DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
2. As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
WHEN CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF INVENTIONS
3. As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
4. Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-10, drawn to a multilayer film.
Group II, claims 11-15, drawn to a process to make the multilayer film.
5. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The technical feature of Groups I and II appears to be a multilayer film. However, the technical feature of Group I cannot be a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2 because the technical feature is shown in the prior art. Williamson et al. (WO 2017/172273 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Bender et al. (US 2009/0252902 A1) disclose a multilayer film.
6. Williamson et al. disclose a film comprising a polyethylene resin, wherein the film can be a monolayer film or a multilayer film (see page 37, claims 11, 14 and 15). The film (primary layer) comprises polyethylene such as a first polyethylene and a masterbatch composition comprising a second polyethylene resin and a free radical generator (see paragraph 0017). The amount of the first polyethylene is 60 to 99.9 wt% and the amount of the master batch is 0.1 to 40 wt% (see paragraph 0051). These amounts overlap with that utilized in the present invention (see page 22, Table 3, Layer 2).
7. The first polyethylene includes Dowlex TG 2085 B (see paragraph 0027), identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, line 24 of present specification). As evidenced by the present specification, Dowlex TG 2085 B is LLDPE polymer (see page 21, lines 24-25 of present specification).
8. The masterbatch composition comprises the second polyethylene resin and the free radical generator (FRG) (see paragraph 0017). The second polyethylene resin can be LDPE resin such as LDPE 4016 (see paragraph 0041 and 0070), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, line 11 of present specification). The FRG can be Trigonox 301 (see paragraph 0035), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, lines 10-11 of present specification). The amount of FRG is 5 to 1000 ppm relative to the total amount of resin (see paragraph 0031), which overlaps with that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, line 10 of present specification).
9. A composition comprising the first polyethylene resin and the master batch is extruded, i.e. extruded first LLDPE composition (see paragraph 0073). Given that the extruded first LLDPE composition comprises the first LLDPE polymer and the master batch including the second polyethylene and free radical generator identical to that utilized in the present invention with amounts of the first LLDPE polymer, amounts of the master batch, and amounts of the second polyethylene and free radical generator in the master batch overlapping with that utilized in the present invention, the extruded first LLDPE composition necessarily inherently has a complex viscosity ratio (h0.1/h10) and a ratio of Mz Abs/ Mw Abs identical to that presently claimed.
10. Williamson et al. do not disclose a second layer as presently claimed.
11. Bender et al. disclose a multilayer film structure comprising a core layer (primary layer) comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as polyethylene, a functional layer (third layer) on a first side of the core layer and a heat sealable skin layer (second layer) on a second side of the core layer (see Abstract and paragraph 0013). The functional layer is a printable layer comprising thermoplastic polymer (third layer of polymer) (see paragraphs 0017-0018). The heat sealable skin layer (second layer) comprises thermoplastic polymer such as linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (see paragraph 0024). As evidenced by the present specification, LLDPE is a heat seal polymer (see page 11, lines 33-34 of present specification). The multilayer film structure provides improved machinability, print performance and lamination performance (see Abstract and paragraph 0008).
12. In light of motivation for using a multilayer film structure comprising a functional layer comprising thermoplastic polymer and a heat sealable skin layer comprising heat seal polymer, wherein a core layer comprising polyethylene is disposed between the functional layer and the heat sealable skin layer disclosed by Bender et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the multilayer film structure comprising core layer (primary layer) comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as polyethylene, a functional layer (third layer) on a first side of the core layer and a heat sealable skin layer (second layer) on a second side of the core layer of Bender et al. as the multilayer film of Williamson et al. such that the film comprising polyethylene of Williamson et al. is used as the core layer, in order to prepare the multilayer structure with improved machinability, print performance and lamination performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
13. Since Applicant’s inventions do not contribute a special technical feature when viewed over the prior art they do not have a single general inventive concept and so lack unity of invention. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
14. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
15. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
16. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
17. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
18. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
19. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
20. During a telephone conversation with Jacob R. Graham on 02/09/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-10 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 2 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 2 recites “film thickness”, which should be “a multilayer film thickness”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 2 recites “film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 2 recites “film thickness”, which should be “a multilayer film thickness”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “ratio (Mz Abs/ Mw Abs)”. In light of parentheses, it is not clear if the limitation inside the parentheses is required or not. This rejection affects all the dependent 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 2009/0252902 A1) in view of Demirors et al. (US 2016/0237222 A1), taken in view of evidence by Dow (Dowlex NG2045B, 2012).
Regarding claims 1-8, Bender et al. disclose a multilayer film structure comprising a core layer (primary layer) comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as polyethylene, a functional layer (third layer) on a first side of the core layer and a heat sealable skin layer (second layer) on a second side of the core layer (see Abstract and paragraph 0013). The functional layer is a printable layer comprising thermoplastic polymer (third layer of polymer) (see paragraphs 0017-0018). The heat sealable skin layer (second layer) comprises thermoplastic polymer such as linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (see paragraph 0024). As evidenced by the present specification, LLDPE is a heat seal polymer (see page 11, lines 33-34 of present specification).
While Bender et al. disclose the core layer (primary layer) comprising polyethylene polymer, Bender et al. do not disclose the polyethylene is an extruded first LLDPE composition as presently claimed.
Demirors et al. disclose a resin composition (first LLDPE composition) comprising 97.5 wt% of Resin A such as Dowlex NG2045B (first LLDPE polymer) and 2.5 wt% of a masterbatch comprising Resin B and free radical generator (see paragraph 0038). As evidenced by Dow, Dowlex NG2045B is LLDPE polymer (see Overview). The resin composition has viscosity measured at angular frequency of 0.1 rad/s (h0.1) of 9,675, and a viscosity measured at angular frequency of 10 rad/s (h10) of 4,364 (see page 7, Table 2, Inventive Example 1). The viscosity is measured at 190 °C (see paragraph 0065). While Demirors et al. do not explicitly disclose viscosity is a complex viscosity, given that viscosity is measured at an angular frequency, viscosity disclosed by Demirors et al. is complex viscosity. Accordingly, the complex viscosity ratio (h0.1/h10) is 2.2. Further, Demirors et al. disclose that Mz (Mz Abs) of 350,315 and Mw (Mw Abs) of 120,129 (see page 7, Table 2, Inventive Example 1). Accordingly, Mz/Mw ratio is 2.9. The resin composition exhibits an increase in melt strength which is at least 20% greater than the melt strength of the polyethylene resin in the absence of the master batch (see paragraph 0026). The enhanced melt strength is desired to produce thick blown films (see paragraph 0002). The resin composition is extruded (see paragraphs 0052, 0053). That is, the resin composition reads on extruded first LLDPE composition.
In light of motivation for using the resin composition disclosed by Demirors et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the resin composition of Demirors et al. for preparing the polyethylene polymer of the core layer in Bender et al. in order to increase melt strength of at least 20 wt%, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Bender et al. in view of Demirors et al. disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. Bender et al. in view of Demirors et al. discloses the multilayer film comprising the extruded first LLDPE composition as noted above. Given that the multilayer film comprising the extruded first LLDPE composition comprises the first LLDPE polymer and the master batch including the second polyethylene and free radical generator identical to that utilized in the present invention, with amounts of the first LLDPE polymer, amounts of the master batch, and amounts of the second polyethylene and free radical generator in the master batch overlapping with that utilized in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, the multilayer film necessarily inherently has a puncture force and a dart drop resistance identical to that presently claimed.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson et al. (WO 2017/172273 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Bender et al. (US 2009/0252902 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, Williamson et al. disclose a film comprising a polyethylene resin, wherein the film can be a monolayer film or a multilayer film (see page 37, claims 11, 14 and 15). The film (primary layer) comprises polyethylene such as a first polyethylene and a masterbatch composition comprising a second polyethylene resin and a free radical generator (see paragraph 0017). The amount of the first polyethylene is 60 to 99.9 wt% and the amount of the master batch is 0.1 to 40 wt% (see paragraph 0051). These amounts overlap with that utilized in the present invention (see page 22, Table 3, Layer 2).
The first polyethylene includes Dowlex TG 2085 B (see paragraph 0027), identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, line 24 of present specification). As evidenced by the present specification, Dowlex TG 2085 B is LLDPE polymer (see page 21, lines 24-25 of present specification).
The masterbatch composition comprises the second polyethylene resin and the free radical generator (FRG) (see paragraph 0017). The second polyethylene resin can be LDPE resin such as LDPE 4016 (see paragraph 0041 and 0070), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, line 11 of present specification). The FRG can be Trigonox 301 (see paragraphs 0032, 0035), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, lines 10-11 of present specification). The amount of FRG is 5 to 1000 ppm relative to the total amount of resin (see paragraph 0031), which overlaps with that utilized in the present invention (see page 21, line 10 of present specification).
A composition comprising the first polyethylene resin and the master batch is extruded, i.e. extruded first LLDPE composition (see paragraph 0073). Given that the extruded first LLDPE composition comprises the first LLDPE polymer and the master batch including the second polyethylene and free radical generator identical to that utilized in the present invention, with amounts of the first LLDPE polymer, amounts of the master batch, and amounts of the second polyethylene and free radical generator in the master batch overlapping with that utilized in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, the extruded first LLDPE composition necessarily inherently has a complex viscosity ratio (h0.1/h10) and a ratio of Mz Abs/ Mw Abs identical to that presently claimed.
Williamson et al. do not disclose a second layer and a third layer as presently claimed.
Bender et al. disclose a multilayer film structure comprising a core layer (primary layer) comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as polyethylene, a functional layer (third layer) on a first side of the core layer and a heat sealable skin layer (second layer) on a second side of the core layer (see Abstract and paragraph 0013). The functional layer is a printable layer comprising thermoplastic polymer (third layer of polymer) (see paragraphs 0017-0018). The heat sealable skin layer (second layer) comprises thermoplastic polymer such as linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) (see paragraph 0024). As evidenced by the present specification, LLDPE is a heat seal polymer (see page 11, lines 33-34 of present specification). The multilayer film structure provides improved machinability, print performance and lamination performance (see Abstract and paragraph 0008).
In light of motivation for using a multilayer film structure comprising a functional layer comprising thermoplastic polymer and a heat sealable skin layer comprising heat seal polymer, wherein a core layer comprising polyethylene is disposed between the functional layer and the heat sealable skin layer disclosed by Bender et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the multilayer film structure comprising core layer (primary layer) comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as polyethylene, a functional layer (third layer) on a first side of the core layer and a heat sealable skin layer (second layer) on a second side of the core layer of Bender et al. as the multilayer film of Williamson et al. such that the film comprising polyethylene of Williamson et al. is used as the core layer, in order to prepare the multilayer structure with improved machinability, print performance and lamination performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Williamson et al. in view of Bender et al. disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. Wiliamson et al. discloses the extruded first LLDPE composition as noted above. Given that the extruded first LLDPE composition comprises the first LLDPE polymer and the master batch including the second polyethylene and free radical generator identical to that utilized in the present invention, with amounts of the first LLDPE polymer, amounts of the master batch, and amounts of the second polyethylene and free radical generator in the master batch overlapping with that utilized in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, the extruded first LLDPE composition necessarily inherently has a complex viscosity (h0.1) identical to that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Williamson et al. in view of Bender et al. disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. Wiliamson et al. discloses the extruded first LLDPE composition as noted above. Given that the extruded first LLDPE composition comprises the first LLDPE polymer and the master batch including the second polyethylene and free radical generator identical to that utilized in the present invention, with amounts of the first LLDPE polymer, amounts of the master batch, and amounts of the second polyethylene and free radical generator in the master batch overlapping with that utilized in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, the extruded first LLDPE composition necessarily inherently has a complex viscosity (h10) identical to that presently claimed.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Williamson et al. in view of Bender et al. disclose the multilayer film as set forth above. Williamson et al. discloses the multilayer film comprising the extruded first LLDPE composition as noted above. Given that the multilayer film comprising the extruded first LLDPE composition comprises the first LLDPE polymer and the master batch including the second polyethylene and free radical generator identical to that utilized in the present invention, with amounts of the first LLDPE polymer, amounts of the master batch, and amounts of the second polyethylene and free radical generator in the master batch overlapping with that utilized in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, the multilayer film necessarily inherently has a puncture force and a dart drop resistance identical to that presently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787