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 Arguments
The previous rejections to claims 1, 11, and 13 under 112(b) are withdrawn in response to the amendments filed 3/7/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited references do not describe the sinusoidal waveform of each emboss as being less than one half wavelength. Examiner agrees that neither Cobler nor Broering describe this, however after further search, another reference, Rasmussen, is cited which describes embosses with half a wavelength of a sinusoidal curve.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that the cited references do not describe a sinusoidal boundary extending between first and second side ends. Examiner disagrees. Cobler discloses the boundaries extending from one side to the other side of the web and Broering describes the boundaries as being sinusoidal. Applicant argues that Broering only discloses one wavelength. Examiner disagrees. Broering Figure 13 shows the sinusoidal boundary extends for at least two wavelengths across the lengths of the boundary. Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 14-18 also remain rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobler (US 2019/0315567) modified by Rasmussen (US 2010/0297387.)
Regarding claim 1, Cobler meets the claimed, A thermoplastic film, (Cobler [0050] describes a polyethylene film) the thermoplastic film having machine and cross directions, (Cobler Figure 5 shows a single layer web 110A of the film web having a machine and cross direction) the thermoplastic film comprising: a plurality of embossed regions embossed into the thermoplastic film, (Cobler Figured 5 and 6 and [0071]-[0074] describes two partial embossed widths 300a and 300b each with multiple embossment regions 510) the plurality of embossed regions separated by a continuous, unembossed arrangement, (Cobler Figure 6 and [0072] describe a flat embossment boundary 520 between each embossment region 510) each of the plurality of embossed regions comprising a set of embosses, wherein adjacent embosses of the set of embosses are shaped and spaced from each other to avoid intersection with each other, (Cobler Figure 6 shows each of the regions 510 have individual ridges 512 which are spaced apart and do not intersect, see also [0071]-[0072].)
Cobler does not describe the ridges themselves being sinusoidal and does not meet the claimed, each of the plurality of embossed regions comprising a set of sinusoidal embosses, and a sinusoidal waveform of each emboss of a set of sinusoidal embosses is less than one-half of a wavelength.
Analogous in the field of embossed films, Rasmussen meets the claimed, each of the plurality of embossed regions comprising a set of sinusoidal embosses, and a sinusoidal waveform of each emboss of a set of sinusoidal embosses is less than one-half of a wavelength (Rasmussen [0092]-[0093], [0133]-[0134], Figure 9a, and Figure 12 describe a plastic film which is embossed by a roller to form pockets, the pockets are described as being sinusoidal but each wave lasts is less than a half wavelength, see Figure 9a or 12.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the embossed polymer of Cobler with the sinusoidal embosses having half a wavelength or less as described in Rasmussen in order to stabilize the waving and provide a warm texture/feel to the material, see Rasmussen [0043] and [0074].
Regarding claim 2, Cobler meets the claimed, The thermoplastic film of claim 1, further comprising: the adjacent embosses evenly spaced from each other (Cobler Figure 6 shows the ridges 512 are evenly spaced.)
Regarding claim 4, Cobler meets the claimed, The thermoplastic film of claim 1, further comprising: each embossed region defined by a boundary with the continuous, unembossed arrangement (Cobler [0072] and Figure 6 show the embossment boundary 520 between each embossment region 510.)
Claims 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobler (US 2019/0315567) modified by Broering (US 2021/0188508).
Regarding claim 9, Cobler meets the claimed, An emboss pattern embossed onto a web of thermoplastic film, (Cobler [0050] describes a polyethylene film, see Figure 5 showing the embossed pattern) the thermoplastic film having machine and cross directions, (Cobler Figure 5 shows a single layer web 110A of the film web having a machine and cross direction) the emboss pattern comprising: an upper embossed section, the upper embossed section having top and bottom emboss boundaries, (Cobler Figure 5 shows partial width 300a at the upper portion having a top and bottom boundary, see also [0074]) the top and bottom emboss boundaries extending generally in the machine direction, (Cobler Figure 5 shows the boundaries extending along the machine direction) the upper embossed section extending in the cross direction between the top and bottom emboss boundaries, (see 300a in Cobler Figure 5 extending in the cross direction) a lower embossed section below the upper embossed section, the lower embossed section having top and bottom emboss boundaries extending generally in the machine direction, the lower embossed section extending in the cross direction between the top and bottom emboss boundaries, (Cobler Figure 5 shows partial width 300b being embossed and having a top and bottom boundary and extending in the directions as claimed) the upper and lower embossed sections comprising a plurality of embossed regions of embosses, each embossed region separated from adjacent embossed regions by an unembossed arrangement, (Cobler [0072] and Figure 6 show the individual embossment regions 510 in both the partial widths 300a/300b, each region 510 is separated from one another by the planar embossment boundary 520) an upper unembossed section above the top boundary of the upper embossed section, a middle unembossed section extending from the bottom boundary of the upper embossed section to the top boundary of the lower embossed section, a lower unembossed section below the bottom emboss boundary of the lower embossed section, and the upper, middle, and lower unembossed sections having generally flat surfaces devoid of embosses (Cobler Figure 5 shows the unembossed partial widths 302a at the top, 302b in the middle, and 302c at the bottom, see also [0074]) the top and bottom emboss boundaries extending from a first side end to an opposite second side end of the web, extends…between the first and second side ends (Cobler Figure 5 shows the partial widths extend across the entire width of the web.)
Cobler does not show the boundaries as sinusoidal and does not meet the claimed, at least one of the top and bottom emboss boundaries of the upper and lower embossed sections following a sinusoidal path, wherein the sinusoidal path extends continuously for two wavelengths between the first and second side ends.
Analogous in the field of embossed films, Broering meets the claimed, at least one of the top and bottom emboss boundaries of the upper and lower embossed sections following a sinusoidal path (Broering [0118] and Figure 13 show a web area 302b between the embossed pattern areas is sinusoidal) wherein the sinusoidal path extends continuously for two wavelengths (Broering Figure 13 show the web area 302b extends for at least two wavelengths continuously.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the embossment patterns of Cobler with the sinusoidal boundaries of Broering extending at least two continuous wavelengths in order to allow for a stretch profile with a complex shape, see Broering [0118].
Regarding claim 10, Cobler does not describe sinusoidal embosses and does not meet the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 9, further comprising: each embossed region of the plurality of embossed regions comprising a set of sinusoidal embosses, wherein each sinusoidal emboss of the set of sinusoidal embosses are spaced from each other such that they do not intersect each other
Broering further meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 9, further comprising: each embossed region of the plurality of embossed regions comprising a set of sinusoidal embosses, wherein each sinusoidal emboss of the set of sinusoidal embosses are spaced from each other such that they do not intersect each other (Broering Figure 13 and [0118] shows the raised rib elements 304d have a sinusoidal pattern on the edges at 302a, they do not intersect.)
Regarding claim 11, Cobler meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 10, further comprising: each embossed region defined by a boundary with the unembossed arrangement the boundary defined by endpoints of the sinusoidal embosses of the set of sinusoidal embosses and top and bottom sinusoid embosses of the embossed region (Cobler Figure 6 and [0072] describe the boundaries 520 between each region 510, Broering Figure 13 describes a sinusoidal shape.)
Regarding claim 12, Broering further meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 11, further comprising: the thermoplastic film of each sinusoidal emboss stretched in both the machine and cross directions by formation of the sinusoidal emboss, (Broering Figure 13 shows the sinusoidal pattern which travels in the machine direction but the amplitude extends in the cross direction thereby having stretching in both directions) a magnitude of stretching for both the machine and cross directions continuously varying along a length of each sinusoidal emboss (Broering Figure 14 shows the sinusoidal pattern which is sinusoidal and therefore varies the stretch in the matter explained immediately above.)
Regarding claim 14, Broering further meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 13, further comprising: the top and bottom boundaries of the upper and lower embossed sections following one or more sinusoidal paths (Cobler Figure 6 and [0072] describe the boundaries 520 between each region 510, Broering Figure 13 describes a sinusoidal shape at the edge of each embossment.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the embossment patterns of Cobler with the sinusoidal boundaries of Broering in order to allow for a stretch profile with a complex shape, see Broering [0118].
Regarding claim 15, Broering further meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 14, further comprising: the top and bottom boundaries of the upper section following an upper sinusoidal path, the top and bottom boundaries of the lower section following a lower sinusoidal path, and the upper sinusoidal path different from the lower sinusoidal path (Broering Figure 13 describes a sinusoidal shape at the edge of each embossment, when combined with the sections shown in Cobler Figure 5, this yields a boundary for each section that is also sinusoidal.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the embossment patterns of Cobler with the sinusoidal boundaries of Broering in order to allow for a stretch profile with a complex shape, see Broering [0118].
Regarding claim 16, Broering does not explicitly meet the claimed, The thermoplastic film of claim 15, further comprising: the upper sinusoidal path having a different wavelength and amplitude from the lower sinusoidal path, however, Broering [0118] describes the sinusoidal rib shapes of the embossment pattern can be sized and positioned to form a stretch profile with a complex shape meaning that the edge of the embossment pattern (the sinusoidal path) is thereby also sized and positioned.
Broering discloses that the size and positioning of the sinusoidal ridges are a result effective variable which alters the stretch pattern of the film. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize the amplitude and wavelength as part of the shape and position in order to optimize the stretch profile in different areas, see Broering [0118] and MPEP §2144.04(II)(B).
Regarding claim 17, Broering meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 14, further comprising: the one or more sinusoidal paths having the same amplitude and wavelength (Broering Figure 13 shows all the sinusoidal web areas approximately being the same width and amplitude.)
Broering discloses that the size and positioning of the sinusoidal ridges are a result effective variable which alters the stretch pattern of the film. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize the amplitude and wavelength as part of the shape and position in order to optimize the stretch profile in different areas, see Broering [0118] and MPEP §2144.04(II)(B).
Regarding claim 18, Cobler meets the claimed, The emboss pattern of claim 15 wherein: the thermoplastic film is incorporated into a drawstring trash bag (Cobler [0075] describes a bag, [0062] describes the bag is a drawstring trash bag.)
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights