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 Amendment
The Amendment filed July 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleczek et al. (US 2022/0227977) in view of Weldon et al. (US 2008/0197245).
Regarding claim 1, Kleczek discloses that, a method of making a flexible package ([0055] (shrink films); [0059] (vacuum packing)), the method comprising:
jointly melting at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material and up to 70% by weight post-industrial recycled material, based on a combined weight of the virgin polymeric material and the post-industrial recycled material, to form molten virgin polymeric material and molten post-industrial recycled material ([0008] (a blend of polyethylene (i.e., virgin polymeric material) and recycled polyethylene), [0009] (because these blends contain from 1 to 80 weight % of recycled polyethylene (overlapping up to 70 weight % of post-industrial recycled material and at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material)));
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of these lends contain from 1 to 80 weight % of recycled polyethylene (overlapping at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material and up to 70% by weight post-industrial recycled material) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
extruding the molten virgin polymeric material and the molten post-industrial recycled material to form a polymeric film ([0034]); and
converting the polymeric film into the flexible package ([0059] - [0060] (vacuum packing)),
Kleczek discloses that, the films disclosed herein may be single layer or multiple layer film. The multiple layer films may comprise one or more layers formed from recycled polyethylene. The films may also have one or more additional layers formed from other materials such as other polymers ([0042]). Kleczek discloses that, specialized shrank films may have a monolayer or multilayer construction; non-limiting examples of multilayer films include films containing 2-11 layers ([0056], lines 5-7 from bottom).
Thus, Kleczek discloses that, the polymeric film comprises one or more inner layers, a first outer layer, and a second outer layer, and wherein the one or more inner layers, in total, comprise more post-industrial recycled material than each of the first outer layer and the second outer layer.
However, Kleczek does not disclose that, at least a portion of the post-industrial recycled material is obtained from post-industrial recycling of wicket panels removed from wicketed flexible precursor packages.
In the same field of endeavor, holding packaging bags, Weldon discloses that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that flexible plastic bags, such as those made of polyethlene ([0002]) which is the same polymer of Kleczek, are held together by wickets made of the same material as the flexible bag ([0010]) such that during industrial operations the flexible bag can be torn from a stack leaving behind the wicket and a bag lip ([0010]) which can be recycled (Abstract, [0010], [0039]). Here, the bag lip can be considered as one type of post industrial recycled materials.
As illustrated in Fig. 7 in the teachings of Weldon, the precursor polymeric film is the bag (product) 50 ([0050], line 1) and the wicket panel includes the lip portion 54 and the wicket 11 ([0050], lines 3-5). Thus, Weldon discloses that, the precursor polymeric film excludes the wicket panel. Here, the lip portion 54 of each bag 50 is equivalence to the wicket panel 172 in the disclosure of Applicant
Thus, Weldon discloses that, at least a portion of the post-industrial recycled material is obtained from post-industrial recycling of wicket panels removed from wicketed flexible precursor packages and the wicketed flexible precursor packages are made from precursor polymeric films of a precursor polymeric material substantially the same as the virgin polymeric material.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kleczek to incorporate the teachings of Weldon to provide the precursor polymeric film obtained by removal from a flexible precursor package. Both relate to the recycling of a polyethylene material presenting a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would be possible to reduce the amount of waste, as recognized by Weldon ([0005], [0006]), and Kleczek teaches using PIR without specifying any specific source prompting one of ordinary sill to look to related art and presents a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another.
However, both Kleczek and Weldon do not explicitly disclose that the wicket panels do not comprise any printed areas.
As illustrated in Fig. 7 in the teachings of Weldon, there is no sign of printed areas at the lip portion 54 (i.e., the wicket panel). Thus, at least there are two options for Weldon either applying printed areas to the lip portion or without any printed areas at the lip portion.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kleczek to have the recycled film as Weldon teaches that it is known to have the wicket panel either having printed areas or without any printed areas at the wicket panel. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Kleczek discloses that, the polymeric film formed in one step (i.e., the step without recycling the wicket polymer package) does not comprise more than 2.0 weight-% based on the total weight of the polymer film, of post-industrial recycled material other than that obtained in another step (i.e., the step including the recycled material including wicket polymer package) ([0031]).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kleczek and Weldon overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3, 4, Kleczek discloses that, in [0004], a stretch film made with a blend of polyethylene and recycled polyethylene. Here, the blending means the mixing prior to melting the virgin polymeric material and the post-industrial recycled material ([0022], [0023]). Then, the process employs an extruder which heats, melts and conveys the molten plastic (e.g., the polymeric blend) and forces it through an annular die ([0034], lines 2-5) (related to claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Kleczek discloses that, providing print on one or both surfaces of the polymeric film ([0055], lines 18-21 from bottom (for advertising purposes)).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8, 9, Kleczek discloses that, as listed in Table 1 (page 7 in [0074]), MD (machine direction) tensile strength, TD (cross-machine direction) tensile yield, and an elongation at break of samples of virgin polyethylene and recycled polyethylene (related to claim 9 ([0067]-[0074])) are almost same (also see [0064] (films samples were cut in both the machine direction (MD) and the traverse direction (TD) and tested. ASTM conditions were used to condition the samples).
Kleczek discloses that, the overall composition of the film is made of polyethylene. This material should have inherent properties like the claimed properties of Applicant.
Thus, Kleczek discloses that, a tensile strength in cross-machine direction which is at least 90% (or 95% (related to claim 7)) of the tensile strength in cross-machine direction of the precursor polymeric film obtained in one step, a tensile strength in cross-machine direction and in machine direction which is at least 90% (or 95% (related to claim 7)) of the tensile strength in cross-machine direction and machine direction of the precursor polymeric film obtained in step a), and an elongation at break in cross-machine direction and in machine direction which is at least 90% (or 95% (related to claim 8)) of the elongation at break in cross-machine direction and machine direction of the precursor polymeric film obtained in one step).
However, Kleczek does not explicitly disclose to measure these properties by ISO 527-1:2012 (Instead, Kleczek uses ASTM D882-12 ([0064])).
However, it is deemed the overall composition (such as virgin and recycled polyethylene) reads on the instantly claimed composition and therefore should inherently have the same properties. However, since The Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation (either through ISO 527-1:2012 or ASTM D882-12) in order to determine whether Applicant’s composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed references. Therefore, with the showing of the references, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
Regarding claims 10-14, Kleczek discloses that (as disclosed in [0031]), the method comprising: providing at least 35 weight-% post- industrial recycled material obtained in step a) based on the overall weight of the polymeric film ([0031], lines 1-4 (overlapping)), providing at least 40 weight-% post- industrial recycled material obtained in step a) based on the overall weight of the polymeric film ([0031], lines 1-4 (overlapping)), providing at least 45 weight-% post- industrial recycled material obtained in step a) based on the overall weight of the polymeric film ([0031], lines 1-4 (overlapping)), providing at least 50 weight-% post- industrial recycled material obtained in step a) based on the overall weight of the polymeric film ([0031], lines 1-4 (overlapping)), and providing at least 55 weight-% post- industrial recycled material obtained in step a) based on the overall weight of the polymeric film ([0031], lines 1-4 (overlapping)).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [providing at least 40 weight-% post- industrial recycled material obtained in step a) ([0031], lines 1-4) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Kleczek et al. and the claims differ in that Kleczek et al. do not teach the exact same range for the virgin polymeric material as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kleczek et al. (providing at least 35 weight-% - 55 weight-% post- industrial recycled material) overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleczek et al. (US 2022/0227977) in view of Weldon et al. (US 2008/0197245), Broyles et al. (US 2012/0288692).
Regarding claims 15, 18, Kleczek discloses that, a method of making a flexible package ([0055] (shrink films); [0059] (vacuum packing)), the method comprising:
jointly melting at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material and up to 70% by weight post-industrial recycled material, based on a combined weight of the virgin polymeric material and the post-industrial recycled material, to form molten virgin polymeric material and molten post-industrial recycled material ([0008] (a blend of polyethylene (i.e., virgin polymeric material) and recycled polyethylene), [0009] (because these blends contain from 1 to 80 weight % of recycled polyethylene (overlapping up to 70 weight % of post-industrial recycled material and at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material)));
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of these lends contain from 1 to 80 weight % of recycled polyethylene (overlapping at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material and up to 70% by weight post-industrial recycled material) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
extruding the molten virgin polymeric material and the molten post-industrial recycled material to form a polymeric film ([0034]); and
converting the polymeric film into the flexible package ([0059] - [0060] (vacuum packing)),
Kleczek discloses that, the films disclosed herein may be single layer or multiple layer film. The multiple layer films may comprise one or more layers formed from recycled polyethylene. The films may also have one or more additional layers formed from other materials such as other polymers ([0042]). Kleczek discloses that, specialized shrank films may have a monolayer or multilayer construction; non-limiting examples of multilayer films include films containing 2-11 layers ([0056], lines 5-7 from bottom).
