DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 6 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for: (A) limited ranges of film compositions; and (B) limited types of CHDM-based polyester resins; does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire recited compositional range of (A) film compositions as a whole; and/or (B) CHDM-based polyester resins. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The propriety of a rejection based upon the scope of a claim relative to the scope of the enablement concerns (1) how broad the claim is with respect to the disclosure and (2) whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See MPEP 2164.08. The disclosure as originally filed does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the claimed polyester-containing films exhibiting:
the recited properties (claims 1, 7, 9):
(a) dielectric constant throughout the recited frequency range of 10-40 GHz; and
(b) shrinkage properties (s1) and (s2) and (s2/s1) under the specified conditions;
and optionally with the additional recited properties (claim 2):
(c) the dielectric constant at a frequency of 100 kHz throughout the recited temperature range; and
(d) the dielectric constant throughout the recited frequency range of 3-10 GHz;
over the entire scope of the present claims.
MPEP 2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors [R-08.2012]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(G) The existence of working examples; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (reversing the PTO’s determination that claims directed to methods for detection of hepatitis B surface antigens did not satisfy the enablement requirement). In Wands, the court noted that there was no disagreement as to the facts, but merely a disagreement as to the interpretation of the data and the conclusion to be made from the facts. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-40, 8 USPQ2d at 1403-07. The Court held that the specification was enabling with respect to the claims at issue and found that "there was considerable direction and guidance" in the specification; there was "a high level of skill in the art at the time the application was filed;" and "all of the methods needed to practice the invention were well known." 858 F.2d at 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1406. After considering all the factors related to the enablement issue, the court concluded that "it would not require undue experimentation to obtain antibodies needed to practice the claimed invention." Id., 8 USPQ2d at 1407.
In particular, with respect to Wand factor (A), the claims are relatively broad -- for example, but not limited to:
• The claims allow for the presence of non-trivial amounts of comonomers -- up to 20 mol% based on the total moles of aromatic dicarboxylic acid besides isophthalic acid and terephthalic acid; unrestricted amounts of non-aromatic dicarboxylic acids; up to 50 mol% based on the total amount of diol besides CHDM; unrestricted amounts of polycarboxylic acids and/or polyols with carboxyl and/or hydroxyl functionalities greater than 3 -- besides the recited repeating units derived from isophthalic acid (IA), terephthalic acid (TA), and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethnol (CHDM) in the polyester resin used to produce the film);
• The claims allow for the presence of non-trivial amounts (up to 15 wt%) of other components (e.g., polymeric components such as other polyester or non-polyester resins; non-polymeric components such as various organic or inorganic compounds, such as fillers, pigments, and/or other additives; etc. -- in particular, other components which can significantly alter the dielectric constant of polymers) which can be present in the film as a whole (as long as the recited CHDM-based polyester resin is present in the required amount).
With respect to Wand factor (B), Applicant states that prior art films are difficult to produce polyester films with stable low dielectric constants throughout specified frequency ranges and/or throughout specific temperature ranges.
With respect to Wand factors (C)-(E), the prior art does not specifically disclose or teach the production of polyester-containing films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2).
With respect to Wand factors (F)-(G), the disclosure as originally filed only discloses very limited ranges of: (A) film compositions as a whole; and (B) polyester resins; which result in films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2).
With respect to Wand factor (H), the working Examples in the Specification provide evidence that the (A) film compositions as a whole, and therefore the (B) type of CHDM-based polyester resin in said film, can materially (and possibly unpredictably) affect: (1) the dielectric constant of said film throughout specific frequency ranges and/or throughout specific temperature ranges; and (2) the thermal shrinkage properties of said film. For example, differences in polyester resin composition and film composition as a whole can result in non-trivial changes or differences in the molecular structure of the polyester resin itself and the film containing said polyester resin (e.g., but not limited to, crystallinity or lack thereof, degree of molecular orientation; etc.). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to produce polyester-containing films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2) -- for example, but not limited to:
----------------------------------------------
• the type of the CHDM-containing polyester resin -- The disclosure as originally filed only discloses producing films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2), using polyester resins which is derived from only terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid in the recited amounts, and CHDM.
However, the present claims use the open term “comprising” with respect to the composition of the CHDM-based polyester resin, which allows for non-trivial amounts of comonomers in the polyester resin used to produce the film -- for example:
• up to 20 mol% based on the total moles of other aromatic dicarboxylic acid besides isophthalic acid and terephthalic acid;
• unrestricted amounts of non-aromatic dicarboxylic acids (e.g., aliphatic dicarboxylic acids);
• up to 50 mol% based on the total amount of diol besides CHDM;
• unrestricted amounts of polycarboxylic acids and/or polyols with carboxyl and/or hydroxyl functionalities greater than 3.
Examples of CHDM-based polyesters which fully conform to the present claims but which materially deviate from the CHDM-based polyester resins used in the working Examples in the specification include:
(i) a copolyester derived from:
• a dicarboxylic acid component comprising;
• 100 mol% aromatic dicarboxylic acids containing: 80 mol% terephthalic acid; 20 mol% isophthalic acid;
• a diol component comprising:
50 mol% CHDM; 50 mol% ethylene glycol;
(ii) a copolyester derived from:
• a dicarboxylic acid component comprising;
• 100 mol% aromatic dicarboxylic acids containing: 80 mol% terephthalic acid; 10 mol% isophthalic acid; 10 mol% naphthalene-2,6-dicarboxylic acid;
• a diol component comprising:
75 mol% CHDM; 25 mol% ethylene glycol;
(iii) a copolyester derived from:
• a dicarboxylic acid component comprising;
• 80 mol% aromatic dicarboxylic acids containing: 75 mol% terephthalic acid; 5 mol% isophthalic acid; 20 mol% naphthalene-2,6-dicarboxylic acid;
• 20 mol% aliphatic acid component comprising: 100 mol% adipic and/or succinic acid;
• a diol component comprising:
50 mol% CHDM; 40 mol% ethylene glycol; 10 mol% 1,4-butanediol.
In view of the working Examples in the Specification, the Examiner has reason to believe that the dielectric constant of a polyester-containing film would be materially affected by the type of polyester resin used, particularly since it is well known in the art that even minor amounts of comonomers (e.g., 10 mol% or less) can materially affect crystallization characteristics and chain mobility of copolyesters, which in turn can significantly affect the dielectric constant and/or thermal shrinkage properties of copolyester films.
Applicant has not provided adequate guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how to produce films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2), without undue experimentation using polyester resins which are materially different from the those used in the working Examples -- for example, illustrative examples (i)-(iii) above or other polyester resins at least partially derived from:
• non-trivial amounts of other dicarboxylic acids (e.g., 2,6-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid; aliphatic dicarboxylic acids such as adipic acid or succinic acid; etc.); and/or
• non-trivial amounts of other diols (e.g., ethylene glycol; 1,3-propanediol; 1,4-butanediol; neopentyl glycol; etc.); and/or
• polycarboxylic acids and/or polyols with carboxyl and/or hydroxyl functionalities greater than 3;
particularly when the presence of even minor amounts of comonomers in polyesters can significantly affect dielectric constants and/or shrinkage properties.
----------------------------------------------
• the composition of the film as a whole -- The disclosure as originally filed only discloses producing films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2), using polyester resins which is only derived from terephthalic acid, isophthalic acid in the recited amounts, and CHDM, wherein said CHDM-based polyester constitute the effective entirety of the film as a whole.
However, the present claims use the open term “comprises” with respect to the composition of the film as a whole, which allows for up to 15 wt% of other components (e.g., polymeric components such as other polyester or non-polyester resins; non-polymeric components such as various organic or inorganic compounds, such as fillers, pigments, and/or other additives; etc. -- in particular, other components which can significantly alter the dielectric constant of polymers) which can be present in the film as a whole (as long as the recited CHDM-based polyester resin is present in the required amount).
The Examiner has reason to believe the dielectric constant of a film would be materially affected by presence of non-trivial amounts of other components (e.g., other polymers; other non-polymeric compounds or additives; etc.).
In particular, it is noted that many additives commonly used in polyester films (e.g., pigments, thermally conductive fillers, reinforcing agents, etc. -- for example: metal oxides such as silica, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, etc.; inorganic fillers such as ceramic fillers, boron nitride, etc.; reinforcing agents such as glass fiber, etc.) have dielectric constants which exceed 2.9 and can materially affect the dielectric constant of a polyester film even in minor amounts (e.g., 10 wt% or less). Similarly, numerous other polyester or polymers (e.g., polyethylene naphthalate, polycarbonate, etc.) which might be incorporated as additives in polyester films to adjust mechanical and/or thermal properties can exhibit dielectric constants above 2.9, particularly in the 10 GHz to 40 GHz range.
Furthermore, Applicant has not provided adequate guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how to produce a film which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2), without undue experimentation using film compositions which are different from those utilized in the working Examples in the Specification -- for example, containing non-trivial amounts (e.g., 10 wt% or 15 wt%) of one or more other component(s).
----------------------------------------------
In view of the above, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure as originally filed does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and optionally the above additional properties (c)-(d) (claim 2), over the entire scope of the present claims without undue experimentation, particularly in view of the working Examples and Comparative Examples in the specification which indicate that the dielectric constant of a film can be materially -- perhaps unpredictably -- affected by differences in composition in the film as a whole (and therefore, differences in the type of polyester resin present).
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The disclosure as originally filed does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed polyester-containing films exhibiting:
the recited properties (claims 1, 7, 9):
(a) dielectric constant throughout the recited frequency range of 10-40 GHz; and
(b) shrinkage properties (s1) and (s2) and (s2/s1) under the specified conditions ;
and further with additional properties (claim 3):
(e) deviation in dielectric constant at a frequency of 100 kHz throughout the recited first temperature range; and
(f) rate of increase at a frequency of 100 kHz throughout the recited temperature range; and
(g) deviation in dielectric constant at a frequency of 100 kHz throughout the recited second temperature range;
or further with additional properties (claim 5):
(h) resistance to repeated folding; and
(i) crystallinity.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement is whether that the claimed invention is enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation."). See also MPEP 2164.01. The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976).
MPEP 2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors [R-08.2012]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(G) The existence of working examples; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (reversing the PTO’s determination that claims directed to methods for detection of hepatitis B surface antigens did not satisfy the enablement requirement). In Wands, the court noted that there was no disagreement as to the facts, but merely a disagreement as to the interpretation of the data and the conclusion to be made from the facts. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-40, 8 USPQ2d at 1403-07. The Court held that the specification was enabling with respect to the claims at issue and found that "there was considerable direction and guidance" in the specification; there was "a high level of skill in the art at the time the application was filed;" and "all of the methods needed to practice the invention were well known." 858 F.2d at 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1406. After considering all the factors related to the enablement issue, the court concluded that "it would not require undue experimentation to obtain antibodies needed to practice the claimed invention." Id., 8 USPQ2d at 1407.
In particular, with respect to Wand factor (A), the claims are relatively broad -- for example, but not limited to:
• The claims allow for the presence of non-trivial amounts of comonomers -- up to 20 mol% based on the total moles of aromatic dicarboxylic acid besides isophthalic acid and terephthalic acid; unrestricted amounts of non-aromatic dicarboxylic acids; up to 50 mol% based on the total amount of diol besides CHDM; unrestricted amounts of polycarboxylic acids and/or polyols with carboxyl and/or hydroxyl functionalities greater than 3 -- besides the recited repeating units derived from isophthalic acid (IA), terephthalic acid (TA), and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethnol (CHDM) in the polyester resin used to produce the film);
• The claims allow for the presence of non-trivial amounts (up to 15 wt%) of other components (e.g., polymeric components such as other polyester or non-polyester resins; non-polymeric components such as various organic or inorganic compounds, such as fillers, pigments, and/or other additives; etc. -- in particular, other components which can significantly alter the dielectric constant of polymers) which can be present in the film as a whole (as long as the recited CHDM-based polyester resin is present in the required amount).
With respect to Wand factor (B), Applicant states that prior art films are difficult to produce polyester films with stable low dielectric constants throughout specified frequency ranges and/or throughout specific temperature ranges.
With respect to Wand factors (C)-(E), the prior art does not specifically disclose or teach the production of films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and further with additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3), or further with additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5).
With respect to Wand factors (C)-(E), the prior art does not specifically disclose or teach the production of films which exhibit the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) (claim 1), and further with additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3), or further with additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5).
With respect to Wand factor (F), the disclosure as originally filed provides no specific guidance with respect to producing a film containing CHDM-based polyester resin which exhibits: (i) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3); or (ii) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5).
With respect to Wand factor (G), the disclosure as originally filed provides no working or inventive Examples of film containing CHDM-based polyester resin which exhibits: (i) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3); or (ii) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5). In particular:
(i) Table 4 exhibits a significant gap in the dielectric constant (at 100 kHz) versus temperature data -- i.e., the temperature data skips from 125.7 °C to 149.5 °C, and there is a lack of data on the dielectric constant (at 100 kHz) at 130 °C, which is: (1) the recited upper endpoint for the recited “rate of increase in the dielectric constant of 2% to 9%”; and (2) the recited lower endpoint for the recited “deviation in the dielectric constant of 0.2 or more”; and
(ii) evidence of non-linear behavior in the dielectric constant (at 100 kHz) between 149.5 °C to 200.5 °C (as shown by an unexpected peak at 175.1 °C) for Example 1 in Table 4;
prevents reasonable extrapolation of the behavior in the dielectric constant (at 100 kHz) between specific temperature ranges as recited in additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3). Additionally, Example 1 in Table 4 fails to satisfy additional property (g) (i.e., “deviation in the dielectric constant of 0.2 or more...”)
• standard deviation for Example 1 in Table 4 (calculated from 125.7 °C to 200.5 °C): σ = 0.116
• standard deviation for Example 1 in Table 4 (calculated from 149.5 °C to 200.5 °C): σ = 0.126
With respect to Wand factor (H), the working Examples in the Specification provide evidence that the (A) film compositions as a whole (which includes the (B) CHDM-based polyester resin in said film) can materially (and possibly unpredictably) affect: (1) the dielectric constant of said film throughout specific frequency ranges and/or throughout specific temperature ranges; and (2) the thermal shrinkage properties of said film. For example, differences in polyester resin composition and film composition as a whole can result in non-trivial changes or differences in the molecular structure of the polyester resin itself and the film containing said polyester resin (e.g., but not limited to, crystallinity or lack thereof, degree of molecular orientation; etc.). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to produce a film containing CHDM-based polyester resin which exhibits: (i) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3); or (ii) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5); particularly when the Specification fails to provide any information or guidance or working Examples regarding how to produce a film which exhibits: (i) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3); or (ii) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5).
In view of the above, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure as originally filed does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed stretched polyester-containing films which exhibit: (i) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (e)-(g) (claim 3); or (ii) the recited combination of above properties (a)-(b) and additional properties (h)-(i) (claim 5); particularly in view of: (1) the relative broadness of the present claims (discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, (regarding scope of enablement) in the present Office Action; and (2) the complete absence of working Examples or guidance in the disclosure as originally filed which fully satisfy the physical property requirements of claims 3 and 5.
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.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the previous Office Action mailed 07/02/2026 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 10/01/2025.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over copending Application No. 17/642,143 (US 2022/0330423) (HEO ET AL) in the previous Office Action mailed 02/05/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 10/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over PECORINI ET AL (US 2004/0265608) in the previous Office Action mailed 02/05/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 10/01/2025 in the present Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that “Applicant has amended to limit the amounts of polyester, CHDM, terephthalic acid, and dicarboxylic acid. Those amounts are disclosed and enabled by the specification. Film compositions falling within those amounts meet the properties recited in the claims. See Tables 1-6 of the present specification. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the presently claimed invention is enabled by the specification.”
However, while the Claim Amendments filed 10/01/2025 significantly narrow the scope of the present claims, such Claim Amendments do not adequately address the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, (regarding scope of enablement), as discussed in detail in the present Office Action.
Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, film compositions falling within the presently recited amounts of polyester, CHDM, terephthalic acid, and dicarboxylic acid do not fully meet all the properties recited in claims 3 or 5, as discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, (regarding enablement) in the present Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
February 5, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787