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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “the inner layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalihari et al. (US 10,857,703 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 10, Kalihari teaches ultrasonically-bonded laminates that comprise a multilayer polyethylene film and a nonwoven substrate at least partially ultrasonically bonded to the multilayer film to form a laminate (col. 2, lines 20-41). The multilayer polyethylene films comprise a core layer, a first outer layer, and a second outer layer, wherein: the core layer (a first reduced-density polyethylene layer) is positioned between the first outer layer and the second outer layer; the core layer comprises a linear low density polyethylene having a density of 0.900 g/cc to 0.935 g/cc and a melt index, I2, of 0.1 g/10 min to 10 g/10 min, and, optionally, a first low density polyethylene resin having a density from 0.915 g/cc to 0.935 g/cc and a melt index, I2, from 0.1 g/10 min to 15 g/10 min; and the first outer layer (a high-density polyethylene layer) and the second outer layer independently comprise a polyethylene resin having a density of 0.930 g/cc to 0.970 g/cc and a melt index, I2, of 0.1 g/10 min to 15 g/10 min and, optionally, a second low density polyethylene resin having a density from 0.915 g/cc to 0.935 g/cc and a melt index, I2, from 0.1 g/10 min to 15 g/10 min; wherein the density of the linear low density polyethylene is less than the density of the polyethylene resin (col. 2, lines 20-41, and col. 8, lines 19-23). In an embodiment, the core layer may comprise two or more layers, three or more layers, or even five or more layers (a second reduced-density polyethylene layer) (col. 3, lines 33-35). In addition, in some embodiments, the multilayer films may comprise one or more additional layers (alternatively, a second reduced-density polyethylene layer), such as structural, barrier, or tie layers, positioned between the core layer and each outer layer (col. 3, lines 36-47). Various materials can be used for these layers and can include chlorinated polyethylene, ethylene-alpha-olefin block copolymers, ultra low density polyethylene (“ULDPE”), linear low density polyethylene (“LLDPE”), high density polyethylene (“HDPE”), medium density polyethylene (“MDPE”), linear medium density polyethylene (“LMDPE”), low density polyethylene (“LDPE”), ionomers, and graft-modified polyethylene (e.g., maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene) (col. 3, lines 36-47).
The nonwoven substrate (a polyethylene filament material) may be formed from a propylene-based material, 100% polyethylene, or polyethylene/polypropylene blends (col. 11, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 8, Kalihari teaches films ranging in thickness from 0.2 to 1.5 mils thickness (about 5 to 38 micrometers, as calculated by the examiner) (col. 13, lines 13-30)
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Antonacci (WO 2005/084946 A1, attached).
Regarding claims 1-3, Antonacci teaches a cross-laminated thermoplastic net-like web that is manufactured by slitting or fibrillating two blown films, i.e., into a plurality of strands, each comprising low-density-polyethylene/high-density-polyethylene/low-density-polyethylene (LDPE/HDPE/LDPE) layers (i.e., layers of thermoplastic polymer) in preferably 15/70/15 ratios, respectively, and thereafter thermally bonding each slit or fibrillated film (i.e., the strands), one to the other, to form a mesh web or net-like fabric (page 4, lines 16-26). The examiner notes that the strands in the first or second fibrillated film would meet the claim polyethylene filament material limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Antonacci remains as applied above, teaching LDPE/HDPE/LDPE layers. Antonacci further teaches that the exterior two layers of the three-layer coextruded films are preferably composed of the same polymer (page 11, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 9, as applied above, Antonacci teaches slitting or fibrillating two blown films, i.e., into a plurality of strands, each comprising low-density-polyethylene/high-density-polyethylene/low-density-polyethylene (LDPE/HDPE/LDPE) layers (i.e., layers of thermoplastic polymer) in preferably 15/70/15 ratios, respectively (page 4, lines 16-26). Antonacci further teaches that the interior layer can occupy approximately 5% to approximately 95% of the overall thickness of the three-layer coextruded film, and more specifically, preferably composes approximately 50% to approximately 80% of the overall thickness of the three-layer coextruded film (page 11, lines 18-22). The exterior two layers preferably compose approximately 20% to approximately 50% of the overall thickness of the three-layer coextruded film, and are preferably approximately equal in thickness (page 11, lines 22-25).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Antonacci (WO 2005/084946 A1, attached), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, with evidence from Wikipedia (“Linear low-density polyethylene,” attached).
Regarding claim 5, Antonacci remains as applied above, teaching LLDPE.
As evidenced by Wikipedia, PE’s are often classified by their densities (see “Properties”). In the Table in this section, LLDPE is classified as having a density of 0.916-0.940 g/cm3. Therefore, Antonacci’s disclosure of LLDPE would meet the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Antonacci (WO 2005/084946 A1, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, with evidence from Wikipedia (“High-density polyethylene,” attached).
Regarding claim 10, Antonacci remains as applied above, teaching HDPE.
As evidenced by Wikipedia, the density of HDPE ranges from 930 to 970 kg/m3 (see the “Properties” section).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962). 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonacci (WO 2005/084946 A1, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, and as further applied below.
Regarding claim 6, Antonacci remains as applied above, teaching LDPE/HDPE/LDPE films.
Antonacci does not explicitly disclose an embodiment in which (in addition to meeting the limitations of claim 1) the claimed polyethylene filament material, the first reduced-density polyethylene layer, and the second reduced-density polyethylene layer include a same linear low-density polyethylene.
However, Antonacci further teaches that the exterior two layers of the three-layer coextruded films are preferably composed of the same polymer (page 11, lines 10-15). Co-extruded films are typically utilized for the manufacture of cross-laminated thermoplastic net-like webs, wherein one layer of film is cross-laminated and bonded to a second layer of film, and wherein the exterior layers of the film comprise compatible and easily bondable thermoplastic materials such as, for exemplary purposes only, low-density polyethylene or linear low-density polyethylene (pages 11-12, lines 25-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) in the exterior layers of each film in combination with a HDPE core layer because Antonacci teaches LLDPE as being an alternative to low-density polyethylene (LDPE) for use as an easily bondable thermoplastic material in exterior layers of the disclosed films.
Regarding claim 7, Antonacci does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations.
However, Antonacci teaches that the exterior two layers of the three-layer coextruded films are preferably composed of the same polymer, wherein the interior layer is preferably composed of a different polymer (page 11, lines 10-15). Alternatively, each of the three layers of the three-layer coextruded film construction could each be formed from any combination of polymers (page 11, lines 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included different LLDPE polymers in the exterior layers because Antonacci teaches each layer can be formed of any combination of polymers as an alternative to the exterior layers being composed of the same polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights