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
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 22 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 6, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 3: Claim 3 recites --a mixed resin-- in line 3, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to recite "the[[a]] mixed resin".
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites --a thickness ratio of-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to recite "a thickness
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites --MD and TD-- in line 6, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to recite "a machine direction (MD) and a transverse direction (TD) of the biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene multilayer film". (NOTE: In the instant case, the claims and specification are silent with regards to any definition of the abbreviation of "MD" and/or "TD". For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat "MD" as "machine direction (MD)" and "TD" as "transverse direction (TD)", and that they are orthogonal to one another and are with respect to the claimed biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene multilayer film (see [0003] and [0040] of the filed specification).)
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites --in MD and TD, respectively-- in line 8, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read as "in the MD and the TD, respectively".
With Regards to Claim 14: Claim 14 recites --one or two or more layers selected from-- in line 4, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "one or
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites --one or two or more additives selected from-- in line 3, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "one or.
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 1-15 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.
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --and the skin layer is a biaxially oriented film-- in lines 5 to 6. Claim 1 also recites --a skin layer laminated on both surfaces of the base layer-- in lines 2 to 3, which as written, implies there are two skin layers. As written the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said limitation of "the skin layer is a biaxially oriented film" is directed towards only one of the two skin layers; or (2) that said limitation was intended to recite both skin layers (i.e., "and each of the skin layers is a biaxially oriented film"). For the purposes of examination, both interpretations will be applied. As such, any dependent claim limitation reciting "the skin layer" will be treated as also being towards one skin layer and both skin layers.
Claims 2-15, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons recited above.
With Regards to Claim 2: Instant claim 2 recites --between the base layer and the skin layer-- in line 3. As written the claim can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said adhesive improvement layer of claim 2 is between one of the skin layers and the base layer; or (2) that said adhesive improvement layer of claim 2 is between both of the skin layers and the base layer. For the purposes of examination, both interpretations will be applied.
With Regards to Claim 6: Instant claim 6 recites --a modulus in accordance with ASTM D882 of 700 MPa or more in MD and TD, respectively,--. As written a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., only one modulus value of "700 MPa or more" is recited, and appears to be missing a second set of values, and that it is unclear which the range pertains to). (In the instant case, if applicant intended to recite the range of "700 MPa or more" for both, it should have been written "in both a machine direction (MD) and a transverse direction (TD) of the biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene multilayer film) The instant specification in Tables 1 to 3 indicates values for both the MD and the TD. As such, the limitation will be treated to read as "a modulus in accordance with ASTM D882 of 700 MPa or more in both a machine direction (MD) and a transverse direction (TD) of the biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene multilayer film
With Regards to Claim 6: Instant claim 6 recites --a heat shrinkage rate after heat shrinkage at 120°C for 5 minutes of 10% or less in MD and TD, respectively--. As written a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., only one heat shrinkage range of "10% or less" is recited, and appears to be missing a second set of values, and that it is unclear which the range pertains to). (In the instant case, if applicant intended to recite the range of "10% or less" for both, it should have been written "in both the MD and the TD of the biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene multilayer film) The instant specification in Tables 1 to 3 indicates values for both the MD and the TD. As such, the limitation will be treated to read as "a heat shrinkage rate after heat shrinkage at 120°C for 5 minutes of 10% or less in both the MD and the TD of the biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gohr et al. (US 2021/0245480 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Gohr teaches a multilayer film comprising a core comprising high density polyethylene (HDPE) and skins on one or both sides, one or both skins comprising polypropylene copolymers, terpolymers, or combinations thereof ([0008], [0016], [0023] of Gohr). Gohr also teaches that film is biaxially oriented ([0040]-[0044] of Gohr).
Regarding Claim 2: Gohr teaches an adhesive improvement layer ("tie layer") between the base layer and one or both the skin layers, wherein the adhesive improvement layer is a biaxially oriented film formed of a mixed resin in which the HDPE of the base layer ("core layer") and the polypropylene of the skin layer [adjacent to said tie layer] are mixed ([0020]-[0022] and [0040]-[0044] of Gohr).
Regarding Claim 3: Gohr teaches that the adhesive improvement layer is formed of the mixed resin in which the HDPE of the base layer and the polypropylene of the skin layer are mixed at a weight ratio of 57.5 wt.% : 20 wt.% ([0020]-[0022], [0049], and [0052]-[0056] of Gohr); which anticipates the claimed range of --10 to 90 : 90 to 10--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Gohr teaches that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film has a total thickness of 22.6 µm ([0049] and [0051] of Gohr); which anticipates the claimed range of --1 to 100 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 8: Gohr teaches that the base layer and the skin layer are coextruded and integrated ([0040]-[0041] of Gohr).
Regarding Claim 9: Gohr teaches that the base layer further includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and a linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) ([0016] of Gohr).
Regarding Claim 11: Gohr teaches that the polypropylene is one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of a random copolymer polypropylene (e.g., ethylene-propylene copolymer, or combinations thereof) ([0023] of Gohr).
Regarding Claim 14: Gohr teaches that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film further includes one or more layers selected from the group consisting of an adhesive layer and a sealant layer ([0038]-[0039] of Gohr).
Regarding Claim 15: Gohr teaches that one or both skin layers further includes one or more additives selected from the group consisting of an anti-blocking agent, an anti-static agent, a light stabilizer, an antioxidant, a filler, and a pigment ([0024] and [0026] of Gohr).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2014/0147646 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Chen teaches a multilayer polymeric film comprising at least one layer A and at least one layer B, layer A comprising a first polymeric resin comprising propylene derived units with a propylene derived unit content of greater than 90 weight %, layer B comprising a second polymeric resin comprising ethylene derived units, wherein the polymeric resins of propylene derived units can be propylene homopolymers, propylene random copolymers, and wherein the polymeric resins of ethylene derived units can be high density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and blends thereof ([0009], [0010], [0023], [0024], [0028], [0032], and [0038] of Chen). Chen also teaches that the layers of the multilayer polymeric film can each be biaxially oriented ([0010], [0093], and [0096] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 4: Chen teaches that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film has a total thickness of 10 to 500 µm (e.g., 19 µm) ([0027] and [0118] of Chen); which anticipates the claimed range of --1 to 100 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Chen teaches that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film has a haze in accordance with ASTM D1003 of less than 5.0 and a clarity of at least 75 ([0114] and [0115] of Chen); which are sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --a haze of 20% or less-- and --clarity of 90% or more--. See MPEP §2131.03(II). However, Chen does not explicitly recite --a modulus in accordance with ASTM D882 of 700 MPa or more in MD and TD, respectively, and a heat shrinkage rate after heat shrinking at 120°C for 5 minutes of 10% or less in MD and TD, respectively--. However, the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film of Chen uses the same materials and has the same structure as applicants (i.e., a biaxially oriented film formed of HDPE as a base layer, skin layers of a biaxially oriented film formed of polypropylene on both sides of the base layer; see ([0009], [0010], [0023]-[0028], [0030], [0032], [0038], [0080], [0093], [0096], [0103], [0105], [0114], and [0115]) of Chen and ([0061], [0069], [0084]-[0086], [0094], [0102], [0108], [0112], and [0123]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film inherently possesses a modulus in accordance with ASTM D882 of 700 MPa or more in MD and TD, respectively, and a heat shrinkage rate after heat shrinking at 120°C for 5 minutes of 10% or less in MD and TD, respectively. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 8: Chen teaches that the base layer and the skin layer are coextruded and integrated ([0080] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 9: Chen teaches that the base layer further includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a low-density polyethylene (LDPE), a linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and a medium density polyethylene (MDPE) ([0024] and [0050] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 11: Chen teaches that the polypropylene is one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of a homopolymer polypropylene and a random copolymer propylene ([0024] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 14: Chen teaches that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film further includes one or more layers selected from the group consisting of an adhesive layer ([0029] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 15: Chen teaches that the skin layer further includes one or more additives selected from the group consisting of an anti-blocking agent, an anti-static agent, a light stabilizer, a ultraviolet light absorber, an antioxidant, a pigment, and a dye ([0079] of Chen).
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2023/0118316 A1), as further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("High-density polyethylene") (referred to as "NPL-1").
Regarding Claim 1: Wang teaches a biaxially oriented multilayer polyethylene film comprising at least one layer comprising a polyethylene-based composition (i.e., high-density polyethylene), can comprise 3 or more layers, can comprise the polyethylene-based composition between two other layers, and the two other layers can be polypropylene ([0005], [0006], [0025], [0026], [0030], [0034], [0110]-[0112], [0184]-[0187], and [0260]-[0262] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 4: Wang teaches that the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film has a total thickness of 5 to 50 µm (e.g., 18 µm) ([0196] and [0260]-[0262] of Wang); which anticipates the claimed range of --1 to 100 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 8: Wang teaches that the base layer and the skin layer are coextruded and integrated ([0260]-[0262] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 9: Wang teaches that the base layer further includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a low-density polyethylene (LDPE), a linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and a medium density polyethylene (MDPE) ([0025], [0026], [0043]-[0048] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 10: Wang teaches that the high-density polyethylene has a density of at least 0.965 g/cm3, and a melt index of 0.5 to 10 g/10 minutes ([0110]-[0115] of Wang); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed ranges of --0.946 g/cm3 or more-- and --0.2 to 10 g/10 min--. See MPEP §2131.03(II). It is further evidenced by NPL-1 that high-density polyethylene has a melt temperature of about 131 (NPL-1); which anticipates the claimed range of --120 to 140°C--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 13: Wang teaches that the base layer includes a nucleating agent ([0171] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 14: Wang teaches that the biaxially oriented high-density polyethylene multilayer film can further include a sealant layer ([0186] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 15: Wang teaches that the skin layer further includes one or more additives selected from the group consisting of an anti-blocking agent, a light stabilizer, a ultraviolet light absorber, an antioxidant, a filler, a flame retardant, and a pigment ([0189] of Wang).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohr et al. (US 2021/0245480 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Gohr is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5: Gohr discloses that the skin layers can have a thickness of 0.5 to 4 µm, the tie layers can have a thickness of 0.5 to 4 µm, and the core layer can have a thickness of 7 to 60 µm ([0049] and [0051] of Gohr); wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art could have calculated the thickness ratio of the base layer ("core layer") to the total thickness of the biaxially oriented HDPE multilayer film to be from about 30% [=(4 µm)+(4 µm)+(7 µm)+(4 µm)+(4 µm)] to about 96% [=(0.5 µm)+(0.5 µm)+(60 µm)+(0.5 µm)+(0.5 µm)] (e.g., 66%); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --70 to 99%--. Gohr differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Gohr, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2014/0147646 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("High-density polyethylene") (referred to as "NPL-1").
Chen is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 5: Chen discloses a thickness ratio of the skin layer/base layer/skin layer is from 1/1/1 to 1/20/1 (i.e., 33% to 90%) ([0027] of Chen); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --70 to 99%--. Chen differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7: Chen teaches that the polypropylene has a melt temperature of greater than 120°C and a MFR of 0.1 to 100 g/10 min, and that the HDPE has a melt index of 0.1 to 5 g/10 min ([0032] and [0038] of Chen), but does not explicitly recite --a difference in a melt temperature is 23°C or less, and a difference in a melt index therebetween is 7 g/10 min or less--. It has been evidenced by various non-patent literature that HDPE can have a melting temperature of about 131°C (see NPL-1). As such, for the polypropylene and HDPE taught by Chen, there would exist a difference in Tm that would overlap the claimed range of --23°C or less--, and a difference in melt index of --7 g/10 min or less--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10: Chen discloses that the high-density polyethylene, as further evidenced by NPL-1, can have a melt temperature of about 131°C, a density of about 0.945 g/cm3 or more, and a melt index of 0.1 to 5 g/10 min (see NPL-1; [0038] of Chen). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 12: Chen discloses that the polypropylene is a random copolymer polypropylene having a melt temperature of 120°C or more and has a melt flow rate (melt index) of about 0.1 to about 100 g/10 min ([0032], [0034], and [0035] of Chen); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --130 to 160°C-- and --1 to 10 g/10 min--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights