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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5, 7-8 in the reply filed on 7/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/26.
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 1-5, 7-8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1-5 recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites another range after the term “preferably” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the foil" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tribble (US 5229186) in view of Adams (US 3950480) and Williams (US 6613841).
As to claim 1 and 8, Tribble (5229186) teaches a method for the production of an embossed polymer film, comprising the steps of: a) providing an polyethylene film [col 2 line 3-20], b) embossing of an embossing-pattern on said film, wherein the embossing is performed at a temperature of the foil to its softening point which for the materials listed (PE: 110-134C, EVA: 70-115, PP: 143-150) is 70 to 150 °C [col 2 line 3-20], and wherein the ratio of embossing depth to polymer film thickness is between 3-15 to 1 [col 2 line 19-25, col 2 line 45-49].
Adams teaches a method for embossing plastic material wherein oriented [col 5 line 50-60] HDPE and LDPE is embossed at 53-70 N/mm [Table II] as this nip pressure allows the pattern to be successfully imparted [col 3 line 30-col 4 line 35] and up to 152 m/min (500 ft/min) [col 6 line 30-36]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Tribble and included embossing at 53-70 N/mm, as suggested by Adams, in order for the pattern to be successfully imparted to the film at a fast pace.
Williams teaches a process of making MD oriented PE film [Abstract] and notes that this film has high modulus, high gloss, low haze, and relatively high tear and impact strength after orientation [col 2 line 10-20]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Tribble and made the PE film be oriented in the machine direction only, as suggested by Williams, in order to create film with high modulus, high gloss, low haze, and relatively high tear and impact strength after orientation.
As to claim 2, Tribble teaches the embossing depth is 4 mil and is 101.6 micrometer [col 2 line 45-50].
As to claim 3, Tribble teaches OPE film has a thickness of 3 mil which is approximately 76.2 micrometer [col 2 line 19-25].
As to claim 4, Tribble teaches the embossing pattern is selected from the group consisting of pyramid, diamond [col 3 line 55-67].
As to claim 5, Tribble teaches said embossing-pattern is pyramid and the ratio of embossing depth to film thickness is between 8-12 to 1 [col 2 line 19-50].
As to claim 7, In Tribble PE film is comprised of one or more selected from the group consisting of plastomers, or mixtures thereof. Tribble teaches EVA copolymer [col 2 line 14-20] which would qualify as a plastomer as it deforms plastically as opposed to elastically. Adams as incorporated above additionally teaches LDPE, MDPE, HDPE [Table II. Col 7 line 1-35] and Williams as incorporated above also teaches LLDPE and MDPE [col 2 line 34-65].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights