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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 26 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 6 remain pending in the application.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 26 May 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 – 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon Sekiya (JP 2018-154803 A; a machine translation thereof was provided with the Office Action mailed 25 February 2026).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO 2019/209334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a film comprising an ethylene/α-olefin copolymer (A) (“film” comprising a “metallocene linear low density polyethylene”, or “metallocene LLDPE” for short, comprising “polymer units” derived from ethylene and “one or more C3 to C20 α-olefin comonomers”: e.g. ¶¶ [0008] – [0095]; ¶¶ [0031] – [0053] particularly focus on the “metallocene LLDPE” and its properties) having the following requirements (a1), (a2), and (a3):
(a1): a melt flow rate (MFR) measured at 190°C and a load of 2.16 kg is in a range of 0.1 to 3 g/10 minutes (“melt index” of “≥ about 0.10 g/10 min” and “≤ about 3.0 g/10 min”: e.g. ¶ [0034]),
(a2): a density is in a range of 905 to 945 kg/m3, e.g. 905 to 918 kg/m3 (“density” of “≥ about 0.905 g/cm3” and “≤0.945 g/cm3”, or “≤0.918 g/cm3”: e.g. ¶ [0037]), and
(a3): a melt tension is in a range of 15 to 140 mN, e.g. 50 to 100 mN (“melt strength” of “about 1 to about 100 cN”, e.g. “about 5 to about 10 cN”: e.g. ¶ [0039]).
Chen notes their ranges can be combined by taking any of two suitable endpoints and combining them, hence the citations of MFR (e.g. ¶ [0034]) and density above (e.g. ¶ [0037]). Chen’s ranges for melt tension are explicitly enumerated (e.g. ¶ [0039]).
Furthermore, Chen’s MFR lies within the claimed range. Meanwhile, both of the cited ranges for Chen’s density and for Chen’s melt tension overlap the respective claimed ranges.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Chen discloses the film has a film thickness in a range of less than or equal to 0.25 mm, e.g. 0.002 to 0.250 mm (“less than or equal to 0.25 mm”, “within a range from 2…µm to…250 µm”: e.g. ¶¶ [0071], [0073]), both of these ranges overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses a laminate comprising the film discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 (“multi-layered polyethylene films”: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0071], [0073], [0074], [0079] – [0083], [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses a packaging material comprising the film discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 or the laminate discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4 (“shrink wrap”, “bags”: e.g. Abstract; ¶¶ [0008], [0020], [0073], [0079], [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses a method for producing a film by melt extruding an ethylene/α-olefin copolymer (A) (“film” comprising a “metallocene linear low density polyethylene”, or “metallocene LLDPE” for short, comprising “polymer units” derived from ethylene and “one or more C3 to C20 α-olefin comonomers”: e.g. ¶¶ [0008] – [0095]; ¶¶ [0031] – [0053] particularly focus on the “metallocene LLDPE” and its properties; ¶¶ [0073], [0083], [0085] – [0087] mention extrusion) having the following requirements (a1), (a2), and (a3):
(a1): a melt flow rate (MFR) measured at 190°C and a load of 2.16 kg is in a range of 0.1 to 3 g/10 minutes (“melt index” of “≥ about 0.10 g/10 min” and “≤ about 3.0 g/10 min”: e.g. ¶ [0034]),
(a2): a density is in a range of 905 to 945 kg/m3, e.g. 905 to 918 kg/m3 (“density” of “≥ about 0.905 g/cm3” and “≤0.945 g/cm3”, or “≤0.918 g/cm3”: e.g. ¶ [0037]), and
(a3): a melt tension is in a range of 15 to 140 mN, e.g. 50 to 100 mN (“melt strength” of “about 1 to about 100 cN”, e.g. “about 5 to about 10 cN”: e.g. ¶ [0039]).
Chen notes their ranges can be combined by taking any of two suitable endpoints and combining them, hence the citations of MFR (e.g. ¶ [0034]) and density above (e.g. ¶ [0037]). Chen’s ranges for melt tension are explicitly enumerated (e.g. ¶ [0039]).
Furthermore, Chen’s MFR lies within the claimed range. Meanwhile, both of the cited ranges for Chen’s density and for Chen’s melt tension overlap the respective claimed ranges.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ochi (US 2019/0382515 A1).
Regarding claim 2, although Chen is not explicit as to the film having an external haze of 4.4% or more and less than 15%, this feature would have been obvious in view of Ochi.
Ochi discloses a film comprising an ethylene/α-olefin copolymer (A) (“film” comprising a “component (B)”: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0006] – [0260]) having
a melt flow rate (MFR) measured at 190°C and a load of 2.16 kg is in a range of 0.5 to 5 g/10 minutes (refers to a load of “21.18 N” which converts to 2.16 kg: e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0046], [0071], [0220]),
a density is in a range of 890 to 930 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0071], [0219]), and
an external haze of 4% or more and 18% or less (e.g. ¶¶ [0087] – [0089], [0308] – [0310], Tables 5 – 19), this haze being evidence of slipperiness (e.g. ¶ [0087])
Ochi’s MFR overlaps Chen’s MFR from 0.1 to 3 g/10 minutes, notably occurring at the range from 0.5 to 3 g/10 minutes. Additionally, Ochi’s density overlaps Chen’s density from 905 to 945 kg/m3, notably from 905 to 930 kg/m3. The occurrences of overlap also overlap the ranges required of claim 1. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized features of Ochi’s films are also applicable to Chen.
Furthermore, Chen states the film may comprise, among other things anti-slip agents (e.g. ¶¶ [0069], [0070]), meaning Chen acknowledges the film can be modified to enhance slipperiness. Additionally, low haze is generally desired in Chen’s films, as evidenced by a “haze value” of less than 20% (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Chen’s film to have an external haze of 4% or more and 18% or less as Ochi suggests, the motivation being to ensure the slipperiness Chen desires is provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 3 – 6, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Sekiya as the sole or primary reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen.
Applicant asserts Sekiya fails to teach the claimed combination of MFR, density, and melt tension. Similar assertions are made in the Declaration filed 26 May 2026.
In response to both, Chen is cited for teaching a film where the ethylene/α-olefin copolymer has an MFR, density, and melt tension which meet the ranges recited in claim 1. Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are presented.
Conclusion
The examiner notes the following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0363336 A1 is the corresponding PG-PUB equivalent of Chen.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights