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 § 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tice (WO 2013/056466).
Tice is directed to a multilayer film comprising at least two skin layers and a core layer, wherein said core layer includes 10-100 weight percent of an ethylene-based polymer composition (Page 2, Lines 10-15 and Lines 27+). More particularly, said composition includes at least 70 percent by weight of the units derived from ethylene (corresponds with claimed requirement of 60-95 weight percent) and less than 30 percent by weight of units derived from one or more alpha olefin comonomers, such as propylene (corresponds with claimed requirement of 5-40 weight percent) (Page 3, Lines 4-17). Tice further states that a melt index I2 ranges between 0.1-1 g/10 minutes (Page 7, Lines 27+), a molecular weight distribution between 2.5 and 10 (Page 1, Lines 24+), a density is between 0.924 g/cm3 to 0.940 g/cm3 (Page 7, Lines 20-26).
In terms of the density, while a value of 0.924 g/cm3 is slightly different than 0.920 g/cm3, 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). More particularly, the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. As such, a density in accordance to the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of Tice.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the general disclosure of Tice suggests a core layer formed with a mixture of polymer materials or compositions (Page 3, Lines 4-17 and Lines 31-32, Page 11, Lines 9+, Page 12, Lines 31+, and Table 16). It is particularly noted that Inventive Film 1 includes a core layer formed entirely of ethylene-based polymers, with an ethylene based copolymer (ethylene-octene) corresponding with 40% by weight. When using an ethylene-propylene copolymer as suggested by Tice, one of ordinary skill in the art would have similarly found it obvious to use a mixture of ethylene-based polymers (and as detailed above, Tice teaches the inclusion at least 10% by weight of said ethylene-propylene copolymer).
As to claims 2 and 3, the ethylene-propylene copolymer taught by Tice appears to be extremely similar to that of the claimed invention in terms of density, melt flow index I2, and the molecular weight, and as such, it reasons that the claimed ratio between I10 and I2 and the presence of a single peak is encompassed by Tice. It is emphasized that Tice generally teaches the inclusion of an ethylene-propylene copolymer without limiting either feature or characteristic and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claims are directed to a multilayer film and limitations pertaining to the method of producing an ethylene-propylene copolymer fail to further define the structure of the claimed article (multilayer film).
As to claim 5, Tice describes exemplary core compositions including low density polyethylene (would be recognized as encompassing linear low density polyethylenes) and ethylene-based copolymers (Tables 1 and 16).
Regarding claim 6, a plurality of exemplary skin layers are formed with low density polyethylene (would be recognized as encompassing linear low density polyethylenes) (Table 16).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Tice describes a film comprising a core layer, a pair of skin layers, and a pair of sub-skin layers (Page 10, Lines 26+). In such an instance, a first sub-skin layer corresponds with the claimed second core layer and a second sub-skin layer corresponds with the claimed third core layer. Tice also states that the inventive ethylene-based composition (which can be polyethylene or an ethylene-based copolymer) having a density of at least 0.924 g/cm3 and a melt index I2 as large as 1 g/10 min can be used in the sub-skin layers (claimed second and third core layers). With specific respect to claim 8, the inventive compositions, usable in all of the “core layers”, would include a combination of low density polyethylene and an ethylene-based copolymer.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tice as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Demirors (US 2013/0144019).
Tice is directed to a composition comprising a mixture of low density polyethylene and ethylene-alpha olefin copolymers and having applicability in shrink films. While Tice fails to specifically identify the use of such a composition in machine directed oriented films or stretch hood films, it is well recognized that compositions having the above noted mixture have applicability in a wide variety of film applications, including machine direction oriented films and stretch hood films, as shown for example by Demirors (Paragraphs 2, 75, and 76). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the composition of Tice to form any number of well-known and conventional films, including those required by the claimed invention. It is emphasized that Demirors teaches the alternative manufacture of shrink films, machine direction oriented films, and stretch hood films, among other film applications, with a composition comprising an ethylene-alpha olefin copolymer and a low density polyethylene (directly analogous to the composition of Tice).
Conclusion
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 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights