DETAILED ACTION
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
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2024, 09/11/2025, 11/03/2025 and 02/09/2026 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “(SCBlogMw4-5)”, which should be “(average SCBlogMw4-5)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “an average SCBlogMW4-5”, which should be “the average SCBlogMW4-5”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “a pouches” which should be “a pouch”, and “a pre-made packages” which should be “a pre-made package”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 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 9 recites “greater than 4.5 SCB/1000 C”. Given that claim 1 recites “greater than 3.5 SCB/1000C and less than 10.0 SCB/1000C”, claim 9 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1 given that claim 9 is broader than claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang I et al. (US 2020/0017670 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Wang I et al. disclose a biaxially oriented multilayer film comprising a layer made from a polyethylene composition (core layer) and a layer made of oriented polypropylene film (additional layer) (see paragraph 0227).
The polyethylene composition has a density (overall density) from about 0.880 to about 0.965 g/cm3 and a melt index (overall melt index) of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0203, 0204). The polyethylene composition has an average short chain branch level in a portion between log(MW) of 4.0 to 5.0 (SCBlogMw4-5) is 2 to 26 SCB/1000C based on Inventive Example 1 (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0044). Given that the layer made from the polyethylene composition (core layer) is only made from the polyethylene composition (see paragraph 0254), the layer (core layer) has overall density, overall melt index and average short chain branch level identical to the polyethylene composition.
In light of the overlap between the claimed biaxially oriented multilayer film and that disclosed by Wang I et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a biaxially oriented multilayer film that is both disclosed by Wang I et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Wang I et al. disclose the polyethylene composition is a blend comprising a first polyethylene, a second polyethylene and a third polyethylene (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Wang I et al. disclose the first polyethylene has a density of about 0.855 to about 0.965 g/cm3 and a melt index of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0107 and 0109). The first polyethylene can be high density polyethylene (HDPE) (see paragraph 0057). The second polyethylene has a density of about 0.921 to about 0.980 g/cm3 and a melt index of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0151 and 0152). The second polyethylene can be linear low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 7, Wang I et al. disclose the third polyethylene has a density of about 0.875 to about 0.965 g/cm3 and a melt index of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0174 and 0176). The third polyethylene can be high density polyethylene (HDPE) (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wang I et al. disclose a thickness of the layer containing the polyethylene composition (core layer) within the multilayer film can be about 95% (see paragraph 0225).
Regarding claim 13, Wang I et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film as set forth above. Further Wang I et al. disclose that the layer made of the polyethylene composition (core layer) has a machine direction modulus of ≥ 150 MPa and a transverse direction modulus of ≥ 190 MPa (see paragraphs 0234 and 0235).
Wang I et al. do not disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film has a machine direction modulus and a traverse direction modulus as presently claimed. Given that the biaxially oriented multilayer film including the core layer and the additional layer is identical to that presently claimed, with overall melt index, overall density and average short chain branch level of the core layer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the biaxially oriented multilayer film has a machine direction modulus identical to that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Wang I et al. disclose the article such as food packaging films, stand-up pouches, etc. can be prepared from the biaxially oriented multilayer film (see paragraph 0227).
Regarding claim 15, Wang I et al. disclose a laminate comprising the biaxially oriented multilayer film (see paragraph 0227).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang II et al. (WO 2020/001191 A1) in view of Wang I et al. (US 2020/0017670 A1 cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Hyosung Chemical (2024).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Wang II et al. disclose a biaxially-oriented multilayer film comprising a core layer and a skin layer, wherein the core layer comprises at least 50 wt% of an ethylene-based polymer such as HDPE, LLDPE, etc. (polyethylene-based composition) and the skin layer comprises a propylene-based polymer (i.e. propylene-based composition) (see Abstract and page 32, claim 1). Accordingly, the skin layer reads on an additional layer comprising a propylene-based composition.
Wang II et al. do not disclose the core layer comprising polyethylene-based composition as presently claimed.
