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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024, 03/18/2025, 07/07/2025, 07/09/2026 are 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.
Claims 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 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.
Regarding claim 18, the entire claim is indefinite as it recites features of an experiment performed on a component, the metallocene catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer, of the claimed multilayer film, and therefore it is unclear what structural features are required for said component. It is not clear if the limitation is directed to a method of making or whether its an inherent property of metallocene catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymers.
Regarding claim 19, the entire claim is indefinite as it recites features of an experiment performed on a component, the metallocene catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer, of the claimed multilayer film, and therefore it is unclear what structural features are required for said component. It is not clear if the limitation is directed to a method of making or whether it’s an inherent property of metallocene catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymers.
Regarding claim 20, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites:
In lines 5-6: the broad recitation “density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 960 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 925 to 955 kg/m3, and/or of 930 to 950 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 7-8: the broad recitation “a MFR2 (190˚C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300 g/10min”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 100 to 150, and/or of 115 to 125 g/10min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 10-11:the broad recitation “a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 960 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 925 to 955 kg/m3, and/or of 930 to 950 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 12-13: the broad recitation “a MFR2 (190˚C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300 g/10min”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 100 to 150, and/or of 115 to 125 g/10min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 21, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites:
In lines 3-4: the broad recitation “a total amount of 1-butene, based on the MMCP is in a range of 0.1 to 1.0 mol%”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 0.2 to 0.8 mol%, and/or 0.3 to 0.7 mol%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 5-6: the broad recitation “a total amount of 1-hexene, based on the MMCP is in a range of 1.5 to 8.0 mol%”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 2.0 to 6.0 mol%, and/or 2.2 to 4.0 mol%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 7-8: the broad recitation “a content of ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) of 35 to 50 wt% based on the total weight of MMCP”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 36 to 48 wt%, and/or of 38 to 45 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 9-10: the broad recitation “a content of ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) of 50 to 65 wt% based on the total weight of MMCP”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 52 to 64 wt%, and/or of 55 to 62 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “wherein the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal copolymer (a) is a product of a presence of a metallocene complex of formula (I)…” is indefinite. It is not clear if the claim is in reference to a process of forming the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal copolymer and if the metallocene complex of formular (I) is used up in the process or if the claimed complex is present as structural component of the claimed metallocene-catalyzed multimodal copolymer.
Regarding claim 23, the overall claim is indefinite for the following:
the format of the claim in lines 1-2 recite “wherein the skin layer of the multilayered film has:…” and proceeds to recite a thickness range of the skin layer in lines 3-4, but then goes on to recite thickness ranges for the rest of the layers and finally a thickness range for the overall multilayer film. The formatting of the claim by using a “:” after “wherein the skin layer of the multilayered film has:…” makes it seem as though the remainder of the claim is going to further limit the thickness of the skin layer. To address this and put each thickness limitation in the same format, it is suggested that the claim be rewritten as follows:
“The multilayered film according to claim 16, wherein:
the skin layer of the multilayer film has a thickness in a range of….
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “and/or in the range of 40 to 150mm” in lines 9-10 as the range has not been previously recited or required.
Regarding claim 23, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites:
In lines 3-4: the broad recitation “a thickness in a range of 1 to 100mm”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 5 to 80mm, and/or in a range of 10 to 15mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 5-6: the broad recitation “a core layer of the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 10 to 200mm”, and the claim also recites “and/or of in a range of 20 to 80mm, and/or in a range of 30 to 45mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 7-8: the broad recitation “the sealing layer of the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 1 to 50mm”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 5 to 25mm, and/or in a range of 10 to 15mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 9-10: the broad recitation “the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 12 to 350mm”, and the claim also recites “and/or in the range of 40 to 150mm, and/or in a range of 50 to 70mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 24, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites:
In line 5: the broad recitation “80 to 95 wt%”, and the claim also recites “and/or 82 to 93 wt%, and/or 88 to 92 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In line 7: the broad recitation “5 to 20 wt%”, and the claim also recites “and/or 82 to 93 wt%, and/or 88 to 92 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 8-9: the broad recitation “910 to 930 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “and/or 920 to 925 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 9-10: the broad recitation “0.5 to 4.0g/10min”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 0.5 to 1.0 g/10min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 24, the entire claim is indefinite as it is unclear what the claimed weight percentages are with respect to. For example, lines 4-6 recite “the skin layer comprises: 80 to 95 wt% and/or 82 to 93 wt%, and/or 88 to 92 wt% based on the total weight of the skin layer (SKL) of the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer”. The claims recite that the skin layer comprises the aforementioned weight percentages, but does not state what the percentages are with respect to (i.e. a component, or the multilayered film as a whole, etc.). The remaining limitations of the claims have similar issues, and therefore it is unclear what component has the claimed properties with respect to wt %, density, etc.
As the metes and bounds of the claimed invention of claim 24 cannot be determined, the scope is unknown, and prior art cannot be applied.
Regarding claim 25, the limitation reciting “based on the total weight of the core layer of the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer” is indefinite as the core layer has not been previously recited or required to be comprised of the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer. Independent claim 16 requires that the seal layer is comprised of the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer, but does not mention the composition of the core layer, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 25, the entire claim is indefinite for using the closed language “wherein the multilayered film consists of:” in lines 1-2 in combination with the “and/or” in line 3 and the use of the open ended language in line 4 “the core layer comprises”.
The language of the claim lays out three scenarios for “the multilayered film consists of”:
Consists of the skin layer, the core layer and the sealing layer
Consists of the core layer comprises…
Consists of the skin layer, the core layer and the sealing layer, and the core layer comprises….
It is not clear how in the second and third scenarios, both closed and open language can be used when reciting features of the claimed multilayered film.
Regarding claim 25, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 25 recites:
In line 5: the broad recitation “10 to 35 wt%”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 15 to 30 wt%, and/or 18 to 25 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In line 7: the broad recitation “65 to 90 wt%”, and the claim also recites “and/or 70 to 85 wt%, and/or 75 to 82 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 9-10: the broad recitation “920 to 970 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “and/or 930 to 938 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 10-11: the broad recitation “0.1 to 2.5 g/10min”, and the claim also recites “and/or of 0.5 to 1.2 g/10min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 25, the entire claim is indefinite as it is unclear what the claimed weight percentages are with respect to. For example, lines 4-6 recite “the core layer comprises: 10 to 35 wt% and/or 15 to 30 wt%, and/or 18 to 252 wt% based on the total weight of the core layer of the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer”. The claims recite that the skin layer comprises the aforementioned weight percentages, but does not state what the percentages are with respect to (i.e. a component, or the multilayered film as a whole, etc.). The remaining limitations of the claims have similar issues, and therefore it is unclear what component has the claimed properties with respect to wt %, density, etc.
As the metes and bounds of the claimed invention of claim 25 cannot be determined, the scope is unknown, and prior art cannot be applied.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation reciting “wherein the skin layer, the core layer, and the sealing layer comprise: the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer, and said multilayered film consists of polyethylene based polymers” is indefinite as it is unclear if “the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer is referring back to the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer of claim 1 for all three layers. The sealing layer is already required by claim 1 to comprise the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer, therefore, it is unclear if claim 26 is referring to an additional metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer.
Regarding claim 27, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 27 recites:
In lines 2-4: the broad recitation “a range of 20 to 40 wt% or 60 to 80 wt %”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 25 to 35 wt% or 65 to 75 wt%, and/or in a range of 28 to 32 wt% or 68 to 72 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 5-7: the broad recitation “a range of 20 to 40 wt% or 60 to 80 wt %”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 25 to 35 wt% or 65 to 75 wt%, and/or in a range of 28 to 32 wt% or 68 to 72 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 28, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 28 recites:
In lines 2-3: the broad recitation “150 to 300 MPa”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 250 to 290 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 4-5: the broad recitation “150 to 400 MPa”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 300 to 350 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 6-8: the broad recitation “in a range of 500 to 2000 g”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 1100 to 1700 g, and/or in a range of 1500 to 1600g, and/or in a range of 1500 to 1550” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 28, the limitation “and/or in a range of 1500 to 1550” in lines 7-8 are indefinite as the values are missing units.
Regarding claim 29, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 29 recites:
In lines 2-3: the broad recitation “in a range of 5 to 15%”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 10 to 13%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 4-6: the broad recitation “50 to 85˚C”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 55 to 73˚C, and/or in a range of 56 to 72˚C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 7-8: the broad recitation “in a range of 4 to 12 N”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 5 to 8 N” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In lines 9-10: the broad recitation “in a range of 60 to 90˚C”, and the claim also recites “and/or in a range of 65 to 88˚C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashem et al. (WO 2020/245425; cited on IDS and ISR).
Regarding claims 16 and 30, Kashem et al. teaches a multilayer machine direction oriented films for sealing, used in packaging of household, food, healthcare or beverage products, wherein a three layer structure of the multilayer film comprising outer layers A (sealing layer) and C (skin layer) and a core layer B (pg. 14). The outer layer A (sealing layer) is comprised of:
(a) 25 to 75 wt% based on the total weight of the layer of at least one multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer with at least two C4-C12 alpha olefins having a density of 910 to 925 kg/m3 and an MFR2 of 0.05 to 5 g/10 min;
(b) 25 to 75wt% based on the total weight of the layer of at least one ethylene based plastomer with a density between 870 and 900 kg/m3, an MFR2 of 0.1 to 5 g/10 min, wherein the plastomer is a copolymer of ethylene and 1-butene or ethylene and 1-octene (pg. 3-4); wherein the weight percentages add up to 100%.
The weight percentages, densities and MFR2 values of the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer and the at least one ethylene based plastomer overlap with the claimed ranges in lines 4-5, 20-22, and 24-27 of claim 16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
The multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer taught by Kashem et al. is ideally made by single cite catalysis and is therefore a metallocene linear low density polyethylene (pg. 7).
Kashem et al. further teaches that the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer may comprise two ethylene copolymers, including a low molecular weight copolymer of ethylene butene copolymer present in an amount of 0.2 to 2.5 mol% and a high molecular weight copolymer of ethylene hexene copolymer present in an amount of 0.4 to 4 mol% (pg. 6). The low molecular weight copolymer ethylene butene copolymer has an MFR2 of 1.0 to 10.0 g/10min (according to ISO 1133 at 90C under 2.165 kg load) and the high molecular weight copolymer of ethylene hexene copolymer has a MFR2 of 0.2 to 2.5 g/10min (according to ISO 1133 at 90C under 2.165 kg load), and wherein the density of the ethylene butene copolymer is higher than the ethylene hexene copolymer, in the range of 930 to 950 kg/m3 (pg. 7). The aforementioned ranges of mol%, MFR2, and density overlaps the claimed ranges required by lines 10-19 of claim 16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
While the reference does not expressly teach the specific weight percentages of the ethylene butene copolymer and ethylene hexene copolymer present in the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer, however, Kashem et al. uses the same bimodal ethylene/1-butene/1-hexene terpolymer (tradename AnteoTM FK1820) as the instant application (see [0242]), and therefore, would inherently have the same weight percentages and properties (melting point, MFR21, MFR21/MFR2) as the instant application.
Regarding claim 17, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and further teaches that the plastomer can be a copolymer of ethylene and 1-octene, wherein the content of 1-octene in the polymer may be 5 to 30 wt%, with a density between 870 and 895 kg/m3, and a MFR2 between 0.1 and 5 g/10min (pg 9), all of which overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 18, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and as previously stated, the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer taught by Kashem et al. is ideally made by single cite catalysis and is therefore a metallocene linear low density polyethylene (pg. 7). As both Kashem et al. and the instant application teach metallocene linear low density polyethylene, the metallocene linear low density polyethylene taught by Kashem et al. would inherently possess the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 19, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and as previously stated, the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer taught by Kashem et al. is ideally made by single cite catalysis and is therefore a metallocene linear low density polyethylene (pg. 7). As both Kashem et al. and the instant application teach metallocene linear low density polyethylene, the metallocene linear low density polyethylene taught by Kashem et al. would inherently possess the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 20, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. The limitations of the claims are written as “and/or” therefore only one property for each polymer fraction has to be met to meet the requirements of the claims.
As previously stated, Kashem et al. teaches that the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer may comprise two ethylene copolymers fractions, including a low molecular weight copolymer of ethylene butene and a high molecular weight copolymer of ethylene hexene copolymer (pg. 6). The low molecular weight copolymer ethylene butene copolymer has a density of the ethylene butene copolymer is higher than the ethylene hexene copolymer, in the range of 930 to 950 kg/m3 (pg. 7), overlapping with the claimed density range in lines 5-6. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
While the reference does not expressly teach a density range for the ethylene hexene copolymer, such a feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Kashem et al. uses the same bimodal ethylene/1-butene/1-hexene terpolymer (tradename AnteoTM FK1820) as the instant application (see [0242]), and therefore, would inherently have the same weight percentages and properties (melting point, MFR21, MFR21/MFR2) as the instant application. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kashem et al., it is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art that the density of the ethylene hexene copolymer would fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. The limitations of the claims are written as “and/or” therefore only one amount or content range has to be met to meet the requirements of the claims.
As previously stated, Kashem teaches that the multimodal linear low density polyethylene terpolymer includes a low molecular weight copolymer of ethylene butene copolymer present in an amount of 0.2 to 2.5 mol% and a high molecular weight copolymer of ethylene hexene copolymer present in an amount of 0.4 to 4 mol% (pg. 6) overlapping with the claimed density ranges in lines 3-6. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 22, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
The limitation(s) reciting wherein the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal copolymer (a) is a reaction of a presence of a metallocene complex of formula (I)….” is directed to a method of using and does/do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of making and/or using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, Kashem et al. teaches all the structural features of claim 16 as stated in the rejection above, therefore, the outer layer A (sealing layer) is capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
The limitations of the claims are written as “and/or” therefore only one thickness has to be met to meet the requirements of the claims. Kashem et al. further teaches that the film of the invention have a final thickness in the range of 10 to 40mm (pg. 14), which overlaps with the range of 12-350 mm recited in lines 9-10 of the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 26, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, wherein the reference expressly teaches that layer A (sealing layer) comprises the metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (pg. 5-7). The reference further teaches that layer B (core) is comprised of at least one multimodal copolymer of ethylene, such as LLDPE, with at least one C4-12 alpha olefin, and layer C is comprised of a multimodal copolymer of ethylene, such as LLDPE, same as those used for Layers A and B (pg. 10-13).
Regarding claim 27, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and as previously stated, the content of the metallocene catalyzed linear low density polyethylene terpolymer is 25 to 75 wt% based on the total weight of the layer; and the content of the plastomer is 25 to 75wt% based on the total weight of the layer (pg. 3-4), which overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 40% for both components recited by the claims. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 28, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. While the reference does not expressly teach the claimed tensile modulus, Kashem et al. teaches similar materials used for the multilayer film (pg 17) as the instant application (see [0238-0242]), therefore, the materials would have the same properties with respect to Tensile modulus and dart drop strength as the instant application.
Regarding claim 29, Kashem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and further teaches the multilayer film has a haze value of 10.2 to 11.7% (Table 2), which is fully encompassed by the claimed range of 5 to 15%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights