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
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schell USPA_20050129969_A1 in view of Saad USPN_5562874.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, Schell discloses a package (corresponds to limitation of instant Claim 15) (Abstract) and a packaging film comprising a first layer (element 11 in FIG. 1) that serves as a sealant layer (corresponds to claimed third region and sealant film), followed by a second layer (element 12) (corresponds to a second region) that functions as a tie layer, followed directly (corresponds to instant Claim 2’s limitation) by an oxygen barrier layer (element 13) (corresponds to a first region) (paragraph 0046). Schell further discloses a ratio of the thickness of said oxygen barrier layer (corresponds to first region) to the thickness of said tie second layer (corresponds to claimed second region) can be (10.5/42 = 0.25) 1:4 (Table 1) which falls into the claimed range. Schell further discloses using ethylene/octene copolymer (corresponds to claimed ethylene copolymer of instant Claim 10) (Table 1) for said tie second layer (corresponds to claimed second region) which corresponds to the claimed second PE. Schell further discloses a gel content of less than 5% according to ASTM D2765-01 (Claims 12, 25, 34), which overlaps with Applicants’ claimed range. Schell further discloses the afore-described film is coextruded and biaxially-oriented (Abstract), as is being claimed in instant Claims 1, 4, 7.
2. However, Schell does not disclose using an antioxidant in its second layer (corresponds to claimed second region), nor does it disclose using PE for its oxygen barrier layer (corresponds to first region) but rather uses PVDC (Table 1).
3. Saad discloses a coextruded multilayer film for packaging that uses an antioxidant for improving and extending the storage life of meat and other foodstuffs that are susceptible to oxidation and oxidative rancidity (column 2, lines 15-19) that can be placed in a layer that is adjacent to its barrier layer, i.e. “the antioxidant layer” (corresponding to second region) (column 2, lines 20-23) that is also made from PE (column 3, lines 12-19). Furthermore, Saad discloses that said barrier layer can be made of PVDC or preferably, HDPE (corresponds to PE homopolymer of instant Claims 8 and 9) (column 2, lines 55-62).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tie second layer (corresponds to a second region), of Schell, by using an antioxidant, as disclosed by Saad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to improve and extend the storage life of meat and other foodstuffs that are susceptible to oxidation and oxidative rancidity. Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify the PVDC of the barrier layer, of Schell, by trying the use of HDPE, as disclosed by Saad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying an alternative equivalent that prior art deems to be “preferable” out of a desire for optimization.
5. Regarding Claim 3, Schell in view of Saad suggests using tie layers (Schell: paragraphs 0036, 0055).
6. Regarding Claim 11, Schell in view of Saad suggests using BHT (primary antioxidant) and BHA (secondary antioxidant) (Saad: Example 1).
7. Regarding Claims 12 and 13, given that Schell in view of Saad suggests all of the claimed limitations, it would be expected for it to inherently possess the same physical properties such as thermal resistance and shrinkage value.
8. Regarding Claim 14, given that Schell in view of Saad suggests an oriented multilayered structure and made of PE, it would be expected for it to be a polyethene-rich film.
9. Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Schell in view of Saad suggests orienting its film followed by irradiating between 2 – 12 MRads (Schell: paragraph 0042, Examples).
10. Regarding Claim 6, Schell in view of Saad does not explicitly disclose the claimed antioxidant concentration. However, Saad does discloses using its antioxidant for the purpose of improving and extending the storage life of meat and other foodstuffs that are susceptible to oxidation and oxidative rancidity. As such, it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the concentration based on the need of extending the storage life.
Claim(s) 5, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schell USPA_20050129969_A1 in view of Saad USPN_5562874, as applied to Claims 1-4, 6-15, 19, and 20, and further in view of Franca USPA_20180050854_A1.
11. Regarding Claim 16, Schell in view of Saad suggest all of the claimed limitations except for using a cyclic olefin copolymer for its first PE.
12. Franca discloses a flexible fitment for flexible container having a seal layer and a multilayer film (Abstract) that uses PE for its outer layer but can also alternatively use cyclic olefin copolymers (paragraph 0083).
13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the oxygen barrier layer (corresponds to claimed first region), of Schell in view of Saad, by trying the use of cyclic olefin copolymer, as disclosed by Franca. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying what prior art deems as an alternative equivalent out of a desire for optimizations.
14. Regarding Claim 17, Schell in view of Saad and further in view of Franca suggests using ethylene/octene copolymer (corresponds to claimed ethylene copolymer of instant Claim 10) (Table 1) for said tie second layer (corresponds to claimed second region) which corresponds to the claimed second PE.
15. Regarding Claim 18, given that Schell in view of Saad and further in view of Franca suggests all of the claimed limitations, it would be expected for it to inherently possess the same physical properties such as thermal resistance and shrinkage value.
16. Regarding Claim 5, Schell in view of Saad and further in view of Franca suggests monoaxially orienting its film as well as biaxially orienting its film (Franca: paragraph 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the biaxially orienting, of Schell in view of Saad, by trying the monaxial orienting, of Franca, out of a desire for optimization for what prior art deems to be known alternatives.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights