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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on 10/31/2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1 – 11 are amended and pending. In view of Applicant’s amendments, the Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejections of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 11 as being anticipated by Tian et al. (WO 2019/132954 A1) and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (WO 2019/132954 A1) in view of Clare (US 2016/0229157). The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejections of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 11 as being anticipated by Tian et al. (WO 2019/132954 A1) and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (WO 2019/132954 A1) in view of Clare (US 2016/0229157). However, the Examiner has now rejected the claims under 35 USC 103 over Clare (US 2016/0229157), thus the Examiner addresses the argument relative to Clare.
Applicant argues by showing a Figure of two embodiments of Clare indicating that Clare does not disclose Applicant’s specific claimed structure. Applicant indicates that claim 1 now requires this structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s claim is not limited to a three layer structure. As noted in the rejection below, Clare teaches samples 4.1 and 4.2 where the structures are as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
296
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note the location of the first resin layer, second resin layer, intermediate layer as and the sealant layer. Specifically, Clare teaches that outer web is a multi-layer coextruded film and the structure is subjected to machine direction orientation [0065]. Additionally, the first resin layer is disposed “opposite to the sealant layer”. Note that the claims do not require that the sealant layer is adjacent or connected to the second resin layer thus the intervening layers of the MDPE and HDPE of the inner web are within the scope of the claim. Additionally, the claims do not require that the first resin layer and the second resin layer are immediately adjacent to each other, in particular, claim 2 indicates that there is an intermediate layer between as demonstrated above. The outer and inner layers are both coextruded films [0065] and [0074-0078] and when made into one laminated film, they are laminated to each other [0123]. Additionally, Table 2 teaches a range of MDO factors from 6 – 7X.
Applicant argues that Clare does not teach the thicknesses of the layers as required in the present claims. Although Clare does not specifically teach the thicknesses but rather thicknesses of the outer web and inner web, Clare does suggest that the thicknesses are result effective variables as noted in the rejection below. Clare specifically indicates in [0127] that it will be recognized by those skilled in the art that the above described thickness may be easily modified to change the physical properties of the SUP. For example, the thickness of the HDPE layers may be increased (if it is desired to produce a stiffer SUP) or the thickness of the LLDPE layer(s) may be increased to improve impact resistance. [0127]. Although Clare does not address this relative to all the layers in the laminate, this would be reasonably obvious to additionally optimize the thickness of all layers in light of the teachings of Clare. The burden is upon Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ranges are critical and have unexpected results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Clare (US 2016/0229157). .
Clare is directed to a recyclable standup pouch made of polyethylene (Abstract) with a desirable balance of stiffness and optical properties (page 1, [0007]).
As to claims 1 - 11, Clare teaches in the samples the following structures:
PNG
media_image3.png
254
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
288
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For samples 4.1 and 4.2, the structures are as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
296
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note the location of the first resin layer, second resin layer, intermediate layer as and the sealant layer. Specifically, Clare teaches that outer web is a multi-layer coextruded film and the structure is subjected to machine direction orientation [0065]. Additionally, the first resin layer is disposed “opposite to the sealant layer”. Note that the claims do not require that the sealant layer is adjacent or connected to the second resin layer thus the intervening layers of the MDPE and HDPE of the inner web are within the scope of the claim. Additionally, the claims do not require that the first resin layer and the second resin layer are immediately adjacent to each other, in particular, claim 2 indicates that there is an intermediate layer between as demonstrated above. The outer and inner layers are both coextruded films [0065] and [0074-0078] and when made into one laminated film, they are laminated to each other [0123]. Additionally, Table 2 teaches a range of MDO factors from 6 – 7X. The limitation of the first surface layer, intermediate layer and second surface layer stretched in the same direction and sealant layer is non-stretched are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. 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. See 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 Clare teaches a laminated multi-layer film with Applicant’s claimed layers as discussed above.
Clare teaches that all PE standup pouch (using HDPE) has good rigidity but optical properties of the packaging are poor (page 1, [0007]). One way of mitigating the problem is using at least one layer of a lower density polyethylene in the inner web. Additionally, the optical properties are improved by adding a nucleating agent (page 2, [0048-0057]). The low density polyethylene can be blended with various nucleating agents listed on page 3 meeting the limitation of claim 3.
Clare does not specifically teach that the thickness of the first resin layer is 5 to 25 micrometers, the thickness of the second resin layer is 5 to 45 micrometers, the second resin layer is thicker than the first resin layer, the thickness of the sealant layer and the proportion of the sealant layer in the thickness of the laminated film. However, Clare does note that it will be recognized by those skilled in the art that the above described thickness may be easily modified to change the physical properties of the SUP. For example, the thickness of the HDPE layers may be increased (if it is desired to produce a stiffer SUP) or the thickness of the LLDPE layer(s) may be increased to improve impact resistance. [0127]. Although Clare does not address this relative to all the layers in the laminate, this would be reasonably obvious to additionally optimize the thickness of all layers in light of the teachings of Clare. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the that the thickness of the first resin layer, the thickness of the second resin layer, the second resin layer is thicker than the first resin layer, the thickness of the sealant layer and the proportion of the sealant layer in the thickness of the laminated film to include the claimed ranges. One would have been motivated to optimize these parameters to tailor the SUP to the desired end use properties balancing the stiffness and impact resistance. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The burden is upon Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed ranges are critical and have unexpected results.
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 JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786