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 of Group I, claims 1-25 and 28-30, in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 26 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/30/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0041], the compound name “benzene, 1,1'-(1-methylethylidene)bis[3,5-dibromo-4,2-phenylene)oxy]]bis-” is objected to as this is not a recognized compound in the art. It is unclear what the structure of this compound is.
In [0041], the compounds “C12-30 alpha- bromo-chloro, alkenes, c12-24, chloro” are objected to as it is unclear which of these is the alkenes and what the other class of compounds are. Given the non-IUPAC naming that applicants are using to name the compounds, e.g. the large number of commas, it appears that one of these compounds is incomplete, which is objected to because one does not know what the alternative compounds are.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17, 21, 29 and 30 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.
In claim 17, the compound name “benzene, 1,1'-(1-methylethylidene)bis[3,5-dibromo-4,2-phenylene)oxy]]bis-” does not make sense as this is not a recognized compound in the art. It is unclear what the structure of this compound is.
In claim 17, the compounds “C12-30 alpha- bromo-chloro, alkenes, c12-24, chloro” render the claim indefinite as it is unclear which of these is the alkenes and what the other class of compounds are. Given the non-IUPAC naming that applicants are using to name the compounds, e.g. the large number of commas, it appears that one of these compounds is incomplete, which renders the claim indefinite because one does not know what the alternative compounds are.
In claim 21, the phrase “higher alcohol sulfuric acid ester salt anionic” renders the claim indefinite as this is a term of degree. It is unclear what is considered a “higher” alcohol. The specification does not define the term and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the meaning of this term.
In claim 21, the phrase “quaternary ammonium salt type cationic surfactant” renders the claim indefinite as it unclear what other cationic surfactants are considered the same “type” as quaternary ammonium salts.
In claims 29 and 30, the phrase “is oriented to shrink” renders the claim indefinite as orienting a film does not shrink it. It is also unclear if this is requiring an oriented film, which is a term of the art, or if this just means “configured to shrink”. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “is configured to shrink” which is how the claims will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-7, 10, 14, 20, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wynne et al. (5,328,743) as evidenced by Houck et al. (J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1989, Vol. 114, pgs. 287-292).
With regard to claims 1, 4-6 and 25, Wynne et al. disclose a reinforced shrink wrap, which reads on applicants’ barrier (col. 3, lines 30-41). The Examiner notes that the preamble limitations of a “temporary containment” are being interpreted as a statement of purpose or intended use, which is not dispositive of patentability; further, the shrink wrap of the prior art can perform the intended use. The reinforcement is a filament grid, which reads on applicants’ at least one fiber (col. 4, lines 9-16). The center layer 12 reads on applicants’ plastic film configured to shrink if exposed to heat, wherein it can shrink 43% in the transverse direction at 240 F, i.e. 115 C (Table 1).
With regard to claim 2, 3 and 7, the highly irradiated polyethylene in the center layer 12 can be low density polyethylene, which has a melting point of 105 to 115 C (col. 2, lines 22-27).
With regard to claim 10, the center film can be Cryovac D-925 (col. 3, lines 35-39). As evidenced by Houck et al. this material is biaxially oriented (pg. 288, Table 1).
With regard to claim 14, the polyolefin center layer 12 can also comprise a flame retardant (col. 3, lines 20-22). Given the fact that the material is made from the same preferred materials including a flame retardant additive and has the same shrinkage rate, it will inherently possess the Class A ration by ASTM E84 and will pass the flame propagation test by NFPA 701 as claimed.
With regard to claims 20 and 22, the polyolefin center layer 12 can also comprise a static inhibitor, which reads on applicants’ antistatic compound, and an ultraviolet light stabilizer (col. 3, lines 16-22).
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 18-21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pockat et al. (US 2006/0233985).
With regard to claims 1, 4-7 and 10-12, Pockat et al. disclose a heat shrinkable packaging film, which reads on applicants’ barrier [0012]. The Examiner notes that the preamble limitations of a “temporary containment” are being interpreted as a statement of purpose or intended use, which is not dispositive of patentability; further, the shrink wrap of the prior art can perform the intended use. Example 17 of Tables 3 and 4 is a biaxially stretched film that includes ethylene-vinyl acetate, which reads on applicants’ plastic film, that has a thickness of 63 microns and a 48 shrink % in the MD at 90 C, which anticipates these claims [0233]-[0248].
With regard to claims 2 and 3, given all of the materials in the multilayer film of example 17 have melting point of from 90 to 123 C along with the percentages of all of the polymers in the multilayer film, the melting point of the film will inherently be within the ranges claimed [0227], [0231]-[0242].
With regard to claim 8, the film can be uniaxially stretched, which reads on applicants’ monoaxially oriented film [0131].
With regard to claims 18-21, 23 and 24, well known additives can be incorporated into the film, such as antiblocking and antifogging agents [0126]. Other additives include starch, which reads on applicants’ pro-bodegradation additive, and polysorbate, which reads on applicants’ nonionic polyethylene glycol fatty acid ester [0126].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynne et al. (5,328,743).
Wynne et al. disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach that the polyolefin center layer 12 can have a thickness of from 0.75 to 1.5 mils, i.e. approximately 19 to 38 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range (col. 2, lines 22-27 and col. 3, lines 20-22); however, they do not specifically teach the thickness claimed
As there is overlap in the thickness of the center layer 12 with the thickness of claim 11, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 14-17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynne et al. (5,328,743) in view of “Canada chemical management plan” (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/summary-flame-retardant-assessments-management-conducted-cepa.html).
With regard to claims 14-17 and 29, Wynne et al. disclose a reinforced shrink wrap, which reads on applicants’ barrier and plastic film (col. 3, lines 30-41). The reinforcement is a filament grid, which reads on applicants’ at least one fiber (col. 4, lines 9-16). The center layer 12 together with the on applicants’ plastic film configured to shrink if exposed to heat, wherein it can shrink 43% in the transverse direction at 240 F, i.e. 115 C (Table 1). The highly irradiated polyethylene in the center layer 12 can be low density polyethylene, which has a melting point of 105 to 115 C (col. 2, lines 22-27). The polyolefin center layer 12 can also comprise a flame retardant and the thickness may be from 0.75 to 1.5 mils, i.e. approximately 19 to 38 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range (col. 2, lines 22-27 and col. 3, lines 20-22); however, they do not specifically teach the thickness claimed or the flame retardant modifier claimed.
The Canada chemical management plan teaches flame retardant additives in Table 1 for addition to manufactured materials such as plastic that are not harmful to human health or the environment (pgs. 1 and 3). These include EBTBP, which is a brominated flame retardant, antimony trioxide, and ethanol, 2,2'-[(1-methylethylidene)bis[(2,6-dibromo-4,1-phenylene)oxy]]bis- (pg. 4 and 5).
Since Wynne et al. and the Canada chemical management plan are both drawn to flame retardant additives in manufactured plastic films that can used with shipping and will come in contact with humans, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the flame retardant additives of the Canada chemical management plan as the flame retardants of Wynne et al. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, the rationale to use these materials is that they are not harmful to humans or the environment. The flame retardants read on applicants’ fire retardant modifier and brominated flame retardant claimed.
Given the fact that the plastic film rendered obvious above is made from the same preferred materials including the preferred flame retardant additive and has the same shrinkage rate, it will inherently possess the Class A ration by ASTM E84 and will pass the flame propagation test by NFPA 701 as claimed.
Lastly, as there is overlap in the thickness of the center layer 12 with the thickness of claim 29, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynne et al. (5,328,743) in view of Pockat et al. (US 2006/0233985).
Wynne et al. teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 20 above; however, they do not specifically teach all of the additives claimed.
Pockat et al. disclose a heat shrinkable packaging film, which reads on applicants’ barrier [0012]. Well known additives can be incorporated into the film, such as antiblocking and antifogging agents [0126]. Other additives include starch, which reads on applicants’ pro-bodegradation additive, and polysorbate, which reads on applicants’ nonionic polyethylene glycol fatty acid ester [0126].
Since Wynne et al. and Pockat et al. are both drawn to shrink wrap packaging films, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the known additives of Pockat et al. into the films of Wynne et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they did separately. Given the fact that the material is made from the same preferred materials including a flame retardant additive and has the same shrinkage rate, it will inherently possess the Class A ration by ASTM E84 and will pass the flame propagation test by NFPA 701 as claimed.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pockat et al. (US 2006/0233985).
Pockat et al. teach all the limitations of claim 9 above. They also teach that the thickness of the film should 10 mil or less, i.e. 254 microns or less, which overlaps with the range claimed [0130]; however, they do not specifically teach the stretch ratio or thickness range claimed.
It would have been obvious to have formed a uniaxially stretched film having any stretch ratio in the machine direction, including 3:1 or greater as claimed, such that the film was stretched to a sufficient extent as to have the shrinkage and thickness required based on the use of the film.
Also, since there is overlap in the thickness range of the prior art with the range claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 14, 16, 22, 25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pockat et al. (US 2006/0233985) in view of Wynne et al. (5,328,743).
Pockat et al. teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 18, 20, 23 and 24 above. They also teach that the film can include LDPE [0115]; however, they do not specifically teach films having the additive or fiber claimed.
Wynne et al. disclose a reinforced shrink wrap, which reads on applicants’ barrier (col. 3, lines 30-41). The reinforcement is a filament grid, which reads on applicants’ at least one fiber (col. 4, lines 9-16). The shrink wrap also comprises a flame retardant, which reads on applicants’ fire retardant modifier, and an ultraviolet light stabilizer (col. 3, lines 16-22).
Since Pockat et al. and Wynne et al. are both drawn to shrink wrap packaging films, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined in the known additives of Wynne et al. into the films of Pockat et al. The results of such a combination would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, each of the elements would have performed the same in combination as they did separately.
Given the fact that the material is made from the same preferred materials including a flame retardant additive and has the same shrinkage rate, it will inherently possess the Class A ration by ASTM E84 and will pass the flame propagation test by NFPA 701 as claimed.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pockat et al. (US 2006/0233985) in view of Wynne et al. (5,328,743), and further in view of “Canada chemical management plan” (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/summary-flame-retardant-assessments-management-conducted-cepa.html).
Pockat et al. teach all of the limitations of claims 14 and 16 above; however, they do not specifically teach films having the fire retardant additive or fire retardant modifier claimed.
The Canada chemical management plan teaches flame retardant additives in Table 1 for addition to manufactured materials such as plastic that are not harmful to human health or the environment (pgs. 1 and 3). These include EBTBP, which is a brominated flame retardant, antimony trioxide, and ethanol, 2,2'-[(1-methylethylidene)bis[(2,6-dibromo-4,1-phenylene)oxy]]bis- (pg. 4 and 5).
Since Pockat et al. in view of Wynne et al. and the Canada chemical management plan are both drawn to flame retardant additives in manufactured plastic films that can used with shipping and will come in contact with humans, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the flame retardant additives of the Canada chemical management plan as the flame retardants of Wynne et al. The results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill; further, the rationale to use these materials is that they are not harmful to humans or the environment. The flame retardants read on applicants’ fire retardant modifier and brominated flame retardant claimed.
Given the fact that the plastic film rendered obvious above is made from the same preferred materials including the preferred flame retardant additive and has the same shrinkage rate, it will inherently possess the Class A ration by ASTM E84 and will pass the flame propagation test by NFPA 701 as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights