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 II, Claims 9-18 in the reply filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 19-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/31/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: all of the reference characters shown in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (USPN 3,359,154-A). Clark discloses a polyolefin adhesive composition for securing adhesion of polyolefin, especially polyethylene or polypropylene, to itself and other substrates such as metal, wherein the composition comprises a carboxylic acid modified polyolefin wax and an organic peroxide incorporated into or coated on polymeric, metallic, and cellulosic substrates to secure the adhesion of polyolefins to said substrates (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Col. 1, lines 10-25; Col. 4, lines 12-15; Examples; Claims). Clark discloses that the carboxylic acid modified polyolefin wax is a low molecular weight wax with a molecular weight of about 1000 to about 5000, prepared by modifying a polyolefin wax, preferably a polyethylene wax, by reaction with from 1 to 25% by wight of a carboxylic reagent, particularly maleic anhydride (as in instant claim 9; Col. 4-Col. 5, line 2; Claims 8-11); wherein in one embodiment, the modified polyolefin wax containing organic peroxide mixture is compounded into (thermoplastic) polyolefin resins to impart adhesion ability to the compounded resin (reading upon the claimed combination of at least one thermoplastic binder polymer and a modified polyolefin wax as in instant claim 9), with the amount of the modified wax varying based upon the particular end use of the compounded resin, but generally from 0.05 to 25 parts by weight relative to the polyolefin base resin, particularly 3 to 8 parts by weight of the modified wax per 100 parts by weight of the compounded polyolefin composition (Col. 5, lines 21-42; Claims 8-10). Clark specifically discloses that a desirable end use of the composition of the invention is the adhering of polyolefins to primed and unprimed metal; “[f]or example, polyolefins are highly suited chemically to use as bottle cap liners, e.g., in carbonated beverage containers,” (as in instant claim 9) and although an adhesive capable of adhering polyolefins to cap tinplate (as in instant claims 9 and 14) had been previously lacking, the modified polyolefin wax peroxide compositions and compounded resin compositions of the invention readily solve the problem of adhering polyolefins to cap tinplate “because the modified wax organic peroxide mixture is tenaciously adherent to both the primed or unprimed tin plate cap itself and to the polyolefin liner” and can be coated on either surface to be adhered (Col. 8, lines 18-33). Further, given the working examples disclosed by Clark utilizing maleic anhydride modified wax to adhere a metal tinplate substrate to a polyethylene or polypropylene film as well as compounding a maleic anhydride modified wax with a thermoplastic polyolefin resin, the Examiner takes the position that Clark discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 9 and 14-16.
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, as applied above to claims 9 and 14-16 and further discussed below. The teachings of Clark are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference wherein with respect to the claimed thickness ranges as recited in instant claims 17-18, although Clark does not specifically teach the claimed thicknesses for the adhesive layer and the polyolefin layer as the bottle cap liner as recited in instant claims 17-18, respectively, Clark does not limit the thicknesses to any particular thickness ranges. However, given that Clark teaches working examples wherein the maleic anhydride modified wax composition is coated to an adhesive thickness to give approximately one pound of wax solids per 1300 square feet of film surface with the wax being formed from a polyethylene having a density of 0.96 g/cc (e.g., resulting in about 12.5 microns, falling within the claimed range for the adhesive layer as in instant claim 17), and working examples wherein the polyolefin film to be laminated to the substrate has a thickness of 5 mils (i.e., 127 µm, falling within the claimed polymeric liner thickness of instant claim 18) or 6 mils (~152 µm, also falling within the claimed polymeric liner thickness of instant claim 18), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 17-18 would have been obvious over the teachings of Clark given that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize similar thicknesses as in the examples for the cap liner embodiment comprising the compounded composition.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinose (USPN 4,224,379-A). Ichinose teaches a “peelable bonded structure comprising a metal substrate and a polyolefin layer bonded to the substrate through a primer layer, wherein the primer layer is a composition comprising (A) a modified olefin resin having a carbonyl group concentration of 0.01 to 200 milliequivalents per 100 g of the olefin resin and (B) a coating film-forming base resin at an (A)/(B) weight ratio of from 0.1/99.8 to 70/30” (Abstract); wherein the bonded structure is particularly suitable for a vessel closure, such as for sealing bottles, comprising a metal substrate such as a crown shell or cap shell and a polyolefin packing material or liner peelably bonded to the metal substrate (Col. 1, lines 7-46; Col. 2, lines 22-26). Ichinose teaches that metals to be used as the metal substrate include iron, steel, copper, aluminum, stainless steel, and the other metals and alloys as recited in Col. 3, lines 52-64 (as in instant claim 14); while suitable polyolefins to be utilized in the polyolefin layer to be bonded to the metal substrate by application to the primer layer include polyethylenes, polypropylene, and other polyolefins as recited in Col. 12, lines 26-55 (as in instant claim 15-16 with respect to the polymeric liner). Ichinose teaches that with respect to the primer layer, the base resin may be a thermosetting resin such as polyester resins and those as recited in Col. 7, lines 59-67 (as in instant claims 9-10 with respect to the thermosetting binder polymer). Ichinose teaches that with respect to the modified olefin resin having a carbonyl group concentration as noted above, “any of the products formed by incorporating known carbonyl group-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomers into main or side chains of olefin resins by known treatments such as graft copolymerization…can be used as the modified olefin resin” (Col. 5, lines 40-48); wherein preferred olefin resins for the graft modification include high density polyethylene, isotactic polypropylene (e.g., as in instant claim 10), and highly crystalline ethylene-propylene copolymer; and the carbonyl group-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer may be maleic anhydride (as in the claimed invention; Col. 5, line 48– Col. 6, line 46), which is specifically utilized in the examples in a grafting content within the claimed range as recited in instant claim 11 (Examples). Ichinose also teaches that “[a]nother type of modified olefin resin having the above-mentioned carbonyl group concentration is oxidized polyethylene prepared by oxidizing polyethylene or a copolymer composed mainly of ethylene in the molten or solution state,” and that “in view of the processability of the coated article or the strength of the coating per se, it is preferred that the average molecular weight of the oxidized polyethylene be about 1,000 to 50,000, and preferably about 4,000 to 10,000” (Col. 7, lines 10-26), e.g., a “wax” with a preferred molecular weight as in instant claim 12; and given that Ichinose teaches the functional equivalence of the oxidized polyethylene/ethylene copolymer and the maleic anhydride modified polyolefin as the modified olefin resin having the above-mentioned carbonyl group concentration to be utilized in the primer layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the same or similar weight average molecular weight for the maleic anhydride modified polyolefin as taught by Ichinose for the oxidized polyethylene or ethylene copolymer for the same or similar reasons with respect to processability or strength of the coating per se as taught by Ichinose, thereby reading upon and/or suggesting a maleic anhydride modified polyolefin “wax” as in the instantly claimed invention. Hence, given the above teachings including the weight ratio of the modified resin (A) to base resin (B) of from 0.1/99.8 to 70/30 which would read upon the weight percentage range as recited in instant claim 13, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 9-16 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ichinose given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claims 17-18, Ichinose does not specifically limit the thicknesses as instantly claimed, however, given that Ichinose teaches an example wherein the thickness of the primer layer is 6 microns, falling within the claimed thickness range of instant claim 17, and a thickness of the polyolefin layer is 100 microns, falling within the claimed thickness range of instant claim 18, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 17-18 would have been obvious over the teachings of Ichinose given that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize layer thicknesses on the same order as utilized in the examples.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Janke (WO2019/048593A1) discloses a reactive polyolefin hot-melt adhesive composition to bond non-polar substrates, such as polyolefins like polypropylene, to polar substrates, such as metals like aluminum, wherein the adhesive composition comprises at least one thermoplastic silane group containing poly-α-olefin, at least one reaction product of monoisocyante with silane containing isocyanate-reactive group selected from hydroxyl, mercapto and amino, and can further comprise, from the standpoint of improving adhesion of the adhesive to polar substrates, at least one polar-modified polyolefin wax, such as a maleic acid anhydride polyolefin wax and particularly a polypropylene or polyethylene wax grafted with maleic anhydride having a grafting degree of at least 1 wt% relative to the non-functionalized polyolefin wax, wherein the “term ‘polyolefin wax’ designates low molecular weight polymers of linear or branched α-olefins having from 2 to 30 carbon atoms and a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of 5,000 – 25,000 g/mol.” Yang (US2017/0174958A1) discloses a hot melt adhesive composition suitable for bonding a first substrate to a second substrate, such as metal foil or plastic film, for use in producing various packaging articles, wherein the hot melt adhesive composition comprises (a) a polyester-based resin, (c) a tackifier, and (b) a functionalized polyolefin or functionalized polyolefin wax such as grafted with a maleic anhydride content of about 0.1 wt% to up to 35 wt% of the polymer or wax, and a weight average molecular weight of less than about 2000 Daltons for the functionalized polyolefin wax and of greater than about 2000 Daltons for the functionalized polyolefin polymer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights