoff [0032], and Loveday [0080]); and
Mw/Mn of 4 to 8 (e.g., see Malakoff [0031] “from about 1.5 to about 5”, and Loveday [0080] “the molecular weight distribution (MWD) is at least about 2.5 and at most 7, preferably from about 3 to 7”). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, Malakoff/Loveday teaches the polyethylene composition of claim 1, wherein the melt index ratio (MIR, I21.6/I2.16) is 15 to 40 (e.g., see Malakoff [0007] “a melt index ratio of from about 15 to about 45”, and [0022] “from about 10 to about 50”, and Loveday [0080] “greater than 15 to about 100, preferably in the range of from 18 to 50”) and
a ratio of MIR/(Mz/Mw) is less than 10 (e.g., Malakoff [0007] discloses 15<MIR<45, and Malakoff at [0030] discloses 2.2<Mz/Mw<3.5, therefore, 6.81<MIR/(Mz/Mw)<12.86, overlapping with the claimed range). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Malakoff/Loveday teaches the polyethylene composition of claim 1, wherein the melt index I2.16 is from 0.4 g/10 min to 2.0 g/10 min (Malakoff [0056] “ a melt index I2.16 of from about 0.1 to about 10 g/10 min”, overlapping the claimed range). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 8 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakoff et al. (US 2009/0156764 A1), in view of Loveday et al. (US 20040249091 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lernoux et al. (WO 2018/071250 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Malakoff/Loveday teaches an oriented polyethylene film comprising: a polyethylene composition of claim 1 (e.g., Malakoff [0074] discloses that the ethylene-based polymer compositions “may be used in a variety of end-use applications, including film-based products, which include”, among others, “oriented films”, [0075] discloses “Films may be unoriented, uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented”), except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the film has a 1% secant modulus (MPa) MD of 500 to 1,500; Tensile at break (MPa) MD of 100 to 300; and Peak force normalized, puncture (mN/mm) of 100 to 300 with a gauge thickness of 50 mils or less.
Malakoff, however, discloses that the “total thickness of multilayer films may vary based upon the application desired. A total film thickness of about 5-100 μm, is suitable for most applications. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the thickness of individual layers for multilayer films may be adjusted based on desired end-use performance, resin or copolymer employed, equipment capability, and other factors” [0078], and that the films can further be tailored to specific applications by adjusting the thickness, materials and order of the various layers, as well as the additives in or modifiers applied to each layer [0089].
Lernoux et al. teaches a similar polyethylene composition (e.g., see [0075]-[0087], Example 1 [00119]-[00123]), with application in oriented polyethylene film production [0052]-[0057], [00108]-[00115]. The composition used to manufacture films (e.g., Exceed XP 8656ML in Tables 7-8) with 1% secant modulus of 200 to 692 MPa (Table 8), tensile at break MD of 70 to 252 MPa (Table 8), and Peak force normalized puncture of 96 to 241 mN/mm (Table 7), with a gauge thickness of 11 to 85 μm (around 0.433 to 3.15 mils), see Tables 7-8, overlapping with the claimed “50 mils or less”.
As the film stiffness and suitability for its intended purposes are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said 1% Secant Moduli in one or more of the MD and TD directions, with said film stiffness increasing as the 1% Secant Modulus is increased, the precise 1% Secant Modulus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed 1% Secant Modulus cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition in the oriented polyethylene film of Malakoff/Loveday, with a composition, as suggested by Lernoux et al., to obtain the desired film properties such as 1% Secant Modulus, Tensile at break, and Peak force normalized, that result in the desired balance between the film stiffness and suitability for its intended purposes, as taught and suggested by US’748, (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 9 – 11, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the film of claim 8, wherein the film has a gauge thickness of 40 mils or less (claim 9), 35 mils or less (claim 10), and/or 15 mils or less (claim 11) – Malakoff discloses that the “total thickness of multilayer films may vary based upon the application desired. A total film thickness of about 5-100 μm [0.197 – 3.94 mils], is suitable for most applications. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the thickness of individual layers for multilayer films may be adjusted based on desired end-use performance, resin or copolymer employed, equipment capability, and other factors” [0078]. Furthermore, Lernoux et al. discloses the films could have a gauge thickness of 11 to 85 μm [0.433 to 3.15 mils], see Tables 7-8, overlapping with the claimed gauge thickness ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the film of claim 8, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the film has at least an 8x orientation.
Malakoff, however, discloses that the ethylene-based polymer compositions may be used in a variety of end-use applications, including film-based products, which include oriented films, and may be utilized to prepare monolayer films or multilayer films, may be unoriented, uniaxially oriented or biaxially oriented, with the films physical properties varying depending on e.g., the film forming techniques used [0074]-[0075], [0077], [0068]. Loveday also discloses that polymers produced by the process of the invention are useful in such forming operations as oriented films [0073].
Lernoux [0017]-[0019], [0044]-[0052] discloses a method to produce a machined direction oriented (MDO) ethylene-based polymer film comprising stretching the polymer film in the machine direction as an additional step. Lernoux explains that draw ratio through an MDO unit is the ratio of film length before MD orientation to the film length after MD orientation. This is stated, for example, as a draw ratio of 4, where 4 represents the film length after MD orientation relative to a film of unit length before MD orientation, i.e., the film has been stretched to 4 times the original length [0045], and discloses a MD orientation process consisting, inter alia, of the film entering a fast drawing roller having a speed that is, for example, 1.5 to 12 times faster than the slow draw roll, which effectively orients (stretches) the film on a continuous basis [0054]. Lernoux discloses the draw ratio can be from 1.1 to 12, e.g., from 1.5 to 6.0, from 1.5 to 4.5, or from 2 to 3 [0055] – hence, a film orientation of from 1.1x to 12x, overlapping the claimed range of at least an 8x orientation. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Lernoux [0046] further discloses that it had been believed that orientation in the machine direction negatively affected MD tear strength, but that his method of producing a film and then increasing the MD tear of the produced film by orienting (which involves stretching) the crystalline film in the machine direction to increase the film's machine direction orientation, “surprisingly results in an oriented film having increased MD tear”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the polyethylene composition of Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux by selecting the portion of Lernoux film orientation range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the oriented polyethylene film of Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux for the purpose of, as suggested by Lernoux, obtain an oriented film having increased MD tear (Lernoux [0046]). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 13, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the film of claim 12, wherein the film has at least a 10x orientation. Lernoux discloses the draw ratio can be from 1.1 to 12, e.g., from 1.5 to 6.0, from 1.5 to 4.5, or from 2 to 3 [0055] – hence, a film orientation of from 1.1x to 12x, overlapping the claimed range of at least a 10x orientation. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I), and the discussion of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the film of claim 8, wherein the film has one or more of the following properties:
(d) 1% secant modulus (MPa) MD of 500 to 1,500 (e.g., Lernoux Table 8, Exceed XP 8656ML, 1% secant modulus MD of 200 to 692 MPa – overlapping the claimed range);
(f) Tensile at break (MPa) MD of 100 to 300 (e.g., Lernoux Table 8, Exceed XP 8656ML, Tensile strength @ break MD of 65 to 252 MPa – overlapping the claimed range);
(h) Peak force normalized, puncture (mN/µm) of 100 to 300 (e.g., Lernoux Table 7, Exceed XP 8656ML, Peak puncture force, normalized of 70 to 241 mN/µm – overlapping the claimed range).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux oriented polyethylene film by selecting the portion of Lernoux film orientation range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the oriented polyethylene film of Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux for the purpose of, as suggested by Lernoux, obtain an oriented film having increased MD tear (Lernoux [0046]). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 15, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the method for making a film, comprising: producing a polymer melt comprising a polyethylene composition of claim 1 (see the discussion of claim 1 and claim 8 above);
extruding a film from the polymer melt (e.g., Malakoff [0090], [0110], Loveday [0078], [0123], Lernoux [0048]-[0049], [00126]); and orienting the film in a machine direction at a temperature below the melting temperature of the polyethylene composition [Lernoux [0054] discloses “The orientation temperature may be up to the polymer's melt temperature.” – under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), “may be up to” implies those temperatures below the composition melt temperatures are included],
where the film has a gauge thickness less than 15 mils (e.g., see Lernoux [0056]),
a 1% secant modulus (MPa) MD of 500 to 1,500 (e.g., Lernoux Table 8, Exceed XP 8656ML, Tensile strength @ break MD of 65 to 252 MPa – overlapping the claimed range);
Tensile at break (MPa) MD of 100 to 300 (e.g., Lernoux Table 8, Exceed XP 8656ML, Tensile strength @ break MD of 65 to 252 MPa – overlapping the claimed range); and
Peak force normalized, puncture (mN/mm) of 100 to 300 (e.g., Lernoux Table 7, Exceed XP 8656ML, Peak puncture force, normalized of 70 to 241 mN/µm – overlapping the claimed range).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the orientation temperature in the method for making a film of Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux by selecting the portion of Lernoux orientation temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the orientation temperature in the method of Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux for the purpose of, as suggested by Lernoux, obtain an oriented film having increased MD tear (Lernoux [0046]). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 16, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the 1% secant modulus (MPa) MD is 500 to 1,000 (e.g., Lernoux Table 8, Exceed XP 8656ML, Tensile strength @ break MD of 65 to 252 MPa – overlapping the claimed range); Tensile at break (MPa) MD is 100 to 200 (e.g., Lernoux Table 8, Exceed XP 8656ML, Tensile strength @ break MD of 65 to 252 MPa – overlapping the claimed range); and Peak force normalized, puncture (mN/mm) is 100 to 200 (e.g., Lernoux Table 7, Exceed XP 8656ML, Peak puncture force, normalized of 70 to 241 mN/µm – overlapping the claimed range).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 17, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the orientation in the machine direction is at least 8x (see the discussion of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 18, Malakoff/Loveday/Lernoux teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the orientation in the machine direction is at least 10x (see the discussion of claims 12 and 13 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 9814491 A1: The film can be treated to improve its wettability and adhesion to coatings such as, for example, inks. Such treatments are conventional and known in the art, for example, exposing the film to corona discharge, flame treating, and the like. As noted hereinabove, the high biaxial orientation employed in the invention requires use of cast HDPE sheets having substantially higher thicknesses than are currently used for monoaxial orientation. For example, for a film which is MD stretched to a degree of 6:1 and TD stretched to a degree of 10:1, the film is reduced in thickness by a dimensional factor proportional to the product of the MD stretch and the TD stretch, or "60.
US 2024/0301184 A2: Discloses polyethylene composition for biaxial orientation. [0192] In embodiments of the disclosure, the stretch ratio in the machine direction (MD) may range from about 5:1 to about 9:1 while the stretch ratio in the transverse direction (TD) may range from about 7:1 to 12:1. In other embodiments of the disclosure, the stretch ratio in the machine direction (MD) may range from about 3:1 to about 12:1 while the stretch ratio in the transverse direction (TD) may range from about 3:1 to 12:1. In still other embodiments of the disclosure, the stretch ratio in the machine direction (MD) may range from about 5:1 to about 12:1 while the stretch ratio in the transverse direction (TD) may range from about 5:1 to 12:1. In yet still other embodiments of the disclosure, the stretch ratio in the machine direction (MD) may range from about 3:1 to about 10:1 while the stretch ratio in the transverse direction (TD) may range from about 3:1 to 10:1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742