Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,131

MULTILAYER FILMS INCLUDING ETHYLENE-BASED COPOLYMERS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 29, 2024
Examiner
ZACHARIA, RAMSEY E
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dow Global Technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
701 granted / 895 resolved
+13.3% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
929
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 895 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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. 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. Claim 10 is 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. The preamble of claim 10 is directed to "[t]he multilayer film" implying that the claim is a dependent claim. However, there is no language in the claim identifying the claim from which it depends. As such, the claim is rendered indefinite because (in)dependent nature of the claim is unclear. Claim Interpretation For the purpose of examination, claim 10 is taken to be a claim that depends from claim 1, the first claim references a multilayer film. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (US 4,617,241) as evidenced by Shah (US 4,724,185). Mueller is directed to multi-layer film comprising an interior layer of low density polyethylene, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, or a blend of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and a linear low density polyethylene and two surface layers comprising ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (column 9, lines 17-42). Embodiment Y in Mueller illustrates a film having a five layer structure of A/B/A/B/A having approximate thickness ratios of 1/1.5/1/1.5/1, wherein A is an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer having about 3.3 to 4.1% vinyl acetate units (El Paso PE 204CS95) and B is a linear low density polyethylene having a density of about 0.920 gm/cm3 (Dowlex 2045) (column 12, lines 41-68). When subjected to an Elmendorf tear test according to ASTM D 1922-67, the transverse results for Embodiment Y is reported as 96-160 grams (Tables III and IV). One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize this as being 96-160 g/25mm since g/25mm is the unit used in the Elmendorf tear test of ASTM D 1922. ASTM D 1922 is also the test used by the applicant to determine cross direction tear resistance (see paragraph 0050 on pages 11-12 of the specification). The two outer A layers correspond to the first and second outer layers of the claims; the inner A layer (which comprises about 16.7% of the total thickness of the film) correspond to the first core of the claims; the intermediate B layers correspond to the second and third core layers of claim 9. El Paso PE 204CS95, the ethylene vinyl acetate that layer A is composed of has a density of about 0.9232 to 0.9250 g/cc and a melt index of about 2.0±0.5 g/10 min while Dowlex 2045, the linear low density polyethylene that layer B is composed of has a melt index of about 2.55 g/10 min (see column 5, lines 34-52 of Shah). Regarding claim 6, the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer having about 3.3 to 4.1% vinyl acetate units reads on a polyethylene since "polyethylene" is defined in the specification as a polymer comprising a majority amount of units derived from ethylene monomer (see paragraph 0010 on page 3 of the specification). Regarding claims 2, 7, and 10, the limitations of these claims are met since the layer of the film of Embodiment Y is composed entirely of ethylene-based polymers. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menning et al. (US 2017/0239921). Menning is directed to a multilayer film comprising a core component including 10 to 1000 alternating layers of layer A and layer B each having a thickness of 30 to 1000 nm (paragraph 0030). Layer A and layer B each comprise a polymer such as ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer, and ethylene butyl acrylate copolymer, with layer B further comprising a particulate filler (paragraph 0030). The ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer of layers A and B has a vinyl acetate content of 7 to 40 wt% and a melt index of 0.1 to 1.0 g/10 min (paragraphs 0034, 0038, and 0063). The ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer has methyl acrylate content of 6 to 32 wt% and a melt index of 0.1 to 10.0 g/10 min (paragraphs 0040, 0044, and 0063). The ethylene butyl acrylate copolymer has a butyl acrylate content of 4 to 32 wt% and a melt index of 0.1 to 10.0 g/10 min (paragraphs 0046, 0050, and 0063). The multilayer film has two skin layers that sandwich the core component (paragraph 0089). Affinity® PF 1140G - an ethylene/octene copolymer having a density of 0.897 g/cc and a melt index of 1.6 g/10 min (Table 2) - is a suitable material for the skin layers (paragraph 0092). The multilayer film has an Elmendorf tear in the transverse direction of 2.00 to 7.00 N/25 mm (paragraph 0116) - i.e., about 204 to 714 g/25 mm. The embodiment of the examples illustrate multilayer films with cores composed of 100 or 200 alternating layers, comprising Elvax 3150 EVA and Dowlex 2247G LLDPE while the skin layers comprise Dowlex 2247G LLDPE and Elvax 3150 EVA (Table 3). Elvax 3150 EVA is a copolymer of ethylene and 15% vinyl acetate have a density of 0.94 g/cc and a melt index of 2.5 g/10 min while Dowlex 2247G LLDPE is a copolymer of ethylene and octene having a density of 0.917 g/cc and a melt index of 2.3 g/10 min (Table 2). One of the layer A or layer B (comprising ethylene vinyl acetate and containing 100 wt% ethylene based polymer based on the total polymer weight) corresponds to the first core layer of the claims. Others of layers B and/or layer A (comprising LLDPE having a density of 0.917 g/cc) correspond to the second and third core layers of claim 9; the skin layers (comprising LLDPE having a density of 0.917 g/cc) correspond to the first and second outer layers. Since the core comprises 100 or 200 alternating layers, each or which comprises ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, there must be a layer corresponding to the first core layer of the claims that is less than 20% of the total thickness of the multilayer film. 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. Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (US 4,617,241). Mueller teaches multi-layer film that satisfies all the limitations of claims 4 and 8, as set forth above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein: the ethylene vinyl acetate contains 9-28 wt% vinyl acetate comonomer (claim 4) or the first core layer is 5 to 15% of the total thickness of the film. Regarding claim 4, Mueller teaches that the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer used to form the core layer may contain about 8.4 to 9.4% units derived from vinyl acetate (column 10, lines 10-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer having as much as about 9.4% units derived from vinyl acetate since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Regarding claim 8, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected the same properties (e.g., heat shrinkability, puncture and tear resistance, elongation, elastic memory, etc.) from a multi-layer film having a core with thickness of 15% of the total thickness compared to one having a thickness of 16.7%, particularly since the film having a core that 16.7% of the total thickness is described as a "preferred" thickness ratio (see column 10, lines 2-4) as opposed to a required or necessary thickness ratio. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menning et al. (US 2017/0239921). Menning teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 5, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein: the ethylene based copolymer comprises 80-100 wt% of the layer corresponding to the first core layer (claim 2) and the layer corresponding to the first core layer comprises ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer or ethylene butyl acrylate copolymer (claim 5). However, Menning explicitly teach that layer A (which has no particles) may be formed from ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer, or ethylene butyl acrylate copolymer and does not require the layer to be a blend. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the layer from ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer, or ethylene butyl acrylate copolymer since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600833
COVER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595389
MULTILAYER STRUCTURES AND ARTICLES WITH COATING LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584088
HIGHLY DURABLE PERMEABLE FLUOROPOLYMER CELL CULTURE BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583985
Coated Film
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576620
Modification of Polypropylene Resins with Nucleating Agents to Enhance Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Films
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 895 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month