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
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to obviousness in view of He have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues criticality of less than 20% renewable content mineral in a formulation of films to achieving mechanical properties. In contract, He teaches examples of 30%, 37.5%, and 45%. The rejection of claims 1-12 and 18 has been withdrawn due to amendment and arguments
Regarding claim 14, applicant’s argument are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim requires “the ratio is specifically tailored for uses such as ‘a sandwich bag, a storage bag”. However, such claim language is not found in claim 14, which recites broadly any ratio of ingredients that forms a film.
Regarding claims 17 and 23, the claims broadly recite a ratio for a “sandwich bag” and “freezer bag” but does not limit the precise ratio or properties. That is, even a porous film can be considered to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sandwich bag”. This term is not defined in the specification to be limited to particular properties. Moreover, this type of bag is found obvious in view of Showalter (US 2021/0238390 A1), see rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 19 recite “wherein a bag formed from the film comprises at least twenty percent renewable material content” rendering the claim indefinite. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which is amended to recite “no more than twenty percent by weight of renewable content mineral”. Claim 19 depends from claim 18 which recites identical language. Therefore, it is unclear if claims 3 or 19 recites exactly twenty percent or a range of values. For purposes of examination, it will be understood to be limited to exactly twenty percent.
Claim 17 recites “forming the first film” but this term lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 depends from claim 14, which makes no mention of a “first film”. It is suggested to be correct to “forming a [[the]] first film”. For purposes of examination it will be interpreted as such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 18, and 21-22 are allowed.
Claims 3 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
He et al. (US 2014/0272357 A1) He teaches varying the amount of filler in a film depending on its intended porosity, [0038], biodegradable polymers including thermoplastic starch (TPS), [0034], He teaches calcium carbonate from plankton or algae sources can be harvested from the ocean bed, [0039].
Falken (US 2023/0123482 A1) teaches [0037] The one or more fillers may include, for example, precipitated calcium carbonate, oolitic aragonite. However, Falken does not teach creating films.
Claims 1, 18, and 24 recite wherein the desired ratio includes no more than twenty percent by weight of renewable content mineral.
As stated by applicant’s arguments, filed 4/10/2026, see pg. 8-10, Applicant argues criticality of less than 20% renewable content mineral in forming polymer films for achieving desired mechanical properties. In contract, He teaches examples of 30%, 37.5%, and 45%.
Claims 2-12 and 19 are allowable because each claim depends from allowable claim 1 or 18.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2014/0272357 A1).
Regarding claim 14, He meets the claimed method, comprising: determining a desired ratio of (He teaches varying the amount of filler in a film depending on its intended porosity, [0038]) (i) renewable content starch, (biodegradable polymers including thermoplastic starch (TPS), [0034]) (ii) renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite, (He teaches calcium carbonate from plankton or algae sources can be harvested from the ocean bed, [0039]. Examiner notes that oolitic aragonite is calcium carbonate harvested from the sea bed, as defined by the NPL “What is Oolitic Aragonite” in the file wrapper dated 12/28/2023) and (iii) polyethylene for a film; (polyethylene homopolymers and copolymers, [0036]) mixing (the polymer components are mixed to make an essentially homogeneous blend [0027]) amounts of (i) renewable content starch, (ii) renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite, and (iii) polyethylene; (see above ingredients) operating film extrusion equipment to form the film from the blended (i) renewable content starch, (ii) renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite, and (iii) polyethylene. (an extrusion process, such as cast extrusion [0043]).
He is silent on the step of determining a desired ratio of (i) a renewable content starch, ii) a renewable content mineral, and (iii) polyethylene, wherein the desired ratio includes an amount by weight of the renewable content starch in the blend is greater than an amount by weight of the renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite in the blend.
He teaches the polymer film blend may contain Bio-Sus concentrations of from up to about 40%,[0035]. He teaches filter the total amount of filler should comprise about 25-75% (by weight) of the film composition, [0038]. He teaches varying the amount of polymers to achieve films that are soft, quiet, flexible films that are not brittle, see [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the ratio of starch, mineral, and polyethylene to meet the claimed renewable content starch in the blend is greater than an amount by weight of the renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite to achieve films that are soft, quiet, flexible films that are not brittle, see [0035].
Claim(s) 17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2014/0272357 A1) in view of Showalter (US 2021/0238390 A1).
Regarding claim 17, He is silent on the method of claim 1, further comprising: forming the first film into a bag; and coupling a reclosable closure element to a top portion of the sandwich bag.
Showalter meets the claimed further comprising: forming the first film into a bag; and coupling a reclosable closure element to a top portion of the sandwich bag. Showalter teaches earth plant-based composition having eco-friendly sustainable properties, for use in durable goods, food, and beverage containers, cosmetic, and healthcare packaging, medical devices, [0002] such as food and beverage containers, packaging, film, plastic bags, [0111]. Examiner notes that a reclosable closure element is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when teaching a food container or plastic bag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application use the film of He to create a food plastic bag as taught by Showalter because He teaches are soft, quiet, flexible films that are not brittle, see [0035], which are suitable for food bags.
Regarding claim 23, He teachers the method of claim 14, , the method further comprising: determining a second desired ratio (He teaches varying the amount of filler in a film depending on its intended porosity, where the total amount of filler should comprise about 25-75% (by weight) of the film composition, see [0038]) of (i) renewable content starch, biodegradable polymers including thermoplastic starch (TPS), [0034]) (ii) renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite, (He teaches calcium carbonate from plankton or algae sources can be harvested from the ocean bed, [0039]. Examiner notes that oolitic aragonite is calcium carbonate harvested from the sea bed, as defined by the NPL “What is Oolitic Aragonite” in the file wrapper dated 12/28/2023) and (iii) polyethylene for a film; (polyethylene homopolymers and copolymers, [0036]) and (iii) polyethylene for a second film, (polyethylene homopolymers and copolymers, [0036]) and blending, based on the second ratio, second amounts of (i) renewable content starch, (ii) renewable content mineral comprising oolitic aragonite, and (iii) polyethylene corresponding to the second ratio.(He teaches blending the above ingredient to make different ratios, see Table 1 and 2).
He is silent on the further claimed wherein the determined first ratio is based on the film being used for a sandwich bag, wherein the second ratio is based on the film being used for freezer bags.
Showalter meets the claimed wherein the determined first ratio is based on the film being used for a sandwich bag, wherein the second ratio is based on the film being used for freezer bags. Showalter teaches earth plant-based composition having eco-friendly sustainable properties, for use in durable goods, food, and beverage containers, cosmetic, and healthcare packaging, medical devices, [0002] such as food and beverage containers, packaging, film, plastic bags, [0111].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application use the film of He to create a food sandwich bag and freezer bag as taught by Showalter because He teaches are soft, quiet, flexible films that are not brittle, see [0035], which are suitable for food bags.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Falken (US 2023/0123482 A1) teaches [0037] The one or more fillers may include, for example, precipitated calcium carbonate, oolitic aragonite.
Oakley (US 2009/0312462 A1) teaches Abstract: A polymer composition and its use for thin film packaging applications including on a dry basis: a) from 45 to 90% by weight of starch; b) from 0.1 to 15% by weight of a water soluble polymer selected from polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylacetate, and copolymers of ethylene and vinyl alcohol which have a melting point compatible with the molten state of the starch component; and c) from 5 to 45% by weight of one or more plasticizers having a molecular weight in the range of 50-6000, more preferably 50-2500 and more preferably still 100-400 and desirably selected from the group consisting of sorbitol, glycerol, maltitol, xylitol, mannitol, erythritol, glycerol trioleate, tributyl citrate, acetyl tri-ethyl citrate, glyceryl triacetate, 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyrate, polyethylene oxide, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol or polyethylene glycol.
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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights