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 .
Examiner’s Note
The examiner considers the claims in the preliminary amendment submitted 3 October 2024 herein. Accordingly, claims 16 – 30 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 17 – 21, 23 – 25, 27, 28, and 30 use “and/or”.
Using claim 17 as an example, where a similar understanding exists for the other claims, claim 17 recites:
“The multilayered film according to claim 16, wherein the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (MMCP) comprises:
a ratio of a soluble fraction at 35°C determined with crossfractionation chromatography (CFC) as described in an experimental part to a density of the MMCP, SF@35°C/densityMMCP of below 0.007 or below 0.050, wherein an amount of the soluble fraction at 350C is in a range of 0.5 to 6.0 wt.-% or 39 to 43 wt.-%, based on the total weight of the MMCP; and/or
a ratio of the MFR21 (190°C, 21.6 kg, ISO 1133) to MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133), MFR21/MFR2 in a range of 22 to 50, and/or of 28 to 46.”
The first “and/or” (i.e. the one between the two body paragraphs of claim 17) is understood to read such that either of the two paragraphs, or both of the two paragraphs applies. Accordingly, the prior art only needs to read on one of the two paragraphs to read upon the claimed invention.
However, in the case of the second “and/or”, the prior art only needs to read on one of the two ranges to read upon the claimed invention. In the particular case of claim 17, prior art providing a MFR21/MFR2 within the broader range of 22 to 50 but not within the narrower range of 28 to 46 will still be considered to read upon the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “MFR5 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133)” (l. 14 of the claim). Based on the conditions for the MFR enclosed in parentheses, it appears the subscript for MFR should be “2” rather than “5”, consistent with other recitations within claim 20.
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 17 – 21, 24, 25, 27, and 28 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.
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).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “a ratio of a soluble fraction at 35°C determined with crossfractionation chromatography (CFC) as described in an experimental part to a density of the MMCP, SF@35°C/densityMMCP of... below 0.050”, and the claim also recites “below 0.007” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “an amount of the soluble fraction at 35°C is in a range of 0.5 to 6.0 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites “39 to 43 wt.-%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the broad recitation a ratio of the MFR21 (190°C, 21.6 kg, ISO 1133) to MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133), MFR21/MFR2 in a range of 22 to 50”, and the claim also recites “28 to 46” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the skin layer (SKL) of the multilayered film comprises a thickness in a range of 1 to 100 µm”, and the claim also recites “5 to 80 µm” and “10 to 15 µm” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the core layer of the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 10 to 200 µm”, and the claim also recites “20 to 80 µm” and “30 to 45 µm” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the sealing layer of the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 1 to 50 µm”, and the claim also recites “5 to 25 µm” and “10 to 15 µm” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 12 to 350 µm”, and the claim also recites “40 to 150 µm” and “50 to 70 µm” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the skin layer comprises: 65 to 95 wt.-%...based on a total weight of the skin layer of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer”, and the claim also recites “80 to 95 wt.-%”, “82 to 93 wt.-%”, and “88 to 92 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the skin layer…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 912 to 925 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “913 to 918 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the skin layer comprises…5 to 35 wt.-%...based on the total weight of the skin layer of a LDPE having a density (ASTM D792)”, and the claim also recites “5 to 20 wt.-%”, “7 to 18 wt.-%”, and “8 to 12 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “a LDPE having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 930 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “920 to 925 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “a LDPE having…a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 4 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “0.7 to 2 g/10 min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “the core layer comprises: 10 to 35 wt.-%...based on a total weight of the core layer of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer”, and the claim also recites “15 to 30 wt.-%” and “18 to 25 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “the core layer…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 912 to 925 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “913 to 918 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation the core layer comprises:…50 to 90 wt.-%...based on the total weight of the core layer of a mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend”, and the claim also recites “55 to 85 wt.-%” and “68 to 82 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend having a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.1 to 1.2 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “0.3 to 1.1 g/10 min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend having…a density (ASTM D792) of 910 to 945 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “915 to 930 kg/m3” and “920 to 927 kg/m3” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “the core layer comprises…0 to 15 wt.-%...based on the total weight of the core layer of a Ziegler-Natta catalysed linear low density polyethylene being a multimodal alpha-olefin terpolymer”, and the claim also recites “0 to 12 wt.-%” and “8 to 12 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a Ziegler-Natta catalysed linear low density polyethylene…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 920 to 970 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “935 to 950 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a Ziegler-Natta catalysed linear low density polyethylene…having a MFR5 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.1 to 2.5 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “1.0 to 1.8 g/10 min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “the core layer comprises…0 to 15 wt.-%...based on a total weight of the core layer of a high density polyethylene”, and the claim also recites “0 to 12 wt.-%” and “6 to 10 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a high density polyethylene…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 950 to 975 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “955 to 965 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “a high density polyethylene…having…a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.1 to 1.5 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “0.5 to 1.0 g/10 min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “the sealing layer comprises: 0 to 90 wt.-%...based on a total weight of the sealing layer of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer”, and the claim also recites “50 to 90 wt.-%” and “70 to 85 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “the sealing layer…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 912 to 925 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “913 to 918 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “the sealing layer comprises…0 to 80 wt.-%...based on a total weight of the sealing layer of a plastomer”, and the claim also recites “10 to 70 wt.-%” and “15 to 25 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a plastomer…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 860 to 910 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “895 to 905 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “ a plastomer…having…a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 10 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “1.0 to 1.5 g/10 min” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “the sealing layer comprises…0 to 50 wt.-%...based on a total weight of the sealing layer of a multimodal metallocene catalysed linear low density polyethylene being a bimodal ethylene/1-butene/1-hexene terpolymer”, and the claim also recites “35 to 45 wt.-%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a multimodal metallocene catalysed linear low density polyethylene…having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 930 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “916 to 925 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “the ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) comprises: a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 960 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “925 to 955 kg/m3” and “930 to 950 kg/m3” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “the ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) comprises…a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300.0 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “3.0 to 10.0 g/10 min”, “80 to 150”, “4.0 to 7.0 g/10 min”, and “115 to 125 g/10 min” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “the ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) comprises: a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 960 kg/m3”, and the claim also recites “925 to 955 kg/m3” and “930 to 950 kg/m3” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “the ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) comprises…a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300.0 g/10 min”, and the claim also recites “3.0 to 10.0 g/10 min”, “80 to 150”, “6.0 to 8.0 g/10 min”, and “115 to 125 g/10 min” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a total amount of 1-butene, based on the multimodal polymer in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mol-%”, and the claim also recites “0.2 to 0.8 mol-%” and “0.3 to 0.7 mol-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a total amount of 1-hexene, based on the multimodal polymer is in a range of 1.5 to 8.0 mol-%”, and the claim also recites “2.0 to 6.0 mol.-%” and “2.2 to 4.0 mol-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a content of the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) of 35 to 50 wt.-% based on the total weight of the MMCP”, and the claim also recites “36 to 48 wt.-%” and “38 to 45 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a content of the ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) of 50 to 65 wt.-% based on the total weight of MMCP”, and the claim also recites “52 to 64 wt.-%” and “55 to 62 wt.-%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites the broad recitation “a Tensile Modulus in MD (ISO 527-3) in a range of 150 to 300 MPa”, and the claim also recites “190 to 240 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 27 recites the broad recitation “a Tensile Modulus in TD (ISO 527-3) in a range of 150 to 400 MPa”, and the claim also recites “200 to 300 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 27 recites the broad recitation “a Dart Drop Strength (ISO 7765-1) in a range of 230 to 800 g”, and the claim also recites “350 to 600 g” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “a Haze (ASTM D1003-00) in the range of 5 to 15 %", and the claim also recites “8 to 13 %” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “a Seal Initiation Temperature determined as described in a specification in a range of 60 to 70°C”, and the claim also recites “78 to 85”, “63 to 68°C”, and “79 to 81°C” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “a Hot Tack Force determined as described in the specification in a range of 6.0 to 8.0 N”, and the claim also recites “5.2 to 5.8 N”, “6.2 to 7.5 N”, and “5.4 to 5.6 N” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 28 recites the broad recitation “a Hot Tack Temperature determined as described in the specification in a range of 60 to 90°C”, and the claim also recites “63 to 86°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims 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 23, in addition to the issues above, claim 23 recites the limitation “the experimental part” in l. 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, in addition to the issues above, claim 28 refers to “a specification” and “the specification” (ll. 5, 7, and 9 of the claim). It is not clear from the claim what specification is being referenced. For example, the Haze in claim 28 is referenced with respect to ASTM D1003-00 as a specification, but no such equivalence appears with respect to Sealing Initiation Temperature, Hot Tack Force, or Hot Tack Temperature.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16 – 18, 20 – 22, 25, and 27 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goossens (WO 2020/223019 A1) in view of Kela (US 2017/0327678 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Goossens discloses a multilayered film (“shrink film”: e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0044]) comprising:
a skin layer, a core layer, and a sealing layer (“core layer” with one or more “skin layers” on the “major surfaces” of the “core layer” ¶¶ [0015], [0025], [0028], [0029]; ¶¶ [0045] – [0054] describe examples where a “three layer co-extruded heat sealable film” has two “skins” and a “core”, implying “skin” in the context of Goossens’ broader disclosure also includes layers of sealable composition), wherein the core layer includes
a mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend having a MFR2 in a range of 0.1 to 2.5 g/10 min and a density of 910 to 940 kg/m3 (“recycled second polymer composition”: e.g. ¶¶ [0025] – [0027]).
Although Goossens does not recite the same methods for measuring MFR2 and density as required of the claims, the examiner observes the breadth of the ranges Goossens discloses for the MFR2 and density are sufficiently wide that some variability between different test methods are accounted for within the claimed ranges.
Hereinafter, the examiner refers to the MFR2 and density of Goossens’ mixed-plastic polyethylene with the spelled-out methods in the claims.
While Goossens mentions metallocene-catalyzed polyethylenes (e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0021], [0026], [0028]), Goossens is not explicit as to at least the core layer includes a metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (MMCP) which includes:
(i) 35.0 to 50.0 wt.-% based on a total weight of MMCP of an ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A); and
(ii) 50.0 to 65.0 wt.-% based on the total weight of MMCP of an ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B);
wherein the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) has
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 920 to 960 kg/m3;
a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300.0 g/10 min;
a 1-butene content in a range of 0.1 to 3.0 mol-%, based on the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A); and
the ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) has:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 880 to 920 kg/m3;
an MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.001 to 1.0 g/10 min;
a 1-hexene content in a range of 1.5 to 10.0 mol-% based on the ethylene-1-hexene polymer compound (B); and
the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (MMCP) has:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 930 kg/m3;
a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.1 to 1.4 g/10 min; and
a ratio of MFR21 (190°C, 21.6 kg, ISO 1133) to MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133), MFR21/MFR2, in a range of 22 to 70.
However, these features would have been obvious in view of Kela.
Kela discloses a multilayered film (“multilayer film”: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0006] – [0146]) comprising:
a skin layer, a core layer, and a sealing layer (as required for a film comprising “at least 3 layers” and which needs sealing properties: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0041], [0115]) wherein:
at least the core layer includes a metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (MMCP) (“multimodal polymer of ethylene (a)”: e.g. ¶¶ [0023]) which includes:
(i) 30 to 70 wt.-% based on a total weight of MMCP of an ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) (“ethylene polymer component (A)”: e.g. ¶¶ [0011], [0012], [0016], [0025] – [0027], [0029] – [0042], [0045] – [0056], [0063], [0068], [0069], [0085], [0088], [0096], [0106], [0108], [0110]); and
(ii) 30 to 70 wt.-% based on the total weight of MMCP of an ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) (“ethylene polymer component (B)”: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0013], [0016], [0024] – [0026], [0029] – [0042], [0045] – [0048], [0052] – [0054], [0063], [0068], [0069], [0084], [0085], [0096], [0106], [0110]);
wherein the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) has
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 950 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0055], [0118], [0121]);
a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 1 to 50 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0049], [0118] – [0120]);
a 1-butene content in a range of 0.03 to 5.0 mol-%, based on the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) (e.g. ¶ [0039]); and
the ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) has:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 880 to 920 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0118], [0121]);
an MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of less than 50 g/10 min (less than the MFR2 of the “ethylene polymer component (A)”: e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0029], [0030]);
a 1-hexene content in a range of less than 33.26 mol-% based on the ethylene-1-hexene polymer compound (B) (as calculated using the equation at ¶ [0038], which is a rearrangement of the lever rule, with the cited amount for total comonomer content, relative amounts of “ethylene polymer component (A)” and “ethylene polymer component (B)”, and the comonomer content of the “ethylene polymer component (A)”: e.g. ¶¶ [0038] – [0040], [0063]); and
the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (MMCP) has:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0055], [0118], [0121]);
a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0118] – [0120]); and
a ratio of MFR21 (190°C, 21.6 kg, ISO 1133) to MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133), MFR21/MFR2, in a range of 13 to 35 (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0028], [0118] – [0120]).
For clarity, with respect to the 1-hexene content of the ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B), since 1-butene and 1-hexene are the only comonomers the maximum is calculated as:
10
%
-
(
0.7
)
(
0.03
%
)
1
-
0.7
=
32.263
%
where 10% is the maximum total content of 1-butene and 1-hexene (e.g. ¶ [0040]), 0.7 is the maximum weight fraction of the ethylene-1-butene polymer component A (e.g. ¶ [0063]), and 0.03% is the minimum content of 1-butene (e.g. ¶ [0039]).
The lower endpoint for the 1-hexene content of the ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) is understood to be greater than zero. Notably, at a minimum total content of 1-butene and 1-hexene (i.e. 0.5%: e.g. ¶ [0040]) and a minimum amount of the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A) (i.e. 0.3: e.g. ¶ [0063]), the numerator in Kela’s equation in ¶ [0038] becomes zero at 1.666…% 1-butene in the ethylene-1-butene polymer component (A). As Kela allows for smaller 1-butene content than this in general (e.g. ¶ [0039]), it then becomes understood that, for an ethylene-1-hexene polymer component (B) to exist, the “greater than zero” endpoint is that which Kela discloses.
Kela notes typical unimodal polyethylenes are good for optical properties, but have melt processing difficulties that typical multimodal polyethylenes offer (e.g. ¶ [0002]). Kela therefore provides their inventive MMCP as a means to possess a balance of the properties of typical unimodal polyethylenes and multimodal polyethylenes (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0017] – [0021]).
Goossens discloses their core layer may further comprise other polyethylenes, e.g. a copolymer of ethylene with at least one alpha olefin, a density of 918 to 945 kg/m3, and an MFR2 of 0.1 to 2.5 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0017] – [0024]), properties which Kela’s MMCP overlaps. Accordingly, there is an indication in the prior art that Kela’s MMCP is compatible with Goossens core layer. Moreover, Goossens is concerned with optical properties of their film (e.g. ¶¶ [0007], [0035], [0042]), so one of ordinary skill in the art would have further reason to consider Kela’s MMCP for improving properties of Goossens’ multilayered film
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify at least the core layer of Goossens’ multilayered film, the motivation being to provide a film which possesses excellent optical properties without compromising melt processing capabilities when making the multilayered film.
The ranges Goossens and Kela disclose encompass or overlap the claimed ranges, as appropriate.
“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (MMCP) comprises, e.g., a ratio of the MFR21 (190°C, 21.6 kg, ISO 1133) to MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133), MFR21/MFR2 in a range of 13 to 35 (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0028], [0118] – [0120]).
Kela’s MFR21/MFR2 overlaps the claimed range. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses, e.g. the multilayered film has a thickness in a range of 300 µm or less (e.g. ¶ [0117]).
Kela’s thickness for the multilayered film overlaps the claimed range.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Goossens discloses the multilayer film consists of the skin layer, the core layer and the sealing layer (e.g. ¶ [0028]); and the core layer comprises:
25 to 80 wt.-% based on a total weight of the core layer of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (as modified in view of Kela, as balance to the amount of “recycled second polymer composition”: e.g. ¶ [0015]) having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3 and a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min (Kela: e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0055], [0118] – [0121]); and
20 to 75 wt.-% based on the total weight of the core layer of a mixed-plastic-polyethylene recycling blend having a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.1 to 2.5 g/10 min and a density (ASTM D792) of 910 to 945 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0015], [0025]).
Claim 20 recites endpoints of 0 wt-.% for both the amount of a Ziegler-Natta catalysed linear low density polyethylene being a multimodal alpha- olefin terpolymer and a high density polyethylene with the features claimed. Goossens does not require such polyethylenes in their core layer, and thus meets the 0 wt.-% endpoint.
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Goossens discloses the multilayer film consists of the skin layer, the core layer and the sealing layer (e.g. ¶ [0028]).
Additionally, Kela notes their MMCP having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0055], [0118], [0121]) and a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0118] – [0120]) possesses excellent sealing properties (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0041]).
While neither Goossens nor Kela disclose the percentages of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer, plastomer (of the features claimed), or multimodal metallocene catalysed linear low density polyethylene (of the features claimed) in the sealing layer, it should be noted claim 21 does not require either said plastomer or said multimodal metallocene catalysed linear low density polyethylene (noting the 0 wt.-% endpoint for both). Therefore, the amount of Kela’s metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene polymer can be determined based on the desired sealing properties for the sealing layer, consistent with compounding requirements Kela discloses (e.g. ¶¶ [0064] – [0068]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for, e.g., the sealing layer Goossens discloses to comprise, e.g., 0 to 90 wt.-% based on a total weight of the sealing layer of Kela’s metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3 and a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min, the motivation being to obtain the desired sealing properties of the multilayered film.
Regarding claim 22, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses the skin layer, the core layer and the sealing layer comprise the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0112] – [0115]).
Regarding claim 25, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses the metallocene-catalysed multimodal copolymer comprises, e.g., a total amount of 1-butene, based on the multimodal polymer in the range of 0.03 to 5.0 mol-% (e.g. ¶ [0039]).
Kela’s total amount of 1-butene encompasses the claimed range.
“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 27, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses said multilayered film comprises, e.g., a Tensile Modulus in MD (ISO 527-3) in a range of 200 to 350 MPa (e.g. ¶¶ [0058], [0059]).
Kela’s range for the tensile modulus in MD overlaps the claimed range. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 28, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses, e.g., a Hot Tack Temperature of 80°C or more (e.g. ¶¶ [0061], [0170], [0171]). Kela’s conditions for measuring Hot Tack Temperature (e.g. ¶¶ [0170], [0171]) are comparable to those used in the instant specification (e.g. p. 19, l. 26, to p. 20, l. 8) and thus Kela’s Hot Tack Temperature is considered to meet claim 1, namely by overlapping the claimed range.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 29, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Goossens discloses said multilayered film consists of polyethylene-based polymers (e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0017] – [0027] disclose polymers other than polyethylene-based ones are optional, and thus Goossens’ disclosure can be practiced without such other polymers).
Regarding claim 30, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Goossens discloses the multilayered film is configured as packaging material for, e.g., food products (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0005]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goossens and Kela as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Aarnio (US 2013/0167486 A1) and Chen (WO 2019/209334 A1).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Goossens discloses the multilayer film consists of the skin layer, the core layer and the sealing layer (e.g. ¶ [0028]).
Additionally, Kela discloses the skin layer for modifying Goossens’ multilayered film comprises the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene polymer having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0055], [0118], [0121]) and a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0118] – [0120]) as discussed previously.
Although Kela is not explicit as to the skin layer comprising: 65 to 95 wt.-%, and/or 80 to 95 wt.-%, and/or 82 to 93 wt.-%, and/or 88 to 92 wt.-% based on a total weight of the skin layer of said metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer; and
5 to 35 wt.-%, and/or 5 to 20 wt.-%, and/or 7 to 18 wt.-%, and/or 8 to 12 wt.-% based on the total weight of the skin layer of a LDPE having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 930 kg/m3, and/or of 920 to 925 kg/m3, and a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to4 g/10 min, and/or of 0.7 to 2 g/10 min,
these features would have been obvious in view of Aarnio.
Aarnio discloses multilayer films similar to those Kela discloses, and notably discloses a skin layer comprising at least 50 wt.-% based on a total weight of the skin layer of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer (e.g. ¶ [0124]) having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 950 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶ [0075]) and a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 1.4 g/10 min; and
up to 50 wt.-% based on the total weight of the skin layer of a LDPE having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 905 to 940 kg/m3, and a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.05 to 20 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0108], [0111], [0135]).
Thus, at least 50 wt.-% is based on other polyethylenes (e.g. ¶ [0124]).
LDPE is generally known for its utility in shrink applications because it orients well and therefore shrinks well (Chen: e.g. ¶ [0004]). This is notable since Goossens relates to shrink films (e.g. ¶¶ [0007], [0009], [0010], [0015], [0016], [0028] – [0030]) and therefore inclusion of LDPE would have been seen as beneficial. Aarnio’s ranges provide a means for incorporating LDPE in a manner compatible with metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymers, and relates to drawing (e.g. ¶ [0166]) where stretching and orientation would be expected.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the skin layer to comprise, e.g., at least 50 wt.-% of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer Kela discloses and up to 50 wt.-% of LDPE as Aarnio and Chen suggest, the motivation being to provide a skin layer which is suitable for orientation in shrink applications as Goossens relates to.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goossens and Kela as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jamieson (WO 2019/081611 A1)
Regarding claim 23, although Goossens and Kela are not explicit as to the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer comprising
a ratio of the molecular weight (MW) of the low crystalline fraction (LCF) to a molecular weight (MW) of the high crystalline fraction (HCF), MW(Tp(LCF)/MW(Tp(HCF), determined as described in the experimental part, in a range of > 1.0 to 10.0; and/or
a ratio of a breadth at Half peak height (LCF)/(98 - Tp(LCF)) in a range of 0.10 to 1.50; and/or
a delta of Mw(LCF) - Mw(HCF) of at least 5000 up to 200000 g/mol,
this would have been obvious in view of Jamieson.
Jamieson discloses metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymers comparable to those Kela discloses (noting overlap of comonomers, densities, and MFR2 values, for example: e.g. p. 2, l. 10, to p. 37, l. 6) wherein a delta of Mw(LCF) – Mw(HCF) is at least 5000 g/mol (e.g. p. 4, ll. 16 – 19).
Jamieson also discloses such copolymers possess an ideal balance of processability, stiffness, toughness, and sealing performance (e.g. p. 2, ll. 7 – 8; p. 4, ll. 24 – 26). The delta in Mw is necessarily high for, as Kela notes in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 16, establishing a multimodal copolymer which can have properties favorable for melt processing.
Accordingly, to help obtain the benefits Kela discloses as well as to contribute to stiffness, toughness, and sealing performance, it would have been obvious for the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer to have a delta of Mw(LCF) - Mw(HCF) of at least 5000 g/mol as Jamieson suggests.
Jamieson’s delta of Mw(LCF) - Mw(HCF) encompasses the claimed range.
“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goossens and Kela as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Traisilanun (US 2019/0374919 A1).
Regarding claim 24, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Kela discloses component (A) of the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer consists of an ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) and an ethylene polymer fraction (A-2), wherein the ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) comprises:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 960 kg/m3, and/or of 925 to 955 kg/m3, and/or of 930 to 950 kg/m3; and/or
a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300.0 g/10 min, and/or of 3.0 to 10.0 g/10 min or 80 to 150, and/or of 4.0 to 7.0 g/10 min or 115 to 125 g/10 min; and/or
the ethylene polymer fraction (A-2) includes:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 925 to 960 kg/m3, and/or of 925 to 955 kg/m3°, and/or of 930 to 950 kg/m3; and/or
a MFR2 (1900 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 3.0 to 300.0 g/10 min, and/or of 3.0 to 10.0 g/10 min or 80 to 150, and/or of 6.0 to 8.0 g/10 min or 115 to 125 g/10 min, these features would have been obvious in view of Traisilanun.
Traisilanun discloses metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer where an ethylene-1-butene component (A) consists of two ethylene polymer fractions (A-1) and (A-2), e.g. by providing two reactors for copolymerizing with 1-butene, the result being improved processability (e.g. Inventive Examples 7, 8; Table 3; ¶¶ [0114] – [0118]).
Kela discloses the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene polymer having a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0055], [0118], [0121]) and a MFR2 (190°C 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min (e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0118] – [0120]) as discussed previously.
As such, there is an understanding that, if providing the same with two fractions (A-1) and (A-2) as Traisilanun suggests that maintaining the fractions within Kela’s disclosed ranges would maintain the advantages Kela discloses as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 16.
Accordingly, to improve processability, it would have been obvious for the metallocene-catalysed multimodal polyethylene copolymer to consist of an ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) and an ethylene polymer fraction (A-2), wherein the ethylene polymer fraction (A-1) comprises:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3; and/or
a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min; and/or
the ethylene polymer fraction (A-2) includes:
a density (ASTM D792) in a range of 910 to 935 kg/m3,; and/or
a MFR2 (190°C, 2.16 kg, ISO 1133) in a range of 0.5 to 7 g/10 min.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goossens and Kela as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mitani (US 6,169,051 B1).
Regarding claim 26, although Kela is not explicit as to the metallocene-catalysed multimodal copolymer being configured from a presence of a metallocene complex of formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
420
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each X is independently a halogen atom, a C1-6-alkyl group, C1-6-alkoxy group, phenyl or benzyl group
each Het is independently a monocyclic heteroaromatic group containing at least one heteroatom selected from O or S;
L is -R'2Si-, wherein each R' is independently C1-20-hydrocarbyl or C1.1o-alkyl substituted with alkoxy having 1 to 10 carbon atoms;
M is Ti, Zr or Hf;
each R1 is a same or different and is a C1-6-alkyl group or C1-6-alkoxy group;
each n is 1 to 2;
each R2 is a same or different and is a C1-6-alkyl group, C1-6-alkoxy group or -Si(R)3 group;
each R is C1-10-alkyl or phenyl group optionally substituted by 1 to 3 C1-6-alkyl groups; and
each p is 0 to 1,
these features would have been obvious in view of Mitani.
Mitani discloses a metallocene catalyst for forming multimodal polyethylene copolymers of the formula (I) above, particularly wherein:
wherein each X is independently a halogen atom (e.g. Cl)
each Het is independently a monocyclic heteroaromatic group containing at least one heteroatom, e.g. O;
L is -R'2Si-, wherein each R' is, e.g., a C1 hydrocarbyl (e.g. CH3);
M is Zr;
each R1 is a same or different and is a C1-6-alkyl group;
each n is 1 to 2;
each R2 is a same or different and is a C1-6-alkyl group;
each R is C1-6-alkyl; and
each p is 0 to 1 (e.g. Fig. 3C shows a formula resulting with the above chemistry; Col. 2, l. 6, to Col. 15, l. 50).
Such metallocenes are advantageous for their high polymerization activity (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 46 – 50; Col. 5, ll. 49 – 55).
Accordingly, it would have been to configure the metallocene-catalysed multimodal copolymer from a presence of the above catalyst, namely as there is a high degree of activity for polymerization, thus guaranteeing the properties of the resulting copolymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights