DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 13-19) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 20 and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2023 and 10/28/2025 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 8 recites “the processing aid comprises….at least one ester, at least one carboxylic acid or carbonate functional group, and at least one hydroxyl functional group”. While the present specification discloses the processing aid has “at least one ester, carboxylic acid or carbonate functionality and at least one hydroxyl functionality”, i.e. (i) at least one ester and at least one hydroxyl group, (ii) at least one carboxylic acid group and at least one hydroxyl functional group or (iii) at least one carbonate group and at least one hydroxyl group (see paragraph 0032 of present application), there is no disclosure in the present specification of the processing acid comprising a. at least one ester, b. at least one carboxylic acid or carbonate functional group, and c. at least one hydroxyl functional group, i.e. the processing aid comprises all of at least one ester, at least one carboxylic acid or carbonate functional group, and at least one hydroxyl functional group.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner construes that the processing aid comprises at least one ester and at least one hydroxyl group, at least one carboxylic acid group and at least one hydroxyl functional group or at least one carbonate group and at least one hydroxyl group.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7 recites “as compared to”, which should be “in”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, line 2 recites “first DHc”, which should be “first enthalpy of crystallization (DHc)”, and “second DHc”, which should be “second enthalpy of crystallization (DHc)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 2 recites “other and”, which should be “other than”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11, line 1 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line 2 recites “as compared to”, which should be “in”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 2 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, line 1 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, line 1 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18, line 1 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19, line 1 recites “the film”, which should be “the multilayer film”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 9, 11 and 15 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 8 recites “the processing aid comprises a. at least one ester, b. at least one carboxylic acid or carbonate functional group, and c. at least one hydroxyl functional group”. The scope of the claim is confusing in light of the specification which discloses “at least one ester, carboxylic acid or carbonate functionality and at least one hydroxyl functionality” (see paragraph 0032 of the present specification). Therefore, it is not clear if the processing aid does actually require each of a, b, and c as presently claimed. It is further noted that none of the specific examples of processing aids recited in paragraph 0032 of the present specification or claim 4 require each of a, b, and c. Clarification is requested. For examination purposes, if the processing aid meets the conditions set forth in the present specification and in claim 4, it is considered to meet claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the composition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “(at standard temperature and pressure)”. In light of parentheses, it is not clear if the limitation inside the parentheses is required or optional.
Claim 15 recites “DHm”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what “ΔHm” represents. Is it enthalpy of melting or some other type of enthalpy? Clarification is requested.
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 1-11, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priscal et al. (WO 2020/142068 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Negi et al. (5,344,715).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, 13 and 15, Priscal et al. disclose a second packaging component comprising a multilayer thermoplastic film comprising a first exterior layer 101 (first outer layer), a central core layer 103 and a second exterior layer 105 (second outer layer) (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0145). The exterior layer can be an abuse-resistant outer layer made of polyolefin (see paragraphs 0060, 0075). The polyolefin includes HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, etc. (see paragraph 0065), which is similar to that utilized in present invention for outer layers (see paragraphs 0050, 0052, 0071 and 0074 of present specification). Accordingly, the exterior layers are identical to the outer layers utilized in the present invention. The core layer is a gas barrier layer that can comprises EVOH (see paragraph 0062). The gas barrier layer can be same compositionally as a product-contacting sealant layer (see paragraph 0072). The product-containing sealant layer comprises a blend of at least 95 wt% of EVOH and up to 5 wt% of processing aid, wherein EVOH has less than 38 mol% of ethylene content (see paragraphs 0059, 0050). The ethylene content of EVOH overlaps with that utilized in the present invention. Accordingly, EVOH reads on EVOH copolymer having a first crystallization temperature, a first DHc and a first DHm as presently claimed. Given that the gas barrier layer is same compositionally as the product-contacting sealant layer, the gas barrier layer comprises a blend of at least 95 wt% of EVOH and up to 5 wt% of processing aid, wherein EVOH has less than 38 mol% of ethylene content and EVOH reads on EVOH copolymer having a first crystallization temperature, a first DHc and a first DHm as presently claimed.
Accordingly, Priscal et al. disclose a second packaging component (multilayer film) comprising a first outer layer made of LLDPE, a gas barrier layer comprising blend of at least 95 wt% of EVOH and up to 5 wt% of processing aid and a second outer layer made of LLDPE.
Priscal et al. do not disclose a second crystallization temperature as presently claimed.
Negi et al. disclose a heat shrinkable multilayered film (col.1, lines 7-8) comprising a layer (C) comprising 100 parts EVOH with 20-60 mol% ethylene and 0.1-30 parts compound (B) that is a triethyl citrate (col.2, lines 47-50, col.5, lines 54-55, col.6, line 49 and col.7, line 6). Compound (B) produces a layer with excellent stretchability, excellent shrinkability, and good gas barrier properties (col.6, lines 18-23). Compound (B) also improves processability in the film formation, i.e. processing aid (see col. 6, lines 41-43). There can also be a layer (D) made from LLDPE on each side of layer (C) (col.5, lines 34-42 and col.8, lines 57-59).
In light of motivation for using triethyl citrate blended with EVOH disclosed by Negi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use triethyl citrate as processing aid blended with EVOH in the gas barrier layer of Priscal et al. in order provide excellent stretchability, excellent shrinkability, and good gas barrier properties as well as improve processability in the film formation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose the blend comprising EVOH and processing aid identical to that presently claimed in amounts that overlap that presently claimed. Therefore, within the overlapping ranges, it is inherent that the blend has a second crystallization temperature lower than the first crystallization temperature as presently claimed, the blend has a second DHc as presently claimed and the blend has a second DHm as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose a second packaging component (multilayer film) comprising a first outer layer made of LLDPE, a gas barrier layer comprising blend of at least 95 wt% of EVOH and up to 5 wt% of triethyl citrate and a second outer layer made of LLDPE. The second packaging component (multilayer film) including the first outer layer, the gas barrier layer and the second outer layer are identical to that presently claimed. Therefore, it is inherent that the second packaging component (multilayer film) is a heat shrinkable multilayer film as presently claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose a second packaging component (multilayer film) comprising a first outer layer made of LLDPE, a gas barrier layer comprising blend of at least 95 wt% of EVOH and up to 5 wt% of triethyl citrate and a second outer layer made of LLDPE as set forth above.
Further, Priscal et al. disclose one or more gas barrier layers and one or more tie layers can be used (see paragraph 0060). The tie layers can serve to aid in the adherence of one layer to another layer (see paragraph 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to dispose a tie layer between at least two barrier layers in Priscal et al.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose a second packaging component (multilayer film) as set forth above. Given the present claim recites the gas barrier layer comprises less than 1.0 wt% of salts or 0.0 to 1.0 wt% of material, i.e. 0 wt%, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. meets present claims.
Regarding claim 11, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose a second packaging component (multilayer film) as set forth above. The packaging component has an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of less than or equal to 10 cc/m2/24h at 23 C, 0% RH and 1 atmosphere (see paragraph 0063). While Priscal et al. do not disclose OTR measured according to ASTM D-3985, absent criticality of method of measuring OTR, Priscal et al. meets OTR as presently claimed.
Alternatively, given that the second packaging component (multilayer film) including first outer layer identical to that used in the present invention, gas barrier layer made from EVOH and processing aid identical to that claimed in amounts that overlap that presently claimed, and second outer layer identical to that used in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, it is inherent that the second packaging component (multilayer film) has OTR as presently claimed.
Regarding claims 16-19, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose a second packaging component (multilayer film) as set forth above. Given that the second packaging component (multilayer film) including first outer layer identical to that used in the present invention, gas barrier layer made from EVOH and processing aid identical to that claimed in amounts that overlap that presently claimed, and second outer layer identical to that used in the present invention, within the overlapping ranges, it is inherent that the second packaging component (multilayer film) has properties as presently claimed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priscal et al. (WO 2020/142068 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Negi et al. (5,344,715) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dudenhoeffer et al. (5,302,402).
Regarding claim 14, Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. disclose the second packaging component (multilayer film) as set forth above. Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. do not disclose at least a portion of the film is crosslinked.
Dudenhoeffer et al. disclose a packaging that is a bag, wherein the entire bag is crosslinked using irradiation with an electron beam in order to broaden the heat sealing range and enhance toughness properties (see Abstract and col. 11, lines 14-21).
Therefore, as taught by Dudenhoeffer et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to crosslink the second packaging component (multilayer film) of Priscal et al. in view of Negi et al. in order to broaden the heat sealing range and enhance toughness properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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 at 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787