DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, WO 2019/065801 A1, in view of Zahalka, US 2013/0190434 A1, for the reasons set forth in the Office Action of 2-04-2026.
Claims 1-20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, WO 2019/065801 A1, in view of Zahalka, US 2013/0190434 A1, and further in view of Kasireddy et al., US 2022/0204663 A1, for the reasons set forth in the Office Action of 2-04-2026.
Note that Applicant’s remarks filed 5-01-2026 correctly identify the cited prior art as Zahalka, US 2013/0190434 A1 rather than ‘734.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-01-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the teachings of Ueno, Applicant argues that biomass-derived polyethylene films differ from polyethylene films that are not biomass-derived because biomass-derived films tend to contain impurities that increase the likelihood of “fisheye” defects. This argument is unpersuasive because Applicant’s claimed biomass-derived invention likewise does not contain such fisheye defects due to the inclusion of the claimed phenolic antioxidant. Although the Examiner does not dispute that biomass-derived polyethylene films tend to contain fisheye defects, such defects cannot patentably distinguish the claimed invention from that of the prior art when the claimed invention does not actually feature such defects. Note that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues that Zahalka cannot be properly combined with Ueno because Zahalka is non-analogous art that is primarily concerned with oxidative degradation. This is unpersuasive because Zahalka, like the present invention, is concerned with improving the properties of polyethylene films, while the product of Ueno is a polyethylene film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the teachings of Zahalka regarding the addition of phenolic antioxidants to polyethylene films would reasonably be applicable to the polyethylene product of Ueno.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights