DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 1/20/2026.
Claim(s) 3 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 10-11 have been added.
Claim(s) 6-9 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-11, are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10 and 11 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, as it states “is the same as or different” which includes all compounds. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2004307566 to Oyama et al. (as found on the IDS dated 12/12/2023). Citations from Oyama are taken from a machine translation equivalent of the document incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 1-3, Oyama teaches a method for producing polyamide resin composition [title] wherein 5-50 parts of laminated film wastes are processed into pellets through an extruder in advance [L259] (i.e., melt kneaded and pelletized) [abstract] that comprises 5-50 parts polyamide resin (a1) [abstract] (i.e., 5-49.5% (BB)) thereby calculated to an amount of 2.5-25 parts of the composition; 30-90 parts polyolefin resin (a2) [abstract] that is preferred as polyethylene [L140] (i.e., 50-90% (BA)) thereby calculated to an amount of 0.15-45 parts of the composition; and 5-20 parts of a modified polyolefin resin (a3) [abstract] that are ethylene α olefins [L54] (i.e., 0.5-5% (BC)) thereby calculated to an amount of 0.25-12.5 parts of the composition. Oyama’s composition further comprises 90-20 pts of additional polyamide resin [abstract] and 5-30 pts of additional modified elastomer [abstract] that is a modified ethylene-α-olefin copolymer modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or derivative thereof [L220-224] with a MFR in the range of 0.05-20 g/min [L234] (i.e., MFR of 0.1-50 g/10 min) and densities between 0.89 and 0.87 g/cm3 (i.e., density is 850-930 kg/m3) thereby reading on all limitations of copolymer (C) in claims 1 and 2.
The laminated film waste pellets, polyamide resin, and modified elastomer are fed to an extruder [L73-75] (i.e., blending) wherein the combined components of ethylenic polymer set forth above is reasonably calculated to be 0.4 – 57.5 parts by weight, thereby reading on 25-106.5 mass% of ethylenic polymer (A). The combined components of polar resin set forth above is reasonably calculated to be 22.5 – 115 parts by weight, thereby reading on 2-42.0 mass% of polar resin (B). The combined components of modified ethylene-α copolymer set forth above is reasonably calculated to be 22.5 – 115 parts by weight, thereby reading on 5.5-35 mass% of modified ethylene-α copolymer (C). The calculation to determine the mass% of the ethylenic polymer (A) and polar resin component (B) of the instant claims is done in the same manner set forth above.
Though the prior art (A), (a3), and (B) range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Oyama teaches the polar resin composition of claim 1, wherein the preferred polyamide is polyamide 6/66 [L 99] thereby reading on an aliphatic polyamide resin.
Regarding Claim 10-11, Oyama teaches the polar resin composition of claim 1, wherein the polyethylene [L140] (BA) is the same as the ethylenic polymer (A)
Regarding Claim 11, Oyama teaches the polar resin composition of claim 1, comprising a modified polyolefin resin (a3) [abstract] that are ethylene α olefins [L54] (i.e., BC) and a combination of additional modified elastomer [abstract] that is a modified ethylene-α-olefin copolymer modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or derivative thereof [L220-224] therefore (BC) and (C) are both modified ethylene/α-olefin copolymers and are the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Oyama is silent regarding blending a pelletized resin component with an ethylenic polymer and a modified ethylene/α-olefin copolymer.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 as set forth above wherein laminated film wastes are processed into pellets through an extruder in advance [L259] that is further mixed with additional modified elastomer [abstract] that is a modified ethylene-α-olefin copolymer modified with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or derivative thereof [L220-224]. It is noted that the ethylene-α-olefin copolymer can reads on both the terms “ethylenic polymer” and “modified ethylene/α-olefin copolymer”, as well as the polyethylene found in the laminated film waste of Oyoma [L140].
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764