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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are currently pending.
Claims 4 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/22/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 4 and 15 have been canceled.
The Section 102 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New Section 103 rejections have been implemented in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2020/0384575 A1 with a publication priority of 03/05/2020 for WO 2020/047073 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-9,
Zhou teaches a web including a film comprising a polymer (such as LLDPE, a polyethylene); and a plurality of particles, the plurality of particles comprising absorbent filler particles (such as BaSO4 or BaPO4) and void generating fill particles (such as CaCO3); and a plurality of voids (as shown in Figures 4 and 5) (Zhou: abstract; Figs. 4A-B and 5A-B; par. 0005 and 0047-0050; Table 3). The voids may have a size of about 0.30 to about 2.00 µm (Zhou: 0076). Figure 5B shows a cross-section that shows the void generating fill particles (52, CaCO3) are larger than the voids (50) (Zhou: Fig. 5B). Thus, there would exist embodiments in which the average particle size of the void generating fill particles overlaps with the claimed greater than 1 µm particle size. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The plurality of particles, which includes absorbent filler particles (such as BaSO4 or BaPO4) and void generating filler particles (such as CaCO3) may be present from 10 to 60% by total weight of the film (Zhao: par. 0047-0048). For example, as a combination of BaPO4 and CaCO3 is utilized in the Examples, such as in Codes 14 and 15. Thus, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to envision an embodiment in which BaPO4 and CaCO3 may be present in the total weight concentration, such as a total particle amount, for example, of 30 wt% which divided evenly would amount to 15% of BaPO4 and 15% of CaCO3 which would be within the claimed ranges for both types of particles to achieve the desired cutting speeds as suggested by Zhou (Zhou: par. 0059; Tables 1-3). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 2,
Zhou teaches the film required by claim 1. Zhou further teaches the void volume may be from about 2 to about 15% which overlaps with the claimed about 5 to about 15% (Zhou: par. 0050). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3,
Zhou teaches the film required by claim 2. Zhou further teaches the void may have an average size of about 0.30 to about 2.50 µm, which overlaps with the claimed about 0.50 to about 2.50 µm (Zhou: par. 0051). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhou does not teach the claimed combination of absorbent filler particles and void generating fill particles in the claimed concentrations and particle sizes for the void generating fill particles.
The argument is not persuasive for the reasons explained in the rejection above. Zhou does teach embodiments which satisfy the claimed amended limitations of claim 1. Please see the updated rejection on how these limitations are met.
Applicant argues superior and unexpected results for the claimed combination of absorbent filler particles and void generating filler particles, the size of the void generating filler particles, and the balance of concentrations to yield improved faster laser cutting speeds. Applicant points to Tables 4-6 in the specification for data to support the claim.
It is noted that the burden of Applicant to provide data displaying comparative data displaying the alleged unexpected result is unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
The claim to superior and unexpected results is found to be insufficient to overcome the cited prior art of record for at least the following reason: 1) the claims are not commensurate in scope with the alleged unexpected property and the structure which allegedly brings about the superior property as detailed in the Examples of the specification; 2) insufficient data points for the claimed concentrations and particle size ranges.
The claims are not commensurate in scope with the examples as the absorbent filler particles and the void generating filler particles encompass a narrow range of compositions, but claim 1 does not require any specific composition. The stretching aspect, which is tied to Applicant’s discussion, is also in the examples but is not required by the claims. The alleged superior property of the cutting speeds is also not required by the claims. Additionally, the size of the voids appears to be important to the alleged superior effect, but they are also not required by claim 1.
The concentration ranges for the about 10 to about 25 wt% absorbent filler particles and the about 15 to about 35 wt% of void generating filler particles also lack data to support the alleged critical ranges as there appears to be data outside the ranges with specific stretching conditions that still have higher cutting speeds such as Code No. 31, which is also an embodiment which does not have both particle types in it.
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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783