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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 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. Claim 1 requires “A chemical composition for plastics including post-consumer recyclables.” However, the claim then appears to require limitations which describes a film rather than a composition, including a first skin layer and a core layer. Therefore, the claim provides confusing language wherein it is not clear whether applicant intends to claim a specific composition or a film. As such, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is to be interpreted as a film comprising the skin layer and the core layer (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0023]).
Claim 1 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. Claim 1 requires “a first skin of LLDPE 2 MI butene skin” and further requires “a Polyisobutylene additive used to provide improved cling properties to both skins of the film.” However, the claim only requires a single skin layer. As such, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is to be interpreted as “a Polyisobutylene additive used to provide improved cling properties to the first skin of the film.” (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0024]).
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichbauer (US 5,922,441).
Regarding claim 1, Eichbauer teaches stretch wrap films (“a film” - See 35 U.S.C 112 rejection above) which may be used in cling/cling applications including an inner polymeric layer (“core layer”) and a first and second layers (“a first skin”) (Col. 2, Line 45-Col. 3, Lines 37). The inner polymeric layer may be an LLDPE copolymerized with 1-hexene and may have a melt index of 0.5 to 10 g/10 min, overlapping with the instantly claimed range (“a LLDPE 1 MI Hexene core layer”) (Col. 3, Line 64-Col. 4, Line 46). The first and second layers may be an LLDPE copolymerized with 1-butene and may have a melt index of 1 to 10 g/10 min, overlapping with the instantly claimed range (“a first skin of LLDPE 2 MI butene”) (Col. 5, Line 50-Col. 6, Line 40). The first and second layers may be further provided with cling additives such as poly-isobutylenes (Col. 6, Lines 50-67).
MPEP 2144.05: 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).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichbauer (US 5,922,441).
Regarding claim 2, Eichbauer teaches stretch wrap films which may be used in cling/cling applications including an inner polymeric layer (“core layer”) and a first and second layers (“a first skin” & “a second skin”) (Col. 2, Line 45-Col. 3, Lines 37). The inner polymeric layer may be an LLDPE copolymerized with 1-hexene and may have a melt index of 0.5 to 10 g/10 min, overlapping with the instantly claimed range (“a LLDPE 1 MI Hexene core layer”) (Col. 3, Line 64-Col. 4, Line 46). The first and second layers may be an LLDPE copolymerized with 1-butene and may have a melt index of 1 to 10 g/10 min, overlapping with the instantly claimed range (“a first skin of LLDPE 2 MI butene” & “a second skin of LLDPE 2 MI butene”) (Col. 5, Line 50-Col. 6, Line 40).
MPEP 2144.05: 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).
Regarding claim 3, Eichbauer teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 2. The first and second layers may be further provided with cling additives such as poly-isobutylenes (Col. 6, Lines 50-67).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichbauer (US 5,922,441) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Salzsauler et al. (US 5,531,393).
Regarding claim 4, Eichbauer teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Eichbauer is silent with respect to the films comprising folds along opposite edges of the films.
Salzsauler teaches stretch films which are provided with two opposite edges folded along the lateral direction in order to strengthen the edges of a rolled film (Col. 2, Lines 30-36; Fig. 2; Col. 4, Lines 39-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Eichbauer such that they art provided in rolls having opposite edges provided with folds along a lateral direction in order to strengthen the edges as taught by Salzsauler.
Regarding claim 5, Eichbauer teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 4. As discussed above, the films are provided in rolls with folds along a lateral direction in order to strengthen the edges.
Regarding claim 6, Eichbauer teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the films are provided in rolls with folds along a lateral direction in order to strengthen the edges.
The limitation of wherein the folds are distributed on the roll by oscillation during winding is a product-by-process limitation which must be considered to the extent that the process results in a materially different final product. MPEP 2113: "[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).
In the instant case, the final product does not appear to materially change as a result of the process and, as such, the final product of claim 6 is that which is described by claim 5 and is taught by Eichbauer and Salzsauler as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights