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
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 1-2, the parenthesis numbers, “(2), (11), (6, 5, 3) and (6)” are indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claim 3, the parenthesis numbers, “(2), (11)” are indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claims 4-5, the parenthesis number, “(2)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claim 6, the parenthesis numbers, “(3,5), (11)” are indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claim 7, the parenthesis numbers, “(12), (4), (11)” are indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claim 8, the parenthesis numbers, “(13), (4), (11)” are indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claims 9-10, the parenthesis numbers, “(12), (10)” are indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claims 11, 15, 17, the parenthesis number, “(11)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claims 12, 16, the parenthesis number, “(1)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
In claim 14, the parenthesis number, “(6)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the parenthesis numbers, as there is no Figure correlating to the referenced numbers in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 22, 2024, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-6, 11-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Costanzo et al. (WO 2021/156304 A1).
Di Costanzo discloses a three-layered film comprising a core layer, and further comprising two skin layers, where the three-layered film is prepared by cast film coextrusion where each skin layer may comprise at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a matte compound, an anti-blocking agent, a slip agent, an anti-fog agent, an antistatic agent, a blend of polyolefin homopolymers and or copolymers with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and/or medium-density polyethylene (MDPE), or combinations thereof (page 18, lines 7-20). The multilayer polyolefin film of Di Costanzo are suitable for printing and adhesion to a package or container, it follows that the outer polyolefin layers are inherently sealable (page 1, lines 11-15).
The film of Di Costanzo are typically printed after stretching and laminated to a substrate (page 13, line 27- page 14, line 2), as in claims 1-3, 5-6. In claim 1, the phrase, “recyclable laminate” constitutes a “capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform.
Concerning claim 4, Di Costanzo does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the sealing layer; however thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 11, Di Costanzo does not appear to explicitly teach the density of the polyethylene film, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the laminate is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the laminate discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed density.
Concerning claim 12, Di Costanzo does not appear to explicitly teach the density of the laminate, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the laminate is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the laminate discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed density.
Concerning claim 13, Di Costanzo discloses a cavitated layer comprising 80 to 99% wt. of a polyolefin homopolymer; polybutylene terephthalate (PBT); and a pigment selected from CaCO3 (ex. 3) having a refractive index of at least 1.5 complexed by maleic anhydride functionalized polypropylene (MAH-PP) (claims 6, 9, 10 of Di Costanzo).
Concerning claims 15-16, Di Costanzo does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the sealing layer; however thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 17, Di Costanzo does not appear to explicitly teach the gas permeability of the polyethylene film, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the laminate is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the laminate discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed gas permeability of the polyethylene film.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights