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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285).
Considering Claim 1: Modee et al. teaches a sealant film comprising two polyethylene outer layers (¶0031) that contain virgin polyethylene (¶0043-44); and a core layer comprising recycled polyethylene between the exterior layers (¶0006).
Considering Claim 6: Modee et al. teaches incorporating edge portions of the film comprising an antioxidant in the core layer (Table 1).
Considering Claims 9 and 10: Modee et al. teaches the core layer as comprising virgin linear low density polyethylene (Table 1).
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gurewitz (US Pat. 5,364,695).
Considering Claim 1: Gurewitz teaches a sealant film comprising an outer layer, a core layer, and an inner layer (1:64-67), where the outer layer (3:40-55), inner layer (5:61-6:11), and core layer (5:44-60) are made of polyethylene, with the core layer comprising recycled polyethylene (5:44-60).
Considering Claims 7 and 8: Gurewitz teaches the inner layer as comprising a white pigment to provide whiteness to the layer (Claim 25).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tikusis et al. (US Pat. 9,340,665).
Considering Claim 2: Modee et al. teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above.
Modee et al. does not teach the presence of metal components in the core layer. However, Tikusis et al. teaches adding calcium or zinc to a polyethylene layer (3:32-50). Modee et al. and Tikusis et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the compounds of Tikusis et al. to the film layer of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tikusis et al. suggests, to recued the generation of hydrochloric acid during heating (3:32-50).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2020/0197555).
Considering Claims 3-5: Modee et al. teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above.
Modee et al. does not teach adding a deodorizer to the film. However, Nakagawa et al. teaches adding a deodorizer such as a zeolite (¶0057) to any layer of a multilayer polyethylene stretch film (¶0136; Claim 19). Modee et al. and Nakagawa et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the deodorizer of Nakagawa et al. to one of the layers of Modee et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Nakagawa et al. suggests, to provide deodorizing properties to the film (¶0010).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurewitz (US Pat. 5,364,695) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tikusis et al. (US Pat. 9,340,665).
Considering Claim 2: Gurewitz teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above.
Gurewitz does not teach the presence of metal components in the core layer. However, Tikusis et al. teaches adding calcium or zinc to a polyethylene layer (3:32-50). Gurewitz and Tikusis et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the compounds of Tikusis et al. to the film layer of Gurewitz, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tikusis et al. suggests, to recued the generation of hydrochloric acid during heating (3:32-50).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurewitz (US Pat. 5,364,695) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2020/0197555).
Considering Claims 3-5: Gurewitz teaches the film of claim 1 as shown above.
Gurewitz does not teach adding a deodorizer to the film. However, Nakagawa et al. teaches adding a deodorizer such as a zeolite (¶0057) to any layer of a multilayer polyethylene stretch film (¶0136; Claim 19). Gurewitz and Nakagawa et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyethylene films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the deodorizer of Nakagawa et al. to one of the layers of Gurewitz, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Nakagawa et al. suggests, to provide deodorizing properties to the film (¶0010).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modee et al. (US 2022/0388285) in view of Kuramoto et al. (KR 1020160147721). Note: A machine translation is being used for KR 1020160147721.
Considering Claims 11-15: Modee et al. teaches a sealant film comprising two polyethylene outer layers (¶0031) that contain virgin polyethylene (¶0043-44); and a core layer comprising recycled polyethylene between the exterior layers (¶0006).
Modee et al. does not teach the claimed base material film. However, Kuramoto et al. teaches forming a packaging bag comprising sealable polyethylene film on a polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene or nylon base material (pg. 13), where the base material comprises a printed layer (pg. 13). Kuramoto et al. teaches forming the bag by heat sealing two laminate layers (pg. 14). Modee et al. and Kuramoto et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely heat sealable films. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the film of Modee et al. in a packaging material, as in Kuramoto et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Kuramoto et al. suggests, the packaging bags have a wide variety of commercial uses (pg. 2).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767