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 § 103
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubara et al. (US 6,689,437).
Regarding claims 17-20:
Ubara discloses molded products comprising oxygen-absorbing materials, including an oxidizable resin (abstract; 1:5+; 2:20+). The oxidizable resin comprises a polyamide containing at least 70 mol% of metaxylylene (MXD) or a mixture of metaxylylene and paraxylylene, and C6-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acids (2:33+). Example 21 discloses a polyamide made from MXD, adipic acid, and sebacic acid in a mole ratio of 100:90:10 (15:50+). Example 24 discloses a polyamide made from MXD, adipic acid, and sebacic acid in a mole ratio of 100:80:20 (16:15+). These examples were then used in the same manner as Example 1, which included blow molding the polyamide with layers of PET, wherein the molding process included a biaxial stretch (8:65+; 16:47+).
Ubara teaches layers of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) can be used with layers of its oxygen-absorbing materials (10:21+; 10:60+). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use LDPE as an additional layer in Ubara’s because the reference teaches such layers can be used with its invention.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubara et al. (US 6,689,437) in view of Longo et al. (US 2004/0009360).
Regarding claims 21-24:
Ubara discloses molded products comprising oxygen-absorbing materials, including an oxidizable resin (abstract; 1:5+; 2:20+). The oxidizable resin comprises a polyamide containing at least 70 mol% of metaxylylene (MXD) or a mixture of metaxylylene and paraxylylene, and C6-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acids (2:33+). Example 21 discloses a polyamide made from MXD, adipic acid, and sebacic acid in a mole ratio of 100:90:10 (15:50+). Example 24 discloses a polyamide made from MXD, adipic acid, and sebacic acid in a mole ratio of 100:80:20 (16:15+). These examples were then used in the same manner as Example 1, which included blow molding the polyamide with layers of PET, wherein the molding process included a biaxial stretch (8:65+; 16:47+). Ubara teaches layers of polyamide 6 can be substituted for the layers of polyester (3:1-55) and further teaches layers of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) can be used with layers of its oxygen-absorbing materials (10:21+; 10:60+).
Ubara is silent with regard to an adhesive layer comprising acid-modified polyolefin.
Such adhesive layers were known in the art to have utility. For example, Longo discloses multilayer thermoplastic films comprising a polyamide layer and other layers [abstract; 0001]. The reference teaches it was known in the art to use acid-modified polyolefin as a tie (adhesive) layer between layers of the film [0049; 0075].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an acid-modified polyolefin between the layers of Ubara’s film to provide additional adhesion between the layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
As explained above, Ubara (US 6,689,437) discloses molded products comprising oxygen-absorbing materials, including an oxidizable resin (abstract; 1:5+; 2:20+). The oxidizable resin comprises a polyamide containing at least 70 mol% of metaxylylene (MXD) or a mixture of metaxylylene and paraxylylene, and C6-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acids (2:33+).
Ubara, however, discloses a key feature to achieving the oxygen-absorbing properties is a metal catalyst that catalyzes oxidation of the oxidizable polymer (1:60+; 6:50+). The catalyst comprises transition metals (3:63+). Therefore, the reference teaches away from the invention of claim 1, which requires “the stretched film being free from a compound containing a transition metal element.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner agrees with Applicant that “Ubara et al teaches away from the absence of a transition metal compound” as explained above (p8).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues Ubara discloses a layer of ethylene-vinyl alcohol, but not a layer of one of the claimed polyolefins (p8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the new rejections, Ubara discloses LDPE layers can be used with its invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found the use of such layers an obvious modification of the reference.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues Ubara does not disclose an adhesive layer comprising an acid-modified polyolefin (p8-9).
While the examiner agrees Ubara is silent with regard to an adhesive layer comprising acid=modified polyolefin, the examiner submits such layers were known to those skilled in the art. For example, Longo discloses the use of such layers in multilayer films to provide adhesion between the layers. Therefore, on skilled in the art would have found the use of such adhesive layers an obvious modification of Ubara.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights