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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those rejections that are not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 12 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected.
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 1-11, 13-19 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.
Claim 1 recites on line 1-2, “A package for preserving respiring produce contained in the package made from a packaging material.” This limitation is not clear whether the claim is intending to positively recite food in the package, or whether the claim is only directed to a package that is capable of (i.e. for) preserving respiring produce within the package. This limitation is further unclear because the claim also recites on lines 13-14, “the package, when closed and containing respiring produce including at least one perforation.” The limitation of “when” does not positively recite that the package is closed or that the package contains respiring produce.
Claim 1 recites, “respiring produce” on line 13. It is not clear whether this is intending to refer to the same limitation recited on line 1.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “the polymer” on line 2, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites, “containing at least one portion of respiring produce.” This claim is indefinite because claim 1 recites, “the package, when closed and containing respiring produce” (line 13), which implies that the package does not yet contain respiring produce. Therefore, claim 1 appears to recite that the claim is directed to a package that is capable of containing respiring produce, while claim 11 positively recites that there is respiring produce. In view of this, the scope of claim 11 is not clear as to whether it the package also needs to have at least one perforation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scetar (“Trends in Fruit and Vegetable Packaging - A Review” - cited on IDS filed 12/10/2021) in view of Groeneweg (US 20160009428 already of record), Vigano (US 20200163351) and Mir (US 20150208679 already of record)
Regarding claim 1, Scetar teaches a package capable of preserving respiring produce contained in the package made from a packaging material, the packaging material without perforations having a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) within the range of 100-1200 ml/m2-24hrs (see page 71, Table 3, where polyurethane film used for packaging of MAP produce has a water vapor transmission rate of 400-600 g/m2-24hrs; the Table is titled, “Gas permeability and water transmission rate (WTR) of polymeric film available for packaging of MAP product” and therefore is teaching a package and packaging materials for packaging respiring produce);
A carbon dioxide transmission rate (CO2TR) that is greater than 1000 ml/m2-24hrs (see page 71, Table 3, where polyurethane films have a carbon dioxide transmission rate of 7000-25000 ml/m2-24hrs).
Scetar further teaches that the polyurethane film has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 800-1500 ml/m2-24hrs and therefore also teaches a ratio β of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate can be within the range of 8.75-16.6 and therefore falls within the claimed range.
Claim 1 further recites the package, “when closed and containing respiring produce including at least one perforation enabling gas exchange with the atmosphere surrounding the package.” It is noted however that this is seen to be an intended use of the claimed package because it recites, “when closed and containing respiring produce” there is at least one perforation. Therefore, as currently presented, claim 1 does not require the presence of a perforation, nor respiring produce within the package and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Scetar’s teaching of polyurethane film available for packaging of MAP produce would have been capable of having a perforation.
Further regarding the limitation of “a package” because Table 3 teaches that polyurethane is a polymeric film available for packaging MAP produce, the reference is teaching and suggesting a form of a package that is capable of preserving respiring produce.
Further regarding the claim 1 limitation of, “the package, when closed and containing respiring produce including at least one perforation enabling gas exchange with the atmosphere surrounding the package,” it is noted that since the claim does not positively recite that the package is closed, and since the claim is not clear as to a positive recitation of respiring produce in the package, this limitation has been construed to be an intended use limitation which Scetar’s package would have been capable of performing.
Nonetheless, and further regarding including a perforation, it is additionally noted that Groeneweg further teaches and suggests that there can be a perforation in the package if the film itself did not have the desired transmission rate (see paragraph 13) in order to provide the requisite control of a concentration of a first or second substance within the package, such as the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations (see paragraph 8, 14 and 51-53. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a perforation in Scetar’s polyurethane packaging material for the purpose of controlling the concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide within the package.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16 and 17, Scetar teaches that polyurethane can have a WVTR of 400-600 ml/m2-24hrs, a CO2TR of 70000-25000 ml/m2-24hrs and an OTR rate of 800-1500ml/m2-24hrs, which overlap with the ranges as recited in claims 2, 4-6, 15, 16 and 17.
Further regarding the particular transmission rates, while Scetar teaches a range of water vapor, carbon dioxide and oxygen transmission rate that overlaps with the claimed ranges, it is further noted that Vigano teaches and suggests that the transmission properties of the film have been known to be adjusted the specific composition, structure, thickness, orientation or by microperforating (see paragraph 61).
Mir similarly teaches a package for respiring produce (see at least, the abstract) and which can comprise a packaging material having a CO2TR of 5000 cc/m2-day; an OTR of 1000 cc/m2-day and a WVTR of 330, for example, (see paragraph 72). Mir also teaches that the package can further include perforations for further controlling the transmission rates (see paragraph 74-75, 77) and that the ratio of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate can be 5 (see paragraph 78). Therefore, Mir is teaching transmission properties of the film prior to any perforations that could be added for tailoring the transmission rates.
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art to have modified Scetar’s film composition and thickness for example, for the purpose of achieving the requisite oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapor permeability to Scetar’s film.
Further regarding claims 7, 13 and 19, Scetar teaches on page 71, Table 3, that the polyurethane film has a thickness of 25 microns and Mir further evidences , the combination teaches a using a film thickness such as 20 microns or more (see paragraph 65). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Scetar’s film to use a thickness of 20 microns or more based on conventional thicknesses for packaging material used to package respiring produce.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite that there is at least one perforation and in view of this, claim 8 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 1, since Scetar’s package would have been capable of having at least one perforation having an open area below 1 square millimeter as recited in claim 8 and below about 0.25 square millimeter, as recited in claim 18. Groeneweg further evidences using perforations with an open area of about 0.25 square millimeter, as needed (see paragraph 13) for adjusting oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations within the package (see paragraph 8, 14 and 51-53).
Regarding claim 11, it is initially noted that the claim is not clear in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Nonetheless, Scetar clearly teaches that the package can contain at least one portion of respiring produce because the reference is teaching that the polyurethane film is used as a packaging film for MAP produce (see page 71, Table 3).
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimaru (US 20210229410) in view of Groeneweg (US 20160009428) and Vigano (US 20200163351).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-6, 14-17 and 19, Ishimaru teaches a package capable of preserving respiring produce (see the abstract and paragraph 35), and which comprises a packaging material that, without perforations, has a water vapor transmission rate of preferably 400g/m2-day (see paragraph 50), a carbon dioxide transmission rate of preferably 5000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 48) and an oxygen transmission rate of preferably 1000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 46), and therefore teaches a ratio of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate that can be 5 (see also paragraph 52). Therefore, Ishimaru’s transmission rates fall within the ranges as recited in claims 2, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17 and 19.
Ishimaru’s ratio of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate also falls within the ranges as recited in claims 6 and 14.
Ishimaru further teaches that the film can have a thickness of 70 microns (see paragraph 55), which falls within the range as recited in claims 7, 13 and 19.
Further regarding the claim 1 limitation of, “the package, when closed and containing respiring produce including at least one perforation enabling gas exchange with the atmosphere surrounding the package,” it is noted that since the claim does not positively recite that the package is closed, and since the claim is not clear as to a positive recitation of respiring produce in the package, this limitation has been construed to be an intended use limitation which Ishimaru’s package would have been capable of performing.
Nonetheless, and further regarding including a perforation, it is additionally noted that Groeneweg further teaches and suggests that there can be a perforation in the package if the film itself did not have the desired transmission rate (see paragraph 13) in order to provide the requisite control of a concentration of a first or second substance within the package, such as the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations (see paragraph 8, 14 and 51-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a perforation in Ishimaru’s package for the purpose of controlling the concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide within the package.
Further regarding the particular transmission rates, while Ishimaru teaches a range of water vapor, oxygen and carbon dioxide transmission rate that overlaps with the claimed ranges, it is further noted that Vigano teaches and suggests that the transmission properties of the film have been known to be adjusted the specific composition, structure, thickness, orientation or by microperforating (see paragraph 61).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ishimaru’s film composition and thickness for example, for the purpose of achieving the requisite oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapor permeability within Ishimaru’s suggested ranges.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite that there is at least one perforation because claim 1 recites that the perforation is only included when the package is closed and contains respiring produce, but does not positively recite that the package is closed and contains respiring produce. In view of this, claim 8 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 1, since Ishimaru’s package would have been capable of having at least one perforation having an open area below 1 square millimeter as recited in claim 8 and below about 0.25 square millimeter, as recited in claim 18. Groeneweg further evidences using perforations with an open area of about 0.25 square millimeter, as needed (see paragraph 13) for adjusting oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations within the package (see paragraph 8, 14, and 51-53).
Regarding claim 11, it is initially noted that the claim is not clear in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Nonetheless, Ishimaru teaches that the package can contain at least one portion of respiring produce (see paragraph 35).
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (JP 2009035327 already of record) in view of Ishimaru (US 20210229410), Groeneweg (US 20160009428) and Vigano (US 20200163351).
Regarding claims 1-6, 14-17 and 19, Kato teaches a package capable of preserving respiring produce (see paragraph 90), and which comprises a packaging material that, without perforations, has a WVTR of preferably 500-1000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 46), a CO2TR of preferably less than 13000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 48) and an OTR of preferably 1000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 47), and teaches a ratio β of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate that can be 10 (see also paragraph 49). Therefore, Kato’s transmission rates fall within the ranges as recited in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19.
Further regarding claims 4 and 16, Kato’s disclosure of a CO2TR that is preferably 13000 cc/m2-day or less suggests that the lower limit to the CO2 transmission can vary and further teaches that the CO2TR should not be too high otherwise the freshness of the foods and the like may deteriorate quickly (see paragraph 48). Because Kato teaches, for example, a ratio β that is 10 or less and, in light of paragraph 47 teaching an OTR of 500 cc/m2-day and 1000 cc/m2-day, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Kato is also suggesting, for example, a CO2 transmission rate of 5000-10000,
Nonetheless, it is further noted that Ishimaru teaches a packaging material for a package capable of being used for preserving respiring produce, and which material has a CO2TR of preferably 5000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 48) and an OTR of preferably 1000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 46), and therefore teaches a ratio of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate that can be 5 (see also paragraph 52). These properties are all within the ranges as suggested by Kato and fall within the ranges as recited in claims 4, 16 and 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to specifically adjust the packaging material to have a carbon dioxide transmission rate of 5000 cc/m2-day for the purpose of preventing freshness of the food to deteriorate too quickly.
Kato’s ratio of the carbon dioxide transmission rate to the oxygen transmission rate also falls within the ranges as recited in claims 6 and 14.
Kato further teaches that the film can have a thickness of 25 microns (see paragraph 49), which falls within the range as recited in claims 7, 13 and 19.
Further regarding the claim 1 limitation of, “the package, when closed and containing respiring produce including at least one perforation enabling gas exchange with the atmosphere surrounding the package,” it is noted that since the claim does not positively recite that the package is closed, and since the claim is not clear as to a positive recitation of respiring produce in the package, this limitation has been construed to be an intended use limitation which Kato’s package would have been capable of performing.
Nonetheless, and further regarding including a perforation, it is additionally noted that Groeneweg further teaches and suggests that there can be a perforation in the package if the film itself did not have the desired transmission rate (see paragraph 13) in order to provide the requisite control of a concentration of a first or second substance within the package, such as the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations (see paragraph 8, 14 and 51-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include a perforation in Kato’s package for the purpose of controlling the concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide within the package as suggested by Groeneweg.
Further regarding the particular transmission rates, while Kato teaches a range of water vapor, oxygen and carbon dioxide transmission rate that overlaps with the claimed ranges, it is further noted that Vigano teaches and suggests that the transmission properties of the film have been known to be adjusted the specific composition, structure, thickness, orientation or by microperforating (see paragraph 61).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ishimaru’s film composition and thickness for example, for the purpose of achieving the requisite oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapor permeability within Ishimaru’s suggested ranges.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite that there is at least one perforation because claim 1 recites that the perforation is only included when the package is closed and contains respiring produce, but does not positively recite that the package is closed and contains respiring produce. In view of this, claim 8 is rejected based on its dependence to claim 1, since Kato’s package would have been capable of having at least one perforation having an open area below 1 square millimeter as recited in claim 8 and below about 0.25 square millimeter, as recited in claim 18. Groeneweg further evidences using perforations with an open area of about 0.25 square millimeter, as needed (see paragraph 13) for adjusting oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations within the package (see paragraph 8, 14, and 51-53).
Regarding claim 9, Kato teaches that the packaging material is biodegradable (see paragraph 9, lines 87-89).
Regarding claim 10, Kato teaches that the packaging material is a polymer film (see paragraph 7) that can also be manufactured from natural produce such as starch, rice powder and cellulose (see paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 11, it is initially noted that the claim is not clear in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b. Nonetheless, Kato clearly teaches that the package can contain at least one portion of respiring produce (see paragraph 90).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to the claims and in view of Applicant’s remarks on pages 7-9, the previous rejections of record, relying on Groeneweg (WO 2017220801) and Itaya (JP 2019004724) both as the primary reference, have been withdrawn.
On pages 10-11 of the response, Applicant urges that the claimed properties of the unperforated packaging material, when combined with microperforations to form the package, are capable of maintaining optimal gas conditions in the package to provide improved produce preservation quality and using perforations to compensate for the properties of an unperforated film that did not meet the claimed properties altered the oxygen transmission rates and ratio β to prevent optimal preservation.
It is noted that the prior art combination as applied herein, teaches a packaging material that does not have perforations, and teaches a WVTR, CO2TR, ratio β and OTR that fall within the claimed range, and is also capable of being perforated for further control of the transmission rates of the package.
Further on the 2nd to last paragraph on page 11 of the response, Applicant urges that Example 1 of the present Application discloses a commercially available biopolymer with a WVTR, CO2TR and a ratio β of the unperforated packaging material within the scope of the present claims, but such an unperforated packaging material did not fulfil the transmission requirements of the present claims.
It is noted that it appears that Applicant is referring to comparative example 3 from Table 1, page 22. However while this example meets the WVTR, OTR and CO2TR as recited in claim 1, it does not meet the claimed requirements for the ratio β. Therefore, while comparative example 3 might refer to an unperforated film, the comparative example does not meet all three properties of the unperforated film as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is noted that the comparative examples and the results as shown in Table 2 of the specification as filed, do not provide any specificity as to the particular number and size of perforations applied to each comparative example and the inventive example. Furthermore, the claims as currently presented are not clear as to whether the claims are directed to a perforated package or only a package capable of being perforated.
On pages 11-12 of the response, Applicant urges that the Groeneweg reference does not teach the claimed properties for an unperforated film and none of the cited prior art discloses or suggests a package for produce made from an unperforated packaging material having the presently claimed combination of properties. Applicant further urges that the cited prior art does not provide a basis for a skilled person to develop an expectation that the presently claimed package made from the specified unperforated packaging material would provide the significant superior results in preserving freshness of respiring produce demonstrated with working and comparative examples in the present specification as in view of the data provided by the second Groeneweg Declaration.
These arguments have been considered and the rejections relying on Groeneweg as the primary reference have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been presented herein, as necessitated by the amendment to the claims. It is further noted however, that the example as presented in Applicant’s specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims because the inventive example is but one data point, while the claims disclose a range of WVTR, CO2TR, β and OTR.
Applicant’s remarks on pages 13-15, 20-23 and 26-29 regarding the Groeneweg I reference, Lebreton, Varriano-Marston, Itaya, Mir, Jamshidian and Ando references have been considered.
These arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 24-25 of the response, Applicant urges that Kato teaches a material with a much higher CO2TR and OTR than claimed and cannot be comparable to packages with perforations as disclosed in Groeneweg I.
These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented in this Office Action. Further regarding Kato, it is respectfully noted that the reference at paragraphs 46-49 teaches and suggests a WVTR, CO2TR, β and OTR that is within the ranges as presently claimed in claim 1 and the combination provides motivation for modifying the CO2TR.
Pages 15-20 of Applicant’s response reiterate those remarks presented in the second Declaration and therefore have been addressed together as presented below.
Initially regarding the Declaration, it is noted that the prior art as presented in this Office Action does not rely on Groeneweg I (WO 2017220801), however the following remarks are presented with respect to the second Declaration.
Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 21 of the Declaration also discusses that the claimed package allows for respiring produce to achieve a deeper sleep by controlling the size and number of microperforations.
It is noted however, that the prior art would also have been capable of providing perforations for controlling respiration. For example, Groeneweg (US 20160009428) teaches controlling respiration to a desired value (see paragraph 17) as well as suppressing respiration (see paragraph 50) using perforations (see paragraph 13).
At paragraph 16 and 18 of the Declaration, colored lines are discussed however, the graphs as presented can only be seen in grayscale.
The data as presented at paragraphs 14-19 of the Declaration is acknowledged and appreciated. However, as discussed above, it is noted that the prior art as presented in this Office Action relies on a packaging material that is unperforated and has the claimed WVTR, CO2TR, β and OTR as recited in claim 1 and therefore the prior art, when perforated would also have been capable of maintaining CO2 and O2 concentrations within the threshold limits for preservation. Furthermore, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims do not discuss any particular respiring produce or threshold CO2 and O2 concentrations. This is pertinent because the claims are directed to a product, and not a method of using the product or a method of manufacturing the product.
At paragraphs 20-22, the Declaration demonstrates that using the same size and shape of microperforations but increasing the amount of microperforations can lower the CO2 concentration but cannot provide the optimal oxygen concentration.
This is acknowledged and appreciated. It is noted however, that the prior art as presented in this Office Action relies on a packaging material that is unperforated and has the claimed WVTR, CO2TR, β and OTR as recited in claim 1 and therefore the prior art, when perforated would also have been capable of maintain CO2 and O2 concentrations within the threshold limits for preservation. It is further noted that the claims do not provide any specificity as to the type of respiring produce, of which the specific threshold carbon dioxide concentration and optimal oxygen concentrations would vary. The claims also do not recite maintaining particular concentrations of CO2 and O2. Additionally, the claims do not appear to positively recite that the package has perforations, as discussed in the prior art rejections above. The data as presented at paragraph 13 specifically refers to a package with three microperforations, while the claims refer to providing at least one perforation. Additionally, claim 1, for example, presents an open ended carbon dioxide transmission rate and β while providing a WVTR of 100-1200ml/m2-24hrs.
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). Furthermore, while nonobviousness of a genus or claimed range may be supported by data showing unexpected results of a species or narrower range, since the claims encompass any respiring produce with a large degree of variation in the particular WVTR, CO2TR and β, the data appears to only provide a limited number of species which cannot provide an adequate basis for concluding that similar results would be obtained for other species within the scope of the independent claim.
Similarly, the data at paragraphs 25-26 of the Declaration is acknowledged and appreciated. However, the data does not appear to be commensurate in scope with the claims, because the data is specifically directed to what happens with Brussel sprouts and appears to require at minimum 2 microperforations with a 90 micron diameter for satisfactory preservation; whereas claim 1 is directed to a package that is capable of being perforated with at least one perforation having any size. Furthermore, as discussed in the prior art rejections above, the prior art teaches an unperforated film that is capable of being used as a package for respiring produce and would be capable of being perforated “when” closed and containing respiring produce.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wantanabe (KR 20180138541) teaches a package (Figure 1, item 101; paragraph 47) having packaging material (gas permeability control film) with an OTR of 2000 cc/m2-day (paragraph 53), a CO2TR of 5000-400000 cc/m2-day (see paragraph 55) and therefore a ratio β greater than 4 (see also paragraph 56) and a WVTR of 200 g/day (paragraph 61) and all of which are known to be adjusted (see paragraph 63) and can be used for suppressing respiration of the produce (see paragraph 55).
Dohata (JP H0796976) further teaches a WVTR of 50-10000g/m2-day, a CO2TR of 10-250000 cc/m2-day and an OTR of 10-50000cc/m2-day (paragraph 9) and where the specific WVTR, CO2TR and OTR can be achieved by adjusting the composition of a packaging material capable of being used for packaging respiring produce to achieve the desired WVTR, OTR and CO2TR (paragraph 12, 23).
Stafyla (US 20210100260) discloses a package comprising a packaging material, and which packaging material can have an OTR of 450cc/m2-day; a WVTR of 500-900 g/m2-day and a CO2TR of 2000-6000 cc/m2-day (paragraphs 13-16).
De Heij (US 20130062242) discloses controlling oxygen and carbon dioxide levels to reduce respiration and thereby slow aging of respiring produce (paragraph 21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights