Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/250,062

POLYESTER-BASED SHRINK FILM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 21, 2023
Priority
Nov 30, 2020 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2020044562
Examiner
LISTVOYB, GREGORY
Art Unit
1765
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Bonset Latin America S A
OA Round
2 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
806 granted / 1206 resolved
+1.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1239
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
72.7%
+32.7% vs TC avg
§102
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
§112
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1206 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The previous prior art rejection under Miyazaki et al (JP2012036273) maintained and therefore it is proper to make this rejection FINAL. 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 1-9 and new claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (JP2012036273), cited in IDS and previous Office Action. Regarding new claim 10, Miyazaki teaches that amount of polyester in heat -shrinkable film is 100% (see Example 1). In reference to claim 11-13, Miyazaki teaches a polyester comprising 100% of terephthalic acid and diol component is mainly composed of ethylene glycol and 10 mol % - 45 mol % of 1,4- cyclohexanedimethanol, diethylene glycol or neopentyl glycol as the second component. Note that Miyazaki does not teach completely non-crystalline polymer. However, the reference teaches that “it is difficult for a highly crystalline film to achieve both the elimination of insufficient shrinkage and the natural shrinkage resistance. Therefore, in the present invention, it is preferable to use a film component that suppresses crystallinity. “ The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 11/3/2025 and is herein incorporated by reference Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits that even though polyesters structure are identical, their physical properties are not necessarily equal. Examiner agree that physical properties of the film also depend on method of film preparation. As stated in Non-Final Office Action, Miyazaki and Applicant disclose analogous methods of film preparation, which include extrusion process with following film stretching . More detailed analysis can be found in the previous Office Action. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F. 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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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. GL /GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637526
Dual Catalyst System for Producing High Density Polyethylenes With Long Chain Branching
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630674
A Polymer and a Product or Article Comprising or Consisting of the Polymer
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630800
SELF-ASSEMBLED COPOLYMERIC 3D NANOWIRE SCAFFOLD FOR CELL GROWTH AND PROLIFERATION, AND A METHOD FOR PRODUCING THEREOF
3y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617888
POLY(LACTIC ACID-B-3-HYDROXYPROPIONIC ACID) BLOCK COPOLYMER HAVING EXCELLENT TRANSPARENCY PROPERTY AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12617937
RESIN COMPOSITION AND GAS-BARRIER FILM USING SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+29.6%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1206 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month