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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group C, claims 1-3, 10, and 14-33, in the reply filed on 24 Sep. 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues that a search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the Office.
However, as stated in paragraph 2 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election Office Action of 05 Aug. 2025, there is an examination and search burden for these different species, since as stated, the three types of polymers are formed by different chemistries and input chemicals.
To elaborate further on the search burden, the claims related to the ethyl cellulose recite limitations involving solution cast films, fibrous mats, fibrous mat fiber diameter, toluene/ethanol solvent systems, and electrospinning. None of these limitations are limitations for the claims associated with the base polymer being a polyester or a polyolefin. Similarly, the claims related to the base polymer being a polyolefin recite limitations involving the type of polyolefin and its branching structure, the inclusion of hydrocarbon wax, and the melt blending of the polymer blend. Again, none of these limitations are limitations for the claims associated with the base polymer being ethyl cellulose or a polyester.
Given that applicant has not persuasively pointed out any errors in the restriction requirement, it is the examiner’s position that the requirement remains proper and is therefore maintained. The requirement is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-9 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 with traverse in the reply filed on 24 Sep. 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “or” should be replaced with “and” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 10, 14-15, 17, 19-28, 30-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Varadarajan et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0270856 A1, published 05 Sep. 2019, hereinafter Varadarajan).
Regarding claims 1-3, 28, 19-22, 25-26, and 30, Speer teaches a composition for oxygen scavenging comprising an oxidizable organic compound and a transition metal catalyst, where the scavenging is initiated by exposing the composition to electron beam radiation, the oxidizable organic composition is a substituted or unsubstituted ethylenically unsaturated hydrocarbon, and the composition includes a photoinitiator (Abstract). Speer teaches that the oxidizable organic compound is polybutadiene or a copolymer of butadiene and styrene (col. 4, lines 7-13), and his composition may include film-forming diluent polymers, such as polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-15). Speer teaches that the amount of the oxidizable organic compound (polybutadiene) is 1 to 99 wt.% of the composition (col. 7, lines 3-5). Speer teaches the use of his oxygen scavenging composition in the form of a film layer as part of a packaging for oxygen-sensitive products (col. 3, lines 6-13). Speer teaches the inclusion of fillers, pigments, and processing aids (col. 6, lines 32-36.)
Speer does not disclose the inclusion of hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene nor titanium dioxide.
Cray Valley teaches a liquid hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene with number average molecular weights of about 2,800 daltons and a trans/vinyl/cis molar content of 60/20/20 (page 3, 1st column, 1st paragraph and chemical structure at top of page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use the hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene as taught by Cray Valley as the polybutadiene in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer. Speer and Cray Valley are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyolefin films, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a liquid hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene as taught by Cray Valley in the polyolefin film taught by Speer. Further, Cray Valley teaches that their hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene has primary, allylic alcohol groups that exhibit high reactivity (page 3, 1st column, Description section, 1st paragraph), low temperature flexibility and low-moisture permeability (page 3, 1st column, Product Highlights section), and their hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene have low volatiles content (2nd page of document, Introduction section, 1st paragraph).
Varadarajan teaches a packaging film comprising polyethylene with 10 wt.% or less of titanium dioxide (Abstract and paragraphs 0011 and 0038).
Given that Speer and Varadarajan are drawn to polyethylene-based packaging films, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate titanium dioxide and in the amount taught by Varadarajan in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley. Since Speer and Varadarajan are drawn to polyethylene-based packaging films, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating titanium dioxide in the amounts taught by Varadarajan in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley. Further, Varadarajan teaches that titanium dioxide is a whitening agent, which increases the opacity of the film (paragraph 0038).
It is the examiner’s position that given that Varadarajan teaches amounts of titanium dioxide of 10 wt.% or less, which overlaps that presently claimed, this amount of titanium dioxide would be sufficient to catalyze reactions between oxygen and butadiene polymer.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene and titanium dioxide from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Speer, Cray Valley, and Varadarajan because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches claim 1, and Speer does not teach the inclusion of a curing agent.
Regarding claim 15, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches claim 14, and Speer teaches his composition may include film-forming diluent polymers, such as polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-15), specifically including low density polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 17, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches claim 14, and Speer teaches the components of the composition are melt blended (col. 6, lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 23, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches claim 1, and Speer does not teach the need for moisture to activate the reaction.
Regarding claim 24, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches claim 1, and Speer teaches the use of electron beam exposure to initiate oxygen scavenging (Abstract).
Regarding claims 27-28, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches the elements of claim 1, and Speer teaches the inclusion of a photoinitiator in his composition, such as benzophenone, acetophenone, and valerophenone (col. 5, lines 13-33).
Regarding claim 31, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches the elements of claim 30, and Speer teaches a multilayer article with the inclusion of a layer for heat-sealability (col. 7, lines 52-54 and col. 8, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 33, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches the elements of claim 30, and Speer teaches the inclusion of an oxygen (gas) barrier layer (col. 8, lines 1-6).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Varadarajan et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0270856 A1, published 05 Sep. 2019, hereinafter Varadarajan) and further in view of Hakim (US Patent 4,701,487, published 20 Oct. 1987, hereinafter Hakim).
Regarding claim 16, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches the elements of claim 15.
Speer teaches the inclusion of processing aids in his composition (col. 6, lines 32-36).
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan does not disclose the inclusion of a hydrocarbon wax in his composition.
Hakim teaches an extrusion processing aid composition for the extrusion of polyolefins, and the processing aid composition comprises an aliphatic hydrocarbon mixture having a molecular weight of 400 to 50,000 daltons (Abstract). Hakim teaches that the polyolefins include linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and low density polyethylene (LDPE) (col. 3, lines 53-55) and the aliphatic hydrocarbon includes low molecular weight polyethylene waxes (col. 3, lines 33-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to incorporate the extrusion processing aid composition taught by Hakim in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan. Speer and Hakim are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyolefin films, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a hydrocarbon wax as taught by Hakim in the polyolefin film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan. Further, Hakim teaches that incorporation of his processing aid affords increased extrusion throughput by altering the rheology of the resins, thereby resulting in higher screw speeds, lower head pressures, reduced power consumption, lower torque and lower processing temperatures while maintaining throughput (col. 2, lines 25-33).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Varadarajan et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0270856 A1, published 05 Sep. 2019, hereinafter Varadarajan) and further in view of Dow (“Dowlex 2070G Polyethylene resin,” published 10 Dec. 2000, hereinafter Dow).
Regarding claim 18, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches the elements of claim 14.
Speer teaches the inclusion of a film-forming diluent polymer that render the composition more adaptable for use as packaging layers, and polyethylene is a suitable diluent polymer (col. 6, lines 8-15).
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan does not disclose the specific use of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) as a diluent polymer.
Dow teaches a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) for food packaging applications (1st page, Overview section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use LLDPE resin as taught by Dow as the film-forming diluent polymer in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan. Speer and Dow are analogous art as they are both drawn to food packaging films containing a polyolefin, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using LLDPE as taught by Dow as the polyolefin diluent polymer in the food packaging film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan. Further, Dow teaches that the LLDPE resin has high strength in food packaging applications and good processability at narrow die gaps (1st page, Overview section).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Varadarajan et al. (US Patent Application 2019/0270856 A1, published 05 Sep. 2019, hereinafter Varadarajan) and further in view of Aithani (US Patent Application 2009/0285511 A1, published 19 Nov. 2009, hereinafter Aithani).
Regarding claim 32, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan teaches the elements of claim 31, and Speer teaches his composition may include film-forming diluent polymers, such as polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-15), specifically including low density polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-16), and his multilayer article may include a layer for heat-sealability (col. 7, lines 52-54 and col. 8, lines 22-24).
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan does not disclose the composition of his heat-seal layer.
Aithani teaches a heat seal layer comprising cycloolefin copolymer and low-density polyethylene (Abstract and paragraphs 0027-0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use the seal layer as taught by Aithani as the heat-seal layer in the multilayer article of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan. Speer and Aithani are analogous art as they are both drawn to packaging films containing a polyolefin, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a heat seal layer incorporating LDPE as taught by Aithani as the heat seal layer in the packaging film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Varadarajan. Further, Aithani teaches his sealant layer provides an easy cross-direction tear open feature (Abstract).
Claims 1-3, 10, 14-15, 17, 19-28, 30-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Chap. 10: Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and further in view of Kemp and McIntyre (“Mechanism of action of titanium dioxide pigment in the photodegradation of poly(vinyl chloride) and other polymers,” Prog.Reaction Kin.Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 337-374, published 2001, hereinafter Kemp).
Regarding claims 1-3, 14, 19-22, 25-26, and 30, Speer teaches a composition for oxygen scavenging comprising an oxidizable organic compound and a transition metal catalyst, where the scavenging is initiated by exposing the composition to electron beam radiation, the oxidizable organic composition is a substituted or unsubstituted ethylenically unsaturated hydrocarbon, and the composition includes a photoinitiator (Abstract). Speer teaches that the oxidizable organic compound is polybutadiene (col. 4, lines 7-9) and his composition may include film-forming diluent polymers, such as polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-15). Speer teaches that the amount of the oxidizable organic compound (polybutadiene) is 1 to 99 wt.% of the composition (col. 7, lines 3-5). Speer teaches the use of his oxygen scavenging composition in the form of a film layer as part of a packaging for oxygen-sensitive products (col. 3, lines 6-13). Speer teaches the inclusion of fillers, pigments, and processing aids (col. 6, lines 32-36.)
Speer does not disclose the inclusion of hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene nor titanium dioxide.
Cray Valley teaches a liquid hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene with number average molecular weights of about 2,800 daltons and a trans/vinyl/cis molar content of 60/20/20 (page 3, 1st column, 1st paragraph and chemical structure at top of page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use the hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene as taught by Cray Valley as the polybutadiene in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer. Speer and Cray Valley are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyolefin films, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a liquid hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene as taught by Cray Valley in the polyolefin film taught by Speer. Further, Cray Valley teaches that their hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene has primary, allylic alcohol groups that exhibit high reactivity (page 3, 1st column, Description section, 1st paragraph), low temperature flexibility and low-moisture permeability (page 3, 1st column, Product Highlights section), and their hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene have low volatiles content (2nd page of document, Introduction section, 1st paragraph).
Holtzen teaches that titanium dioxide is the preferred white pigment for polymer use (page 146, 10.1 Introductions section, 1st paragraph), titanium dioxide is used with polyolefins, including LDPE and LLDPE (page 151, Table 10.1), and titanium dioxide is used in loadings of 15 wt.% or less (page 151, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use titanium dioxide as a white pigment and in the amounts taught by Holtzen in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley. Speer and Holtzen are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyolefin films, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating titanium dioxide as taught by Holtzen as the pigment in the polyolefin film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley. Further, Holtzen teaches that titanium dioxide is unparalleled for the provision of brightness, whiteness, and opacifying power, and titanium dioxide advantages are myriad, including high refractive index (resulting in considerable opacifying power at relatively low loadings) and nontoxic (page 146, 10.1 Introduction section, 1st paragraph). Further, Kemp teaches that polyolefins are a major outlet for titanium dioxide pigments in plastics (page 341, 1.2.2 Pigmenting of polyolefins section, 1st paragraph), and Kemp teaches that titanium dioxide functions as a catalyst in the oxidation of organic molecules, including polymers (page 348-351, 1.6 Photoactivation of TiO2 section).
It is the examiner’s position that given that Holtzen teaches amounts of titanium dioxide of 15 wt.% or less, which overlaps that presently claimed, this amount of titanium dioxide would be sufficient to catalyze reactions between oxygen and butadiene polymer, and, based on the teaching of Kemp (page 348-351, 1.6 Photoactivation of TiO2 section), the incorporation of titanium dioxide into the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley would augment the oxygen scavenging capacity of the composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene and titanium dioxide from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Speer, Cray Valley, and Holtzen because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 1, and Speer does not teach the inclusion of a curing agent.
Regarding claim 15, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches claim 14, and Speer teaches his composition may include film-forming diluent polymers, such as polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-15), specifically including low density polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 17, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches claim 14, and Speer teaches the components of the composition are melt blended (col. 6, lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 23, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches claim 1, and Speer does not teach the need for moisture to activate the reaction.
Regarding claim 24, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches claim 1, and Speer teaches the use of electron beam exposure to initiate oxygen scavenging (Abstract).
Regarding claims 27-28, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 1, and Speer teaches the inclusion of a photoinitiator in his composition, such as benzophenone, acetophenone, and valerophenone (col. 5, lines 13-33).
Regarding claim 31, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 30, and Speer teaches a multilayer article with the inclusion of a layer for heat-sealability (col. 7, lines 52-54 and col. 8, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 33, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 30, and Speer teaches the inclusion of an oxygen (gas) barrier layer (col. 8, lines 1-6).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Chap. 10: Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and further in view of Kemp and McIntyre (“Mechanism of action of titanium dioxide pigment in the photodegradation of poly(vinyl chloride) and other polymers,” Prog.Reaction Kin.Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 337-374, published 2001, hereinafter Kemp) and further in view of Hakim (US Patent 4,701,487, published 20 Oct. 1987, hereinafter Hakim).
Regarding claim 16, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 15, and Speer teaches the inclusion of processing aids in his composition (col. 6, lines 32-36)
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp does not disclose the inclusion of a hydrocarbon wax in his composition.
Hakim teaches an extrusion processing aid composition for the extrusion of polyolefins, and the processing aid composition comprises an aliphatic hydrocarbon mixture having a molecular weight of 400 to 50,000 daltons (Abstract). Hakim teaches that the polyolefins include linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and low density polyethylene (LDPE) (col. 3, lines 53-55) and the aliphatic hydrocarbon includes low molecular weight polyethylene waxes (col. 3, lines 33-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to incorporate the extrusion processing aid composition taught by Hakim in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Hakim teaches that incorporation of his processing aid affords increased extrusion throughput by altering the rheology of the resins, thereby resulting in higher screw speeds, lower head pressures, reduced power consumption, lower torque and lower processing temperatures while maintaining throughput (col. 2, lines 25-33).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Chap. 10: Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and further in view of Kemp and McIntyre (“Mechanism of action of titanium dioxide pigment in the photodegradation of poly(vinyl chloride) and other polymers,” Prog.Reaction Kin.Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 337-374, published 2001, hereinafter Kemp) and further in view of Dow (“Dowlex 2070G Polyethylene resin,” published 10 Dec. 2000, hereinafter Dow).
Regarding claim 18, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 14, and Speer teaches the inclusion of a film-forming diluent polymer that render the composition more adaptable for use as packaging layers, and polyethylene is a suitable diluent polymer (col. 6, lines 8-15).
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp does not disclose the specific use of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) as a diluent polymer.
Dow teaches a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) for food packaging applications (1st page, Overview section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use LLDPE resin as taught by Dow as the film-forming diluent polymer in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Speer and Dow are analogous art as they are both drawn to food packaging films containing a polyolefin, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using LLDPE as taught by Dow as the polyolefin diluent polymer in the food packaging film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Further, Dow teaches that the LLDPE resin has high strength in food packaging applications and good processability at narrow die gaps (1st page, Overview section).
Claims 24 and 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Chap. 10: Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and further in view of Kemp and McIntyre (“Mechanism of action of titanium dioxide pigment in the photodegradation of poly(vinyl chloride) and other polymers,” Prog.Reaction Kin.Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 337-374, published 2001, hereinafter Kemp) and further in view of Anpo et al. (“The design and development of second-generation titanium oxide photocatalysts able to operate under visible light irradiation by applying a metal ion-implantation method,” Res.Chem.Intermed., Vol. 27, No.5, pp. 459-467, published 2001, hereinafter Anpo).
Regarding claims 24 and 29, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 1.
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp does not disclose the doping of the titanium dioxide nor explicitly discloses the operation of his oxygen scavenger composition in the absence of direct ultraviolet radiation.
Anpo teaches that implanting transition metal ions such as Cr, V, Co, Fe, or Ni into a titanium dioxide (Abstract and page 461, Results and Discussion section, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to incorporate a transition metal doping agent as taught by Anpo into the titanium oxide in the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp and Anpo are analogous art as they are both drawn to compounds containing titanium dioxide, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in implanting metal ions as taught by Anpo onto the titanium dioxide in the food packaging film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Further, Anpo teaches that incorporating transition metals into titanium dioxide allowed the titanium dioxide to absorb and operate as a catalyst effectively not only under UV but also under visible light irradiation (page 466, Conclusions). Thus, the oxygen scavenging composition of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp and further in view of Anpo would function in the absence of direct ultraviolet radiation. Additionally, Anpo teaches that his titanium dioxide photocatalysts showed several times high photocatalytic efficiency compared with unimplanted titanium oxide photocatalyst (page 466, Conclusions section).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer at al. (US Patent 5,211,875, published 18 May 1993, hereinafter Speer) in view of Cray Valley (“Product Bulletin: Hydroxyl-Terminated Polybutadiene Resins and Derivatives – Poly pd and Krasol,” published Oct. 2016, hereinafter Cray Valley) and further in view of Holtzen and Reid (“Chap. 10: Titanium dioxide pigments,” Charvat (ed.), Coloring of Plastics: Fundamentals, 2nd Edition, pp. 146-158, published 2004, hereinafter Holtzen) and further in view of Kemp and McIntyre (“Mechanism of action of titanium dioxide pigment in the photodegradation of poly(vinyl chloride) and other polymers,” Prog.Reaction Kin.Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 337-374, published 2001, hereinafter Kemp) and further in view of Aithani (US Patent Application 2009/0285511 A1, published 19 Nov. 2009, hereinafter Aithani).
Regarding claim 32, Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp teaches the elements of claim 31, and Speer teaches his composition may include film-forming diluent polymers, such as polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-15), specifically including low density polyethylene (col. 6, lines 8-16), and his multilayer article may include a layer for heat-sealability (col. 7, lines 52-54 and col. 8, lines 22-24).
Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp does not disclose the composition of his heat-seal layer.
Aithani teaches a heat seal layer comprising cycloolefin copolymer and low-density polyethylene (Abstract and paragraphs 0027-0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the claimed invention to use the seal layer as taught by Aithani as the heat-seal layer in the multilayer article of Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Speer and Aithani are analogous art as they are both drawn to packaging films containing a polyolefin, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating a heat seal layer incorporating LDPE as taught by Aithani as the heat seal layer in the packaging film taught by Speer in view of Cray Valley and further in view of Holtzen and further in view of Kemp. Further, Aithani teaches his sealant layer provides an easy cross-direction tear open feature (Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10, and 14-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-15, and 26-34 of US Patent 12,018,177. The limitations of the two sets of claims are compared side-by-side in the table below.
Application 18/228,792
US Patent US 11,713,388 B2
Issued 01 Aug. 2023
Application 17/082,722
1. A composition of matter having oxygen scavenging properties, comprising a blend of: a base polymer; a butadiene polymer; and titanium dioxide in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the butadiene polymer.
1. A composition of matter having oxygen scavenging properties, comprising a blend of: a base polymer; a hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene having a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from about 500 to about 10,000; and titanium dioxide in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene, wherein the titanium dioxide is selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide having an average particle size of 10 nanometers to 20 microns, titanium dioxide which has been subject to doping, heterogeneous systems comprising titanium dioxide in combination with other semiconductors, titanium dioxide in combination with inorganic metal nanoparticles or organic material, dye-sensitized titanium dioxide, and any combination thereof.
10. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition does not include a curing agent.
4. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition does not include a curing agent.
14. The composition of claim 1, wherein the base polymer 1s a polyolefin.
26. The composition of claim 1, wherein the base polymer is a polyolefin.
15. The composition of claim 14, wherein the polyolefin is low density polyethylene (LDPE).
27. The composition of claim 26, wherein the polyolefin is low density polyethylene (LDPE).
16. The composition of claim 15, further comprising a hydrocarbon wax for improving dispersion of the butadiene polymer in the low density polyethylene.
28. The composition of claim 27, further comprising a hydrocarbon wax for improving dispersion of the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene in the low density polyethylene.
17. The composition of claim 14, wherein the composition is prepared by melt blending.
29. The composition of claim 26, wherein the composition is prepared by melt blending.
18. The composition of claim 14, wherein the polyolefin is linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE).
30. The composition of claim 26, wherein the polyolefin is linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE).
19. The composition of claim 1, wherein the butadiene polymer is selected from the group consisting of unfunctionalized polybutadiene and a functionalized end group polybutadiene.
20. The composition of claim 19, wherein the functionalized end group polybutadiene is selected from the group consisting of hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), epoxy terminated polybutadiene, and carboxy terminated polybutadiene.
21. The composition of claim 20, wherein the functionalized end group polybutadiene is hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene having one or both of a relatively high trans content and arelatively low vinyl content.
25. The composition of claim 1, wherein the butadiene polymer has a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from about 500 to about 5,000.
26. The composition of claim 1, wherein the butadiene polymer has a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from about 1,000 to about 3,000.
6. The composition of claim 1, wherein the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene has a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from 500 to 8,000.
7. The composition of claim 1, wherein the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene has one or both of a relatively high trans content and a relatively low vinyl content.
11. The composition of claim 1, wherein the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene has a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from about 500 to about 5,000.
12. The composition of claim 1, wherein the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene has a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from about 1,000 to about 3,000.
22. The composition of claim 21, wherein the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene has a trans content of about 60%, a cis content of about 20%, and a vinyl content of about 20%.
8. The composition of claim 7, wherein the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene has a trans content of about 60%, a cis content of about 20%, and a vinyl content of about 20%.
23. The composition of claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide is present in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the butadiene polymer wherein moisture is not necessary to activate the reaction.
9. The composition of claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide is present in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene wherein moisture is not necessary to activate the reaction.
24. The composition of claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide is present in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the butadiene polymer in the absence of direct ultraviolet radiation.
10. The composition of claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide is present in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene in the absence of direct ultraviolet radiation.
27. The composition of claim 1, further comprising a UV or visible light photoinitiator.
13. The composition of claim 1, further comprising a UV or visible light photoinitiator.
28. The composition of claim 27, wherein the UV or visible light photoinitiator is selected from the group consisting of benzophenone, acetophenone, valerophenone, or titanocene.
14. The composition of claim 13, wherein the UV or visible light photoinitiator is selected from the group consisting of benzophenone, acetophenone, valerophenone, and titanocene.
29. The composition of claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide is doped with a doping agent selected from the group consisting of noble metal, a transition metal, and a non-metal.
15. The composition of claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide is doped with a doping agent selected from the group consisting of noble metal, a transition metal, and a nonmetal.
30. A packaging film structure, comprising: an oxygen scavenging layer comprising a blend of a base polymer, a butadiene polymer, and titanium dioxide in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the butadiene polymer.
31. A packaging film structure, comprising: an oxygen scavenging layer comprising a blend of a base polymer, a hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene having a number average molecular weight (Mn) in the range of from about 500 to about 10,000, and titanium dioxide in an amount sufficient to catalyze reaction of oxygen with the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene, wherein the titanium dioxide is selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide having an average particle size of 10 nanometers to 20 microns, titanium dioxide which has been subject to doping, heterogeneous systems comprising titanium dioxide in combination with other semiconductors, titanium dioxide in combination with inorganic metal nanoparticles or organic material, dye-sensitized titanium dioxide, and any combination thereof.
31. The packaging film structure of claim 30, further comprising one or both of an outer layer and a heat sealant layer.
32. The packaging film structure of claim 31, further comprising one or both of an outer layer and a heat sealant layer.
32. The packaging film structure of claim 31, wherein one or both of the outer layer and a heat sealant layer comprises the base polymer.
33. The packaging film structure of claim 32, wherein one or both of the outer layer and a heat sealant layer comprises the base polymer.
33. The packaging film structure of claim 30, further comprising a barrier layer selected from a gas barrier layer and a moisture barrier layer.
34. The packaging film structure of claim 31, further comprising a barrier layer selected from a gas barrier layer and a moisture barrier layer.
In summary, the claims of US Patent 11,713,388 teach all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 14-33 of the current invention as listed in the table above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitano et al. (JP 2004/161796 A, published 10 Jun. 2004) teaches a resin composition comprising a hydroxyl group-modified polybutadiene as an oxidizing organic compound and a transition metal catalyst, including titanium. Page et al. (“Titania and silver-titania composite films on glass – potent antimicrobial coatings,” J.Mat.Chem., Vol. 17, pp 95-104, published 2007) teaches TiO2 and silver TiO2 coatings are photocatalytically active. Xiao-e et al. (“Light-driven oxygen scavenging by titania/polymer nanocomposite films,” J.Photochem.Photobio.A: Chem., Vol. 162, pp 253-259, published 2004) teaches the use of titanium dioxide as a catalyst for deoxygenation in polymer films.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787