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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statemen t filed 12/202/2023 has been fully considered. An initialed copy of said IDS is enclosed herein.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/20/2023 are accepted.
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 1-9 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. Said terms are held to be indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “non-shrink”. Said term is not defined in the specification and does not have an art-accepted definition. Furthermore, the claim does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, with regards to claim 2, said claim is held to be indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the term “the EVA”
With regards to claim 9, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is unclear how said free radical concentration is determined. While electron spin resonance is one possible method, said limitation cannot be read into the claim. Furthermore, there are three major ESR methods-direct measurement, ESR-spin labeling and ESR spin-trapping and said techniques are sensitive to a number of unspecified parameters including signal fading, calibration, temperature fluctuations, microwave power saturation, etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Georgelos (US 10,526,190).
Georgelos teaches an irradiated (col 8, lines 38+) packaging film (col 8, lines 38+) comprising:
-first, second, third, and fourth layers of polyamide (PA) (layers 94, 98 78, and 82 of figure 2 (col 6, lines 53+));
-a first polyethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) layer between the first and second PA layers and a second EVOH layer between the third and fourth PA layers (layers 86 and 90 respectfully (col 6, lines 61+));
-a mid-layer between the second and third PA layers, the mid-layer comprising a
Polymer (layers 118 and 122 (col 7, lines 31+)) said layer may comprise EVA (col 7, lines 31+); and
-first and second polyethylene (PE) layers (layers 54 and 58; (col 6, lines 8+)), wherein the first, second, third, and fourth PA layers, the first and second EVOH layers, and the mid-layer are
between the first and second PE layers (see Figure 2).
With regards to the limitation that the film is “non-shrink,” the film of Georgelos is understood to inherently meet said limitation since said film comprises the same layers in the same arrangement as the claimed film. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (MPEP 2112.01). Furthermore, polyamides are generally understood in the art to be non-shrink films.
With regards to claim 2, the transitional phrase “ consisting essentially of” is understood to limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. Absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." (see MPEP 2111.03). In the present application, there is no clear indication of the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention or that the additional layers in Figure 2 would affect said characteristics.
With regards to claim 3, Georgelos teaches the film may comprise one or more tie layers (70 and 74 of Figure 2).
With regards to claim 4, Georgelos teaches the packaging film of claim may further comprise
a first tie layer between the first PE layer and the first PA layer and a second tie layer between the second PE layer and the fourth PA layer (layers 70 and 74, respectively (col 6, lines 46+)).
With regards to claim 5, Georgelos teaches the mid-layer may comprises ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) (col 7, lines 31+).
With regards to claim 6, the film of Georgelos is understood to inherently have “a shrink value less than 5% in both the machine direction and the transverse direction when tested according to ASTM D2732 using a bath temperature of 90 degrees Celsius” since said film comprises the same layers in the same arrangement as the claimed film. Furthermore, polyamides are generally understood in the art to be non-shrink films.
With regards to claim 7, the film of Georgelos is symmetrical (see Figure 2).
With regards to claim 8, Georgelos teaches the packaging film has an oxygen transmission of less than 0.1 cm³/m²/24 hours (col 2, lines 45+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
KEVIN R. KRUER
Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787