DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023 was filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. The anti-theft label of claims 13-15 and 18-20 are distinct and different from the elected film and therefore is a separate invention. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 5-8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term preferably renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (CN 1198172 A) to Nonnemacher (hereinafter Nonnemacher).
Nonnemacher is directed toward recycled polystyrene films. Nonnemacher discloses in the Abstract that “the film of the invention may contain up to 100 % of post-consumer recycled polystyrene”. Nonnemacher discloses that the “control film containing 95 (weight) % of universal polystyrene (STYRON 665) and 5 % (weight) high impact polystyrene (STYRON 404)”, which is a styrene that is modified with a butadiene block copolymer, which reads on the modification material. Nonnemacher discloses that the “thickness of the film of the invention typically is at least about 0.25 mils (6.35 microns), preferably at least about 0.75 mils (19.05 microns). the thickness of the film of the invention is generally not more than about 7 mils (177.8 micrometers), preferably no more than about 4 mils (101.6 microns), more preferably no more than about 2.5 mils (63.5 microns).” Nonnemacher discloses each and every element of claims 1-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 1198172 A) to Nonnemacher (hereinafter Nonnemacher).
Nonnemacher is directed toward recycled polystyrene films. Nonnemacher discloses in the Abstract that “the film of the invention may contain up to 100 % of post-consumer recycled polystyrene”. Nonnemacher discloses that the “control film containing 95 (weight) % of universal polystyrene (STYRON 665) and 5 % (weight) high impact polystyrene (STYRON 404)”, which is a styrene that is modified with a butadiene block copolymer, which reads on the modification material. Nonnemacher discloses that the “thickness of the film of the invention typically is at least about 0.25 mils (6.35 microns), preferably at least about 0.75 mils (19.05 microns). the thickness of the film of the invention is generally not more than about 7 mils (177.8 micrometers), preferably no more than about 4 mils (101.6 microns), more preferably no more than about 2.5 mils (63.5 microns).”
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Nonnemacher to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-5.
13. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 1198172 A) to Nonnemacher (hereinafter Nonnemacher) in view of the teachings of (US 2021/0130609 A1) to Kuriyama et al. (hereinafter Kuriyama).
Nonnemacher is directed toward recycled polystyrene films. Nonnemacher discloses in the Abstract that “the film of the invention may contain up to 100 % of post-consumer recycled polystyrene”. Nonnemacher discloses that the “control film containing 95 (weight) % of universal polystyrene (STYRON 665) and 5 % (weight) high impact polystyrene (STYRON 404)”, which is a styrene that is modified with a butadiene block copolymer, which reads on the modification material. Nonnemacher discloses that the “thickness of the film of the invention typically is at least about 0.25 mils (6.35 microns), preferably at least about 0.75 mils (19.05 microns). the thickness of the film of the invention is generally not more than about 7 mils (177.8 micrometers), preferably no more than about 4 mils (101.6 microns), more preferably no more than about 2.5 mils (63.5 microns).” Nonnemacher teaches the film, but is silent regarding the use of a montmorillonite filler.
Kuriyama is directed toward PS films. Nonnemacher and Kuriyama are both directed toward PS films and therefore are analogous art. Kuriyama teaches at paragraph [0114] that the film has an SBS modifier for impact strength. Kuriyama teaches at paragraph [0120] that the film has a montmorillonite filler to save money.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Nonnemacher in view of the teachings of Kuriyama to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-9.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights