RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending in the application, claim 2 has been cancelled.
Amendments to claim 1, filed on filed on Oct. 14, 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record in office action mailed July 23, 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed October 14, 2025.
REJECTIONS
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clare (US PG Pub No. 2016/0339663) in view of Ogi et al. (WO 2020/217931). See English translation of WO 2020/217931 for prior art discussion.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 1, 5, 6 and 9, Clare discloses a food packaging bag (stand up pouch, abstract) formed from a layered film (inner web layer, para. [0049]). The layered film comprises an outermost polyethylene sealant layer (B3, para. [0052]), a HDPE base layer (B2, para. [0051]), and a layer made of polyethylene (B1, paragraph [0050]). The HDPE base layer adds strength to the packaging (para. 0064]). Clare further discloses the high-density polyethylene having a density of about 0.95 to about 0.970 g/cc (para. [0059]) and a melt mass-flow rate of 0.1 to 10 g/10 min (para. [0097]) under conditions of a temperature of 190°C and a load of 2.16 kg (para. [0138]).
Clare fails to disclose the HDPE layer contains ultra- high-molecular-weight polyethylene particles.
Ogi discloses a polyethylene resin film used in food packaging (para. [0001] and [0003]). The contains 90 parts by mass of a polyethylene resin and 0.2-2 parts by mass polyethylene resin particles (para. [0012], [0016] and [0022]). The polyethylene resin particles comprise an ultra- high-molecular-weight polyethylene a density of 0.930 to 0.960 g/cm, a weight-average molecular weight of 1,500,000 or more (para. [0014]), and an average grain diameter of 5 to 15 µm (para. [0015]). The particles make is more likely for the film to achieve slipperiness, blocking resistance, and scratch resistance, making it less likely for wrinkles or lumps to occur during bag making processes, and transparency is also more easily maintained (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, add 0.2-2 parts by mass of ultra- high-molecular-weight polyethylene particles as taught by Ogi to the HDPE base layer of Clare making it less likely for wrinkles or lumps to occur during bag making processes, and transparency is also more easily maintained of Clare’s packaging.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 3 and 4, Clare discloses that an opacifying agent, such as titanium dioxide (para. [0208]), in the about of 0.5-15 parts per mass (para. [0209]) can be add to at least one layer of the packaging (para. [0201]). The opacifying agent reduces light transmission through the matrix material (para. [0202]).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 7 and 8, the limitations in claims 7 and 8 are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Dou discloses the same base layer composition blend.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed October 14, 2025 regarding the 103 rejections in the office action mailed July 23, 2025 of record have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
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 Alicia Chevalier whose telephone number is (571)272-1490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/12/2026