DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Withdrawal of Finality
In view of the statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) presented on 28 September 2026, the rejection over US 2022/0194681 is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is made over WO 2020/236140, the published international application of which US 2022/0194681 is the published US national stage application. Since WO 2020/236140 was published on 26 November 2020, it qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and cannot be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13, 14, and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 31 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schell (WO 2020/236140) in view of Lopez-Rubio (J. App. Polym. Sci., vol 105, pp 2676-2682, 2007).
Schell is directed to a recyclable film comprising an oriented base film and a sealant (paragraph 006). The film may be used for packaging food (paragraph 094). The sealant is applied to the outer layer of the base film after the base film has been formed (paragraph 060) and may comprise polyethylene (paragraph 064). The combination of base film and sealant may comprise the structure: BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant (paragraph 079). The polypropylene sealant may be a blend of polypropylene and a polyethylene plastomer (paragraph 064). The sealant may be a polymeric film manufactured in a separate process and subsequently adhered to the base film (paragraph 062).
In the film having the structure BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant, polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie segment of the base film corresponds to the first film of the claims while the polypropylene sealant (which may comprise a polyethylene plastomer) corresponds to the second film.
Schell does not teach irradiating the base film. However, Schell does teach that the ethylene vinyl alcohol layer is designed to act as a barrier layer (paragraph 073) and does teach forming the base film separate from the sealant layer (paragraph 062).
Lopez-Rubio is directed to improving the oxygen blocking activity of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer by providing an oxygen scavenging capacity through irradiation (abstract) with applications in the packaging of foodstuff (Introduction - column 1 of page 2676). Irradiation at doses of 30 and 90 kGy are shown to provide an oxygen scavenging capacity (Conclusions - column 2 of page 2681).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to irradiate the separately formed base film of Schell comprising an ethylene vinyl alcohol barrier layer to improve its oxygen blocking activity. Additionally, since the purpose of the irradiation taught by Lopez-Rubio is to improve the oxygen blocking activity of and ethylene vinyl alcohol barrier layer, there would be no reason to irradiate anything beyond the base film, particularly since one of ordinary skill in the art would expect irradiating through additional films would require an increase in the power, and thus cost.
Regarding the limitation that the film is recyclable, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the film of Schell taken in view of Lopez-Rubio to be recyclable since Schell describes their film as recyclable and, while the sealant layer of Schell comprises polyethylene, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to irradiate the base film prior to attaching the sealant layer since the purpose of irradiation is to improve the oxygen blocking activity of the ethylene vinyl alcohol layer, which is not a part of the sealant layer.
Regarding claims 3-5, the adhesive layer (which may be a polypropylene-based polymer - paragraph 044) and/or polypropylene with compatibilizer present between the printed indicia and the polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie structure reads on a seal layer comprising a polyolefin.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 16, Schell is silent regarding the percent by weight of ethylene vinyl alcohol, polyolefin, and polypropylene in the recyclable film. However, the film of Schell is designed to be recyclable (paragraph 006), with materials such as biaxially oriented polyamide, ethylene vinyl alcohol, and printing inks cited as materials that make it difficult to recycle the film (paragraph 003). In a film having a structure of BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant, all the layers except for the BON (i.e., biaxially oriented polyamide), ethylene vinyl alcohol, and printed indica may be constructed from polypropylene as both the adhesive (paragraph 043) and compatibilizer (paragraph 011) may be polypropylene. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the use of materials such as biaxially oriented polyamide, ethylene vinyl alcohol, and printing inks, particularly since both polyamide and ethylene vinyl alcohol correspond to polar polymers (paragraphs 029 and 031, respectively), and Schell teaches that a polar layer can represent at little as 2% of the total base film thickness (paragraph 037). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a film of the structure BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant to have (i) 90 wt% of more polyolefin, (ii) 90 wt% or more polypropylene, and (iii) less than ss when each polar film represents less than 2% of the film thickness.
Regarding claim 12, since irradiating an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer layer intrinsically result in the generation of free radicals (see paragraph 0054 bridging pages 11 and 12 of the specification) and since the dose used by Lopez-Rubio (i.e., 30 or 90 kGy) fall within the preferred dose used in the instant invention (i.e., about 1 to 20 Mrad [equivalent to 10 to 200 kGy] according to paragraph 0052 on page 11 of the specification), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer layer irradiated according to Lopez-Rubio to intrinsically satisfy the limitations of claim 12.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schell (WO 2020/236140) in view of Lopez-Rubio (J. App. Polym. Sci., vol 105, pp 2676-2682, 2007), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Defoer (US 2017/0342247).
Schell in view of Lopez-Rubio suggest all the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the packaging film comprises 90 wt% or more of polypropylene.
As discussed above, Schell suggests maximizing the amount of polypropylene and minimizing the amount of printing to improve with recycling and further suggests that the polyamide and ethylene vinyl alcohol layers in a film having the construction BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant represent as little as 2% of the overall film thickness. But Schell does not report the amount of polyethylene present when employing a blend of polypropylene and a polyethylene plastomer as the sealant layer.
Defoer is directed to a polypropylene composition showing improved sealing behavior, such as lower sealing initiation temperature (paragraph 0021). A lower sealing temperature results in economic advantages since lower temperatures are cheaper to generate and maintain (paragraph 0010). The composition comprises a blend of up to 93 wt% polypropylene and as little as 7 wt% of an ethylene based plastomer (paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composition of Defoer as the sealant of Schell to realize the cost savings resulting from a lower sealing initiation temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a film having the construction BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant wherein the polyamide and ethylene vinyl alcohol layers represent 2% of the overall film thickness and the sealant layer contains 93 wt% polypropylene and 7 wt% ethylene based plastomer to have a polypropylene content satisfying the limitations of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claim mapping does not reflect what Schell discloses since the segment identified as the claimed first film is not a discrete film that is separately formed but rather the interior layers of a single unitary base film.
This is not persuasive because Schell explicitly teaches that the sealant may be manufactured in a separate process and subsequently adhered to the base film (e.g., paragraphs 060 and 062). Since the combination of base film and sealant may comprise the structure: BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie/polypropylene sealant (paragraph 079), the base film has a structure of BON/printed indicia/adhesive/polypropylene with compatibilizer/polypropylene tie/EVOH/polypropylene tie. This reads on the first film of the instant claims. And rather than merely being interior layers of a unitary film, Schell explicitly teaches that the sealant layer may be manufactured in a separate process and subsequently adhered to the base film (paragraph 062), a process that can only occur if the base film is also manufactured in a separate process.
The applicant argues that the irradiation before lamination sequence is supplied only by the Applicant's own disclosure.
This is not persuasive since Schell teaches that the base film, i.e., the film containing the ethylene vinyl alcohol layer, is separately formed. Since the purpose of the irradiation taught by Lopez-Rubio is to improve the oxygen blocking activity of and ethylene vinyl alcohol barrier layer, there would be no reason to irradiate anything beyond the base film, particularly since one of ordinary skill in the art would expect irradiating through additional films would require an increase in the power, and thus cost.
The applicant argues that the compositional limitations of claims 9-11 and 16 are unsupported by any factual finding.
This is not persuasive with respect to claims 9, 10, and 16, since Schell both provides motivation to minimize the amount of materials such as biaxially oriented polyamide, ethylene vinyl alcohol, and printing inks cited that make it difficult to recycle the film and discloses that layers of polar materials (such as polyamide and ethylene vinyl alcohol) may constitute as little as 2% of the overall film thickness.
Regarding claim 11, the examiner concedes that Schell is silent on the amount of ethylene plastomer contained within the sealant layer. Therefore, this claim is now rejected over Schell in view of Lopez-Rubio and Defoer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
