DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 December 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the term "ASMT" in performance and mechanical property (iii) appears to be a typographical error that should read --ASTM--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No support could be found in the disclosure, as originally filed, for a laminated structure having a tensile strength, tensile elongation, secant modulus, dart properties, tear properties, or puncture of the film (according to ASTM D882, D1709, D1922, and D5748, respectively) maintained at a level within plus or minus 15% compared to a laminate structure that does not contain post-consumer recycled material. While it is noted that the data presented in Table VI of the specification illustrates lamination films having dart and puncture force values that are -15% different and machine direction tear property that is 15% different, no examples (let alone all of (i) to (iv)) are presented that show differences of both 15% and -15%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (KR 102091593) in view of Herman et al. (US 5,534,317) as evidenced by Cline (How to Prevent Stress Cracking and Crazing in Acrylic (PMMA) & Other Plastics).
Jeon is directed to a laminated film suitable for use as a container or packaging (paragraph 0004). The laminate comprises a polyethylene film with crystallinity of 80% or more laminated on both sides of a polyethylene recycled resin film layer (paragraph 0012). The polyethylene film with crystallinity of 80% or more may be imparted with high crystallinity through biaxial orientation (paragraph 0019). The recycled polyethylene may be obtained from plastic bags for shopping or films used in packaging (paragraph 0026), i.e., post-consumer recycled resin. The polyethylene of the polyethylene recycled resin film layer is preferably high density polyethylene (paragraph 0029). The recycled polyethylene has a melt index of 0.001 to 30 g/10 min (paragraph 0030). The laminated film may be obtained by any method, with a typically involving first obtaining the polyethylene recycled resin film layer followed by laminating the high crystalline polyethylene film layers on both sides (paragraphs 0035-0036). In the embodiment of Example 3, the recycled resin has a melt index of 0.044 g/10 min and is formed as a blown film (paragraph 0058).
Jeon does not teach the addition of a linear low density polyethylene resin in the polyethylene recycled resin film layer.
Herman is directed to a post-consumer high density polyethylene resin blend having minimal diminution in physical properties suitable for use in containers and the like (column 1, lines 45-51). The post-consumer high density polyethylene resin is blended with linear low density polyethylene (column 2, lines 1-6). The post-consumer resin has a density of 0.961 g/cc and a melt index of 0.75 g/10 min (Table I). The linear low density polyethylene has a density of about 0.91 to 0.93 g/cc and a melt index of less than about 2.0 g/10 min (column 2, lines 65-column 3, line 4). The linear low density polyethylene is a copolymer of ethylene and an a-olefin containing 3 to 12 carbon atoms which may be formed using Ziegler-Natta catalysts (column 3, line 56-59 and column 2, lines 45-53). In the embodiments of Runs 5-12, the blend contains 50 to 95 wt% post-consumer high density polyethylene and 2.5 to 10 wt% linear low density polyethylene (Table II).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the post-consumer high density polyethylene resin blend of Herman as the polyethylene recycled resin film layer of Jeon since it has minimal diminution in physical properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success since the blend of Herman is suitable for use in containers and the like.
Regarding the limitation that the oriented polyethylene film is a tenter frame biaxially oriented polyethylene film, the manner in which the polyethylene film is biaxially oriented represents a product-by-process type limitation. While Jeon does not recite the manner in which polyethylene film with crystallinity of 80% or more is biaxially oriented, the product of the prior art reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than the claimed product, as the applicant's specification states that known biaxial orientation processes other than tenter frame orientation may be used (see paragraph 0030 on page 6). Since the polyethylene film with crystallinity of 80% or more appear to be the same as that of the claims (e.g., it is a polyethylene film that is biaxially oriented), the burden is on the applicant to conclusively demonstrate that the recited process limitations result in a patentably distinct product.
Regarding the limitation that one of the recited performance and mechanical properties are maintained within plus or minus 15% of a lamination film structure containing no post-consumer recycled material, Herman teaches that the fusion blend of post-consumer resin and linear low density polyethylene results in a material that maintains physical properties such as stress crack resistance (column 1, lines 57-67). Since stress cracking in a plastic is caused by tensile stresses (see the first paragraph of the CMG reference), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the tensile strength of the blend to satisfy at least performance and mechanical property (i) in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of this claim are taken to be met since the amount of linear low density polyethylene contained in the blend falls within the range recited in claim 6, which depends from claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Jeon merely teaches that their film is biaxially oriented but does not recite that it is a tenter frame biaxially oriented film. The applicant argues that a tenter frame biaxially oriented polyethylene film is not a product-by-process limitation, but rather "refers to a specific type of oriented PE film produced using a tenter-frame sequential biaxial orientation process."
This is not persuasive since the process is itself contained in the applicant's definition of a tenter frame biaxially oriented polyethylene film. Whether or not manufacturers label films as TF-BOPE is not necessarily an indication that TF-BOPE is structurally different from other biaxially oriented polyethylene. However, the applicant's teaching in paragraph 0030 of page 6 explicitly stating that other orientation processes may be used to form the BOPE of the invention is an indication that tenter-frame biaxially oriented polyethylene and polyethylene biaxially oriented by other means are functionally equivalent for the purpose of the applicant's invention. One of ordinary skill in the art reading paragraph 0030 of the specification would have a reasonable expectation of success in using either tenter-frame biaxially oriented polyethylene or polyethylene biaxially oriented by other means as the biaxially oriented polyethylene of the lamination film structure. As noted in paragraph 0030, "the tenter frame is incorporated as part of a multilayer co-extrusion line." That is, the tenter frame is part of the equipment used during the production of the biaxially oriented polyethylene film and not part of the film. This is in contrast to a "highly fluorinated" structure in which fluorine is necessarily part of the structure or a "condensation product" in which condensation bonds are necessarily part of the product.
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 RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights