DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below and this office action is non-final. Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 21-23 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-14 and 21-23 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first portion of the bale wrap overlapping a second portion of the bale wrap, the melt layer of the first portion and/or the second portion positioned between and contacting the first portion and the second portion, the melt layer configured to melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 14 recites “the melt layer is composed of…polyester, polyurethane”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification. While applicant points to paragraph 0050 of the present specification and the corresponding Provisional Application that is incorporated by reference in the present specification as support for this limitation, neither the present specification or the Provisional Application appear to disclose melt layer comprising polyester or polyurethane.
Claim 22 recites “wherein a position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the first portion is different from a position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the second portion”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification. While there is support in the present specification for specific different position of the melt layer where the in the first portion the melt layer is the top layer of the wrap and in the second portion the melt layer is the bottom layer of the wrap (see paragraph 0061), there is no support to broadly recite “a position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the first portion is different from a position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the second portion”.
Claim 23 recites “the weld defines a weld joint that extends along a portion of a circumference of the bale wrap”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification.
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 1-8, 10-14 and 21-23 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 “the melt layer configured to melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion”. It is not clear what is meant by “configured” and how the melt layer must be “configured” or modified in order to melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion. 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 1-8, 10-14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliasson et al. (EP 3009263 A1), taken in view of evidence by WEPROFAB (What you should know about EVA melting point, 2025) and EUROPLAS (Melting point of all types of polyethylene you should know, 2025).
Regarding claims 1-8, 10-14 and 21, Eliasson et al. disclose a barrier film 200 comprising an exterior layer 201 comprising a EVA (melt layer), a support layer 203 comprising LLDPE, a tie layer 205, a barrier layer 207, a tie layer 206, a support layer 204 comprising LLDPE (sub layer of solid layer) and an exterior layer 202 comprising LLDPE (sub layer of solid layer) (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 0056, 0057). The support layer 204 made of LLDPE and the exterior layer 202 made of LLDPE together read on a solid layer composed of polyethylene. The barrier film is used as for wrapping bales, i.e. bale wrap (see paragraph 0043).
Further, the EVA comprises an ethylene content of 83 wt% and an acetate content of 17 wt% based on the total weight of EVA copolymer (see paragraph 0054). As evidenced by WEPROFAB, EVA with vinyl acetate content of 10 to 20% has a melt range of 70 to 85 °C (see page 3, paragraph 2). As evidenced by EUROPLAS, LLDPE has melting point of 120 to 130 °C (see page 4). Therefore, the melt layer containing EVA (layer 201) includes a melting temperature lower than a melting temperature of at least one sublayer (layer 204 and/or layer 202) of the solid layer.
Eliasson et al. disclose a pigment can be added to one or more layers of the film (see paragraphs 0030, 0032). That is, the exterior layer 202 (sublayer furthest from the melt layer) can be without pigment, i.e. transparent sub layer. Additionally, the exterior layers can be transparent (see paragraph 0020). That is, the exterior layer 202 (sublayer furthest from the melt layer) can be transparent. Further, the support layer 204 (other sub layer) can contain pigment, wherein pigment can be green pigment, i.e. a pigment reflective of at least some of a visible spectrum (see paragraph 0030). Accordingly, the sublayers (layer 204) other than the transparent sub layer (layer 202) is collectively opaque to the visible spectrum. Further, a UV stabilizer such as CB (carbon black) can be added to any layer of the barrier film (see paragraph 0035). That is, the exterior layer 201 (melt layer) can comprise carbon black, i.e. additive absorbent to at least some electromagnetic radiation within a selected spectrum such as ultraviolet or infrared (see paragraph 0035).
Given that Eliasson et al. disclose solid layer and melt layer identical to that presently claimed, the solid layer is transparent to the selected spectrum and the melt layer is opaque to the selected spectrum.
Eliasson et al. discloses the bale wrap including the solid layer and the melt layer identical to that presently claimed. That is, a bale is wrapped using a bale wrap. Given that the bale wrap of Eliasson et al. is identical to that presently claimed and given that the bale wrap is wrapped around bale, a first portion of the bale wrap would necessarily overlap a second portion of the bale wrap, wherein the melt layer of the first portion and/or the second portion is necessarily positioned between and contacting the first portion and the second portion. Further, as noted above, the melt layer contains EVA having a melting point in range of 70 to 85 °C and the solid layer contains LLDPE having a melting point in range of 120 to 130 °C. Given that the melt layer and the solid haver have different melting points, the melt layer is configured to melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion.
Given that the bale wrap of Eliasson et al. is identical to that presently claimed and given that bale wrap is wrapped around bale, it is inherent or obvious the bale wrap is configured to wrap a bale such that at least a portion of the melt layer faces the bale and/or at least a portion of the melt layer faces away from the bale. Further, it is inherent or obvious that a first portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a top layer of the bale wrap and a second portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a bottom layer of the bale wrap, wherein, in a configuration the wrap wraps the bale, the melt layer of the first and second portions of the bale wrap are adapted to contact one another.
In light of the overlap between the claimed bale wrap and that disclosed by Eliasson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a bale wrap that is both disclosed by Eliasson et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, Eliasson et al. disclose the bale wrap comprising the melt layer and the solid layer as set forth above. Given that the bale wrap is wrapped around the bale, a first portion of the bale wrap will necessarily overlap a second portion of the bale wrap, wherein the first portion and the second portion are two ends of the bale wrap. When the first portion and the second portion overlap, the position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the first portion will be necessarily different from a position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the second portion. For instance, when the first portion has first upper melt layer and first bottom solid layer, after overlapping with the second portion having the second upper layer and the second bottom solid layer, the overlapping region would have the first bottom solid layer/first melt layer/second bottom solid layer/second melt upper layer. That is, the position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the first portion is different from a position of the melt layer relative to the solid layer in the second portion.
Regarding claim 23, Eliasson et al. disclose the bale wrap comprising the melt layer and the solid layer as set forth above. Given that the bale wrap is wrapped around the bale, the weld defines a weld joint that extends along a portion of a circumference of the bale wrap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicants argue that the Office Action compares the claimed bale wrap to a "multi-layer barrier film" in Eliasson, and compares the claimed "melt layer" to an "exterior layer 201" in Eliasson. However, the exterior layer (201) in Eliasson is not equivalent to a "melt layer configured to melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion," as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Eliasson states that the exterior layer (201) "represents a cling layer comprising VLDPE or EVA." Eliasson at paragraph [0056]. Eliasson further states that its cling layer is "adapted to provide cling and allow adherence to the film itself or an external object." Eliasson at paragraph [0020]. There is no disclosure or suggestion in Eliasson that such an exterior layer (201) is capable of, much less configured to, "melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion," as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Eliasson teaches a completely different method of securing the film to a product that relies on the cling layer to "allow adherence to the film itself or an external object." Eliasson at paragraph [0020]. As described in the present application, the claimed melt layer of amended claim 1 enables specific area' welding" and different weld patterns according to various exemplary non-limiting embodiments (see, for example, paragraph [0063] of the present application and FIGS. 5A-5E). Such benefits are neither taught nor suggested in Eliasson.
However, the exterior layer (201) is made of EVA, which is identical to that utilized for the melt layer (claim 14). Therefore, the exterior layer (201) is equivalent to the melt layer as presently claimed. Further, as noted above, the melt layer contains EVA having a melting point in range of 70 to 85 °C and the solid layer contains LLDPE having a melting point in range of 120 to 130 °C. Given that the melt layer and the solid layer have different melting points, the melt layer is configured to melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion.
Regarding “Eliasson teaches a completely different method of securing the film to a product that relies on the cling layer to allow adherence to the film itself or an external object”, it is noted that nothing in the claims requires that the melt layer has to melt only that the melt layer is “configured to” melt. It is examiner’s position that given that the exterior layer made of EVA is identical to the melt layer, the exterior layer of Eliasson et al. would be “configured to” melt independently from the solid layer and subsequently solidify to weld the first portion to the second portion.
Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific area welding or different weld patterns) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argue that Weprofab and Europlas are not cited as disclosing the above-noted elements of amended claim 1, and fail to cure the deficiencies of Eliasson.
However, Weprofab and Europlas are used only as evidence references, and not as prior arts. Further, as set forth above Eliasson does not have the deficiencies argued by applicant.
Applicants argue that for example, none of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest "the first portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a top layer of the wrap and the second portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a bottom layer of the wrap," and where "in a configuration where the wrap wraps the bale, the melt layers of the first and second portions of the bale wrap are adapted to contact one another" as recited in claim 3. Rather, as shown in FIG. 2 of Eliasson (below) the exterior layer (201) of Eliasson is disposed on only the top of the multi-layer barrier film. In such an arrangement, the exterior layers (201) of different wrapped portions would be separated from one another by the other film layers, and would not "contact" one another.
Given that the bale wrap of Eliasson et al. is identical to that presently claimed and given that bale wrap is wrapped around bale, after wrapping around the bale, a first portion (one end of wrap) will overlap with a second portion (other end of wrap). Further, it is inherent or obvious that a first portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a top layer of the bale wrap and a second portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a bottom layer of the bale wrap, wherein, in a configuration the wrap wraps the bale, the melt layer of the first and second portions of the bale wrap are adapted to contact one another. Therefore, the exterior layers (201) of different wrapped portions would "contact" one another. Nothing in the present claims requires “direct” contact.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose, teach, or suggest "the first portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a top layer of the wrap and the second portion of the bale wrap includes a melt layer as a bottom layer of the wrap," and where "in a configuration where the wrap wraps the bale, the melt layers of the first and second portions of the bale wrap are adapted to contact one another" as recited in claim 3, and the Office Action has not provided any reason or suggestion for why such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of the teachings in Eliasson, Weprofab, and/or Europlas.
However, when the first portion overlaps the second portion in Eliasson, the result of the overlapping would be solid layer/melt layer/solid layer/melt layer such that there would be a top melt layer and a bottom melt layer as required in claim 3. Further, the melt layers are in contact through the solid layer when the first portion overlaps the second portion. Nothing in the present claims requires “direct” contact.
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 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
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights