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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 12, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285) in view of Tikusis et al. (US Pat. 9,340,665).
Considering Claim 1: Modee et al. teaches a sealant film comprising two polyethylene outer layers (¶0031) that contain virgin polyethylene (¶0043-44); and a core layer comprising recycled polyethylene between the exterior layers (¶0006). Modee et al. teaches a five layer film comprising two exterior layers comprising virgin polyethylene and a three layer core, where the inner core layer comprises 50% of recycled polyethylene (PCR+edge portions). The inner layer is 40% by weight and the outer layers are 10% by weight (Table 1). As the layers have similar densities, the thickness ratio would be roughly equivalent to the weight ratios.
Modee et al. does not teach the presence of metal components in the core layer. However, Tikusis et al. teaches adding calcium or zinc to a polyethylene layer (3:32-50). The calcium and zinc compounds are added in an amount of 200 to 700 ppm (3:32-50). Modee et al. and Tikusis et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the compounds of Tikusis et al. to the film layer of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tikusis et al. suggests, to reduce the generation of hydrochloric acid during heating (3:32-50).
Modee et al. does not teach an example where the first and third core layer comprise a white pigment. However, Modee et al. teaches the core layer as optionally containing up to 10 weight percent of titanium dioxide/a white pigment (¶0071). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the titanium dioxide to the first and third core layer of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Modee et al. suggests, to control the color and opacity of the film (¶0071).
Considering Claim 6: Modee et al. teaches incorporating edge portions of the film comprising an antioxidant in the core layer (Table 1).
Considering Claim 10: Modee et al. teaches the core layer as comprising virgin linear low density polyethylene (Table 1).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285) in view of Tikusis et al. (US Pat. 9,340,665) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2020/0197555).
Considering Claims 3-5: Modee et al. teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above.
Modee et al. does not teach adding a deodorizer to the film. However, Nakagawa et al. teaches adding a deodorizer such as a zeolite (¶0057) to any layer of a multilayer polyethylene stretch film (¶0136; Claim 19). Modee et al. and Nakagawa et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the deodorizer of Nakagawa et al. to one of the layers of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Nakagawa et al. suggests, to provide deodorizing properties to the film (¶0010).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285) in view of Tikusis et al. (US Pat. 9,340,665) and Kuramoto et al. (KR 1020160147721). Note: A machine translation is being used for KR 1020160147721.
Considering Claims 11-15: Modee et al. teaches a sealant film comprising two polyethylene outer layers (¶0031) that contain virgin polyethylene (¶0043-44); and a core layer comprising recycled polyethylene between the exterior layers (¶0006). Modee et al. teaches a five layer film comprising two exterior layers comprising virgin polyethylene and a three layer core, where the inner core layer comprises 50% of recycled polyethylene (PCR+edge portions). The inner layer is 40% by weight and the outer layers are 10% by weight (Table 1). As the layers have similar densities, the thickness ratio would be roughly equivalent to the weight ratios.
Modee et al. does not teach the presence of metal components in the core layer. However, Tikusis et al. teaches adding calcium or zinc to a polyethylene layer (3:32-50). The calcium and zinc compounds are added in an amount of 200 to 700 ppm (3:32-50). Modee et al. and Tikusis et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the compounds of Tikusis et al. to the film layer of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tikusis et al. suggests, to reduce the generation of hydrochloric acid during heating (3:32-50).
Modee et al. does not teach an example where the first and third core layer comprise a white pigment. However, Modee et al. teaches the core layer as optionally containing up to 10 weight percent of titanium dioxide/a white pigment (¶0071). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the titanium dioxide to the first and third core layer of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Modee et al. suggests, to control the color and opacity of the film (¶0071).
Modee et al. does not teach the claimed base material film. However, Kuramoto et al. teaches forming a packaging bag comprising sealable polyethylene film on a polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or nylon base material (pg. 13), where the base material comprises a printed layer (pg. 13). Kuramoto et al. teaches forming the bag by heat sealing two laminate layers (pg. 14). Modee et al. and Kuramoto et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely heat sealable films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the film of Modee et al. in a packaging material, as in Kuramoto et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Kuramoto et al. suggests, the packaging bags have a wide variety of commercial uses (pg. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Modee et al. does not teach the claimed white intermediate layers is not persuasive. Modee et al. teaches a five layer film comprising two exterior layers comprising virgin polyethylene and a three layer core, where the inner core layer comprises 50% of recycled polyethylene (PCR+edge portions). The inner layer is 40% by weight and the outer layers are 10% by weight (Table 1). As the layers have similar densities, the thickness ratio would be roughly equivalent to the weight ratios.
Modee et al. does not teach an example where the first and third core layer comprise a white pigment. However, Modee et al. teaches the core layer as optionally containing up to 10 weight percent of titanium dioxide/a white pigment (¶0071). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the titanium dioxide to the first and third core layer of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Modee et al. suggests, to control the color and opacity of the film (¶0071).
B) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the white layers conceal the color of the recycled layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