Wang I et al. disclose a polyethylene composition comprising a first polyethylene, a second polyethylene and a third polyethylene (see Abstract). The polyethylene composition has a density (overall density) from about 0.880 to about 0.965 g/cm3 and a melt index (overall melt index) of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0203, 0204). The polyethylene composition has an average short chain branch level in a portion between log(MW) of 4.0 to 5.0 (SCBlogMw4-5) of 2 to 26 SCB/1000C based on Inventive Example 1 (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0044). The polyethylene composition has good stiffness, good oxygen permeability and good sealability (see paragraph 0002).
In light of motivation for using polyethylene composition disclosed by Wang I et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene composition of Wang I et al. to prepare the core layer in Wang II et al. in order to provide good stiffness, good oxygen permeability and good sealability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. disclose the core layer comprising the polyethylene composition having a density (overall density) from about 0.880 to about 0.965 g/cm3, a melt index (overall melt index) of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) and an average short chain branch level in a portion between log(MW) of 4.0 to 5.0 (SCBlogMw4-5) of 2 to 26 SCB/1000C. Given that Wang II et al. disclose the core layer can comprises 100 wt% of ethylene-based polymer (at least 50 wt% of an ethylene-based polymer), the core layer of Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. has overall density, overall melt index and average short chain branch level identical to the polyethylene composition.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wang II et al. disclose the skin layer (additional layer) comprises the propylene-based polymer such as propylene/a-olefin copolymer (see paragraph 0030). A specific example of propylene-based polymer includes Topilene PPR R200P (see paragraph 0075). As evidenced by Hyosung Chemical, Topilene PPR R200P has melting point of 144 °C (see page 1, Typical Properties). While there is no disclosure of DSC melt point, absent evidence of criticality on how the melt point is measured, Topilene PPR R200P meets the present melt point.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film as set forth above. Wang I et al. disclose the polyethylene composition is a blend comprising a first polyethylene, a second polyethylene and a third polyethylene (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film as set forth above. Wang I et al. disclose the first polyethylene has a density of about 0.855 to about 0.965 g/cm3 and a melt index of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0107 and 0109). The first polyethylene can be high density polyethylene (HDPE) (see paragraph 0057). The second polyethylene has a density of about 0.921 to about 0.980 g/cm3 and a melt index of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0151 and 0152). The second polyethylene can be linear low density polyethylene (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 7, Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film as set forth above. Wang I et al. disclose the third polyethylene has a density of about 0.875 to about 0.965 g/cm3 and a melt index of about 0.01 to about 1000 dg/min (about 0.01 to about 1000 g/10 min) (see paragraphs 0174 and 0176). The third polyethylene can be high density polyethylene (HDPE) (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 10, Wang II et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film is oriented in machine direction at a draw ratio from 2:1 to 6:1 and oriented in cross direction (transverse direction) at a draw ratio from 2:1 to 11:1 (see page 32, claim 1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wang II et al. disclose the core layer comprises at least 50% of the film thickness (see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 13, Wang II in view of Wang I et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film as set forth above. Given that the biaxially oriented multilayer film including the core layer and the additional layer is identical to that presently claimed, with overall melt index, overall density and average short chain branch level of the core layer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the biaxially oriented multilayer film has a machine direction modulus identical to that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Wang II et al. disclose a package (article) comprising the biaxially oriented multilayer film, wherein the package can be standup pouch (see paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 15, Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. disclose the biaxially oriented multilayer film as set forth above. Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. do not explicitly disclose that the biaxially oriented multilayer is a “laminated” product.
Although Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. do not disclose the “laminated” product, it is noted that “[E]ven 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”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. meet the requirements of the claimed product, Wang II et al. in view of Wang I et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang III et al. (US 2017/0015801 A1) disclose a heterogenous ethylene interpolymer having a short chain branching in a portion between log (Mw) of 4.0 to 5.0 of 1 to 8 SCB/1000 C (see Abstract and Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights