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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-15 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 07/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/03/2026.
The restriction has been made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashem (WO 20202/45425 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kashem teaches a uniaxially oriented multilayer film (Abstract) comprising a sealing layer (layer A), a core layer (Layer B) and an outer layer (Layer C). (Page 5). Kashem teaches at least one of the layers can comprise a metallocene-catalyzed multimodal polyethylene terpolymer (Page 5-7). Kashem teaches the polyethylene terpolymer can have a density of 910 -925 kg/m3 and a MFR2 from 0.05 to 2 g/10 min. (Abstract). These ranges overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 2, Kashem teaches the film is oriented in the machine direction. (Page 13).
Regarding Claim 3, Kashem teaches the film can be asymmetric and states the outer layer and sealing layer can be different thicknesses. (Page 5, 14)
Regarding Claim 4, Kashem teaches the terpolymer can be a terpolymer of ethylene, butene, and hexene. (Page 6-7).
Regarding Claim 6, Kashem teaches the sealing layer comprises 25 to 75 wt% (re: total weight of the layer) of the terpolymer. (Abstract). This 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, Kashem teaches the film can comprise 3 layers. (Page 14).
Regarding Claim 9, Kashem teaches the outer layer can comprise a polyethylene having a density of 915 to 960 kg/m3 and a MFR2 of 0.1 to 5 g/10 min. (Page 12). This overlaps 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 exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 10, Kashem teaches the core layer comprises a polyethylene having a density of 915 to 940 kg/m3 and a MFR2 of 0.1 to 5 g/10 min. (Page 10) This overlaps 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 exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, Kashem teaches examples, where the tensile modulus in the machine direction can range from 720 MPa or 1146 MPa. (Table 2). As Kashem teaches these two tensile moduli are suitable, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that a TM range from 720 to 1146 MPa is a suitable range to yield an acceptable product. This overlaps 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 exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, Kashem teaches example, where the haze is 10.4% and 10.6%. (Table 2). As Kashem teaches these two haze values are suitable, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that a haze range from 10.4 to 10.6% is a suitable range to yield an acceptable product. This overlaps 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 exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, Kashem teaches the film should have a low seal initiation temperature. (Page 1). Kashem teaches the film should have a SIT of 70 to 105 degrees C. (Page 14). This overlaps 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 exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 14, Kashem teaches the film can be a blown film before stretching. (Page 13).
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, Kashem teaches using the film as packaging article. (Page 14)
Regarding Claim 17, Kashem teaches the sealing layer comprises the claimed polyethylene terpolymer. (Page 5-7)
Regarding Claim 19, Kashem teaches the sealing layer comprises 25 to 75 wt% (re: total weight of the layer) of the terpolymer. (Abstract). This 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashem in view of Jamieson (WO 2019/081611 A1)
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Kashem teaches the terpolymer can comprises ethtlene-1-butene polymer component and ethylene-1-hexene polymer component. (Page 7-9). Kashem does not specifically teach the wt% of the two components. Kashem references prior art that are suitable, such as Jamieson. Jamieson teaches multimodal polyethylene terpolymer for use as an outer layer of a multilayer film (Abstract, Page 5-6) comprising/consisting of 30-70 wt% ethylene-1-hexene and 30-70 wt% of ethylene-1-buetene (Page 6-7). As Kashem teaches the terpolymer composition of Jamieson is suitable and Jamieson teaches this ratio for the terpolymer can yield a good sealing polymer (Page 4), then it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed composition ranges taught by Jamieson in Kashem.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashem in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0250363 A1)
Regarding Claim 8, Kashem does not specifically teach tie layers within the film.
Lee teaches a multilayer film comprising polyethylene layers and structure of outer layers, core layer, and sealant layers. (Claim 1 of Lee; Abstract). Lee teaches a tie layer can be placed within the multilayer structure. (Claim 1 of Lee; Paragraph 0080) Lee teaches a tie layer helps with adhering layers of the laminate together. (Paragraph 0047). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add tie layers to the film of Kashem to help for better interlayer adhesion of the film.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights