Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/540,365

POLYESTER FILM AND METHOD FOR REPRODUCING POLYESTER CONTAINER USING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SK Microworks America Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
17%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
35%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 17% of cases
17%
Career Allow Rate
9 granted / 53 resolved
-48.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
63
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 53 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The 103 rejection over Shibano in view of KR-‘919 and JP-‘891 has been withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibano et al-JP-2001058622 in view of KR-20170090919, JP-2017052891 and in further view of Shin et al US PGPub 20190330442. SHIBANO discloses a process for recycling polyester container comprising a label of heat-shrunk polyester film ([0008], [0009], [0011]-[0012], [0015], [0028], [0029]-[0030], [0088], fig 1) [as claimed]. The container and film are crushed together to obtain mixed flakes of bottles and labels ([0072]) [as claimed, and reading on the claimed first and second flakes, of container and film, respectively]. SHIBANO's polyester film comprises a resin made of diol and dicarboxylic acid components ([0032]) [reading on the claimed first layer of the film comprising diol and dicarboxylic acid components]. SHIBANO also discloses an intermediate layer of the film which can be made of a resin different than the film ([0044]-[0045]) [reading on the claimed second layer comprising a second resin different from the first resin]. SHIBANO discloses that the flakes can be thermally heated in an extruder and cut into recycled chips ([0072]), and discloses an example of thermally heating the shredded container and film at 140°C to dry them ([0085]). Claim 2: SHIBANO discloses shredding the container and film into flakes of 0.1 mm square to 10 cm square or less, using a shredder, with an example of 1 cm square ([0043], [0085]). Claim 3: SHIBANO's container is made of polyethylene terephthalate ([0002], [0048]). The Shibano reference fails to disclose 1) the second resin coating/film as being polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) resin, having the claimed MWTw and 2) is silent regarding heating to 200-220°C for 60-120 minutes, having a clumping fraction of 8% or less. It is noted that the PEN resin is a polyester similar in structure to polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Also, note that in Shibano 0044 and 0045 it is suggested that the second film/coating can be selected to be a polyester resin, and that the second resin have hydrophilic groups present. The KR-'919 reference discloses a polyester film made from PEN which is used to coat a polyester base film, similar to Shibano and the claimed invention. The KR reference teaches that the specific use of PEN gives their product high refractive index, generates less rainbow coloring, heat and water resistance, prevents blocking and allows film recycling. With respect to the weight average molecular weight (MWTw) of claim 1, neither Shibano or KR disclose this property, but since the claim range is either less than 10k or greater than 12k (so an extremely broad range), one skilled in the art would expect this limitation to be met by both references. In the event that the MWT limitation is not met, JP-'891 discloses that in the field of regenerated polyester films, specifically PEN, use of these polyesters in the same/similar processes generally have a MWTw of 200-1000 to function as a film for/on PET containers. Hence, the MWT limitation is prima facie obvious. Shin et al-‘442 (from similar inventors as the present application) discloses an almost identical process of recycling PET containers (minus the secondary film, made from PEN), wherein Shin specifically teaches thermally treating the formed polyester chips from 200-220 degrees C for 60-120 minutes for the purpose of achieving a clumping fraction of 5% or less. When this achieved, recyclability, yield and productivity are improved, see 0007. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the Shibano process of recycling polyesters, and 1) to have selected the second polyester to be PEN, since use of PEN would give a product/film with high refractive index, generates less rainbow coloring, heat and water resistance, prevents blocking and allows film recycling as taught by KR-'919. Additionally, the MWTw of the claims would be expected to be met by either Shibano and/or KR, as evidenced by/in view of JP-'891 which teaches that the MWT is well known and routine to skilled artisan for the purposes of producing a polyester recycled film, and 2) to have added a heating step of the polyester chips of 200-220 degrees C for 60-120 min, to obtain a clumping fraction of 5% or less for the purpose of achieving improved recyclability, yield and productivity as taught by Shin. NOTE: the Shin reference qualifies as a 102(a)(2) exception, and was filed March 15, 2019, before the priority date of the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY P GULAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1302. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4pm. 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, Randy P 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. 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. /RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 11, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570593
TRIARYLMETHANE COMPOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12534560
COPOLYMERS OF (3-ACRYLAMIDOPROPYL)TRIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE AS CORROSION INHIBITOR INTERMEDIATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12516155
METHOD OF SYNTHESIZING POLYLACTIC ACID AND CATALYST THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12516165
HEAT-SHRINKABLE POLYESTER FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12473398
HIGHLY HEAT-RESISTANT POLYCARBONATE ESTER AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
17%
Grant Probability
35%
With Interview (+17.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 53 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month