Thus, Kleczek discloses that, the polymeric film comprises one or more inner layers, a first outer layer, and a second outer layer, and wherein the one or more inner layers, in total, comprise more post-industrial recycled material than each of the first outer layer and the second outer layer.
However, Kleczek does not disclose that, at least a portion of the post-industrial recycled material is obtained from post-industrial recycling of wicket panels removed from wicketed flexible precursor packages.
In the same field of endeavor, holding packaging bags, Weldon discloses that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that flexible plastic bags, such as those made of polyethlene ([0002]) which is the same polymer of Kleczek, are held together by wickets made of the same material as the flexible bag ([0010]) such that during industrial operations the flexible bag can be torn from a stack leaving behind the wicket and a bag lip ([0010]) which can be recycled (Abstract, [0010], [0039]). Here, the bag lip can be considered as one type of post industrial recycled materials.
As illustrated in Fig. 7 in the teachings of Weldon, the precursor polymeric film is the bag (product) 50 ([0050], line 1) and the wicket panel includes the lip portion 54 and the wicket 11 ([0050], lines 3-5). Thus, Weldon discloses that, the precursor polymeric film excludes the wicket panel. Here, the lip portion 54 of each bag 50 is equivalence to the wicket panel 172 in the disclosure of Applicant
Thus, Weldon discloses that, at least a portion of the post-industrial recycled material is obtained from post-industrial recycling of wicket panels removed from wicketed flexible precursor packages and the wicketed flexible precursor packages are made from precursor polymeric films of a precursor polymeric material substantially the same as the virgin polymeric material.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kleczek to incorporate the teachings of Weldon to provide the precursor polymeric film obtained by removal from a flexible precursor package. Both relate to the recycling of a polyethylene material presenting a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would be possible to reduce the amount of waste, as recognized by Weldon ([0005], [0006]), and Kleczek teaches using PIR without specifying any specific source prompting one of ordinary sill to look to related art and presents a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another.
However, both Kleczek and Weldon do not explicitly disclose that the wicket panels do not comprise any printed areas.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kleczek to have the recycled film as Weldon teaches that it is known to have the wicket panel either having printed areas or without any printed areas at the wicket panel. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kleczek discloses several applications of the recycled film as the packaging materials ([0059] (vacuum packing), [0061] (dunnage film), and [0063] (synthetic lumber)).
However, Kleczek does not explicitly disclose that, filling the flexible package with absorbent articles. In the same field of endeavor, renewably sourced films, Broyles discloses that, the multi-layer films are used as packaging materials for absorbent articles ([0075], lines 1-6). Broyles discloses non-limiting examples of wearable absorbent articles include diapers, and the like ([0017]) (related to claim 18).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kleczek to have the recycled film as the packaging materials as Broyles teaches that it is known to have the multi-layer films are used as packaging materials for absorbent articles. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method s is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Kleczek discloses that, the method involves (manually or automatically) placing items in a plastic film package, removing air from inside, and sealing the package ([0059], lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 17, Kleczek discloses that, providing print on one or both surfaces of the polymeric film ([0055], lines 18-21 from bottom (for advertising purposes)).
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleczek et al. (US 2022/0227977) in view of Weldon et al. (US 2008/0197245).
Regarding claim 19, Kleczek discloses that, a method of making a flexible package ([0055] (shrink films); [0059] (vacuum packing)), the method comprising:
jointly melting at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material and up to 70% by weight post-industrial recycled material, based on a combined weight of the virgin polymeric material and the post-industrial recycled material, to form molten virgin polymeric material and molten post-industrial recycled material ([0008] (a blend of polyethylene (i.e., virgin polymeric material) and recycled polyethylene), [0009] (because these blends contain from 1 to 80 weight % of recycled polyethylene (overlapping up to 70 weight % of post-industrial recycled material and at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material)));
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of these lends contain from 1 to 80 weight % of recycled polyethylene (overlapping at least 30% by weight virgin polymeric material and up to 70% by weight post-industrial recycled material) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
extruding the molten virgin polymeric material and the molten post-industrial recycled material to form a polymeric film ([0034]); and
converting the polymeric film into the flexible package ([0059] - [0060] (vacuum packing)),
Kleczek discloses that, the films disclosed herein may be single layer or multiple layer film. The multiple layer films may comprise one or more layers formed from recycled polyethylene. The films may also have one or more additional layers formed from other materials such as other polymers ([0042]). Kleczek discloses that, specialized shrank films may have a monolayer or multilayer construction; non-limiting examples of multilayer films include films containing 2-11 layers ([0056], lines 5-7 from bottom).
Thus, Kleczek discloses that, the polymeric film comprises one or more inner layers, a first outer layer, and a second outer layer, and wherein the one or more inner layers, in total, comprise more post-industrial recycled material than each of the first outer layer and the second outer layer.
However, Kleczek does not disclose that, a stack of individual wicketed flexible precursor packages and at least a portion of the post-industrial recycled material is obtained from post-industrial recycling of wicket panels removed from wicketed flexible precursor packages.
In the same field of endeavor, holding packaging bags, Weldon discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, a stack of individual wicketed flexible precursor packages from a precursor polymeric film are demonstrated ([0023]).
Weldon discloses that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that flexible plastic bags, such as those made of polyethlene ([0002]) which is the same polymer of Kleczek, are held together by wickets made of the same material as the flexible bag ([0010]) such that during industrial operations the flexible bag can be torn from a stack leaving behind the wicket and a bag lip ([0010]) which can be recycled (Abstract, [0010], [0039]). Here, the bag lip can be considered as one type of post industrial recycled materials.
As illustrated in Fig. 7 in the teachings of Weldon, the precursor polymeric film is the bag (product) 50 ([0050], line 1) and the wicket panel includes the lip portion 54 and the wicket 11 ([0050], lines 3-5). Thus, Weldon discloses that, the precursor polymeric film excludes the wicket panel. Here, the lip portion 54 of each bag 50 is equivalence to the wicket panel 172 in the disclosure of Applicant
Thus, Weldon discloses that, at least a portion of the post-industrial recycled material is obtained from post-industrial recycling of wicket panels removed from wicketed flexible precursor packages and the wicketed flexible precursor packages are made from precursor polymeric films of a precursor polymeric material substantially the same as the virgin polymeric material.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kleczek to incorporate the teachings of Weldon to provide the precursor polymeric film obtained by removal from a flexible precursor package. Both relate to the recycling of a polyethylene material presenting a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would be possible to reduce the amount of waste, as recognized by Weldon ([0005], [0006]), and Kleczek teaches using PIR without specifying any specific source prompting one of ordinary sill to look to related art and presents a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another.
However, both Kleczek and Weldon do not explicitly disclose that the wicket panels do not comprise any printed areas.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Kleczek to have the recycled film as Weldon teaches that it is known to have the wicket panel either having printed areas or without any printed areas at the wicket panel. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Kleczek discloses that, the polymeric film formed in one step (i.e., the step without recycling the wicket polymer package) does not comprise more than 2.0 weight-% based on the total weight of the polymer film, of post-industrial recycled material other than that obtained in another step (i.e., the step including the recycled material including wicket polymer package) ([0031]).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kleczek and Weldon overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claims 1, 15 and 19 that the cited portions of the references are not understood to disclose at least these elements such as ‘the polymeric film comprises one or more inner layers, a first outer layer, and a second outer layer, and wherein the one or more inner layers, in total, comprise more post-industrial recycled material than each of the first outer layer and the second outer layer’, it is not persuasive.
At least, Kleczek discloses that, the films disclosed herein may be single layer or multiple layer film. The multiple layer films may comprise one or more layers formed from recycled polyethylene. The films may also have one or more additional layers formed from other materials such as other polymers ([0042]). Kleczek discloses that, specialized shrank films may have a monolayer or multilayer construction; non-limiting examples of multilayer films include films containing 2-11 layers ([0056], lines 5-7 from bottom). Thus, the multilayers of the film in the base reference Kleczek comprises one or more inner layers, a first, and a second outer layers. At least, in the teachings of Kleczek, when the one or more inner layers are from the recycled materials and the first and second outer layers are not from the recycled materials, the one or more inner layers, in total, comprise more post-industrial recycled material than each of the first outer layer and the second outer layer.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights