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 § 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 19-27 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.
Claim 19 recites “said second polymer layer being adhesively secured to said first polymer layer and making up a minimum of approximately 95% by weight of said flexible barrier laminate”. It is unclear what exactly the 95% by weight figure corresponds to. The claim could be read as the range pertaining to “said second polymer layer”, or possibly a combination of first and second polymer layers. The specification appears to indicate the “at least 95% by weight” figure pertains to the proportion of a single type of thermoplastic polymer being used (see for instance Page 7 or Page 11). In view of the ambiguity of the claim language and discrepancy between the claims and specification, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
As claims 20-27 depend from claim 19, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
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) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beuerle (WO 2019/209337 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Beuerle teaches methods of recycling multilayered packaging articles with hollow body (Abstract; ¶ 24; Figures 1 and 2). Beurerle teaches embodiments where the adhesively multilayered substrate is polymer / PGA barrier layer / polymer; the polymer being present at 96 wt% (Figure 4; Right Column). The materials are collected, ground to particles, placed in an aqueous caustic wash to dissolve and separate the PGA intermediate layer, and the remaining thermoplastic polymer material is recovered from the wash and dried (¶ 23, 39; Figure 2). The PGA layers are oxygen barrier materials (¶ 27).
Regarding Claim 22, Beurerle teaches polyethylene can be used (¶ 24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19, 20, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Robertz (WO 2021/121476 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document DE 10 2019 134 689.4 of Robertz and finds written support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 19, 20, and 22-25, Robertz describes methods of recycling flexible multilayer packaging materials such as bottles, construed as packaging materials with hollow bodies (Abstract; ¶ 3-5, 15-16; Examples) and describes an embodiment in Example 1 where polyethylene / polyvinyl alcohol / polyethylene adhesively layered to one another in layered packaging is shredded into individual sized fractions, placed in water bath to cause polyethylene layers to separate via dissolving the PVA, and then recovering the polyethylene pieces from any other materials that result (¶ 35-38). There is no perceivable difference in structure between such PVA layers and those of the claims and thus, such layers are construed as oxygen-barrier layers in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Robertz describes embodiments where the laminates further comprise adhesive layer (¶ 39-43).
For Example 1, the thickness of the polyethylene layers is 250 microns and the thickness of the PVA layer is 25 microns (¶ 36), suggesting roughly 95 wt% or more polyethylene. Therefore, Robertz anticipates the claims. Alternatively, to the extent the amount of thermoplastic is just outside the range claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close to the extent there would be an expectation of the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. The position is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that quantities toward the lower limit of 95 wt% or more could be used within the laminates of Robertz with an expectation that the same or similar properties would result.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertz (WO 2021/121476 A1) in view of Duan (US 2012/0177307 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document DE 10 2019 134 689.4 of Robertz and finds written support for the citations below.
Robertz describes methods of recycling flexible multilayer packaging materials such as bottles, construed as packaging materials with hollow bodies (Abstract; ¶ 3-5, 15-16; Examples) and describes an embodiment in Example 1 where polyethylene / polyvinyl alcohol / polyethylene adhesively layered to one another in layered packaging is shredded into individual sized fractions, placed in water bath to cause polyethylene layers to separate via dissolving the PVA, and then recovering the polyethylene pieces from any other materials that result (¶ 35-38). There is no perceivable difference in structure between such PVA layers and those of the claims and thus, such layers are construed as oxygen-barrier layers in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Robertz describes embodiments where the laminates further comprise adhesive layer (¶ 39-43). For Example 1, the thickness of the polyethylene layers is 250 microns and the thickness of the PVA layer is 25 microns (¶ 36), suggesting roughly 95 wt% or more polyethylene. Alternatively, to the extent the amount of thermoplastic is just outside the range claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close to the extent there would be an expectation of the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. The position is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that quantities toward the lower limit of 95 wt% or more could be used within the laminates of Robertz with an expectation that the same or similar properties would result.
Regarding Claims 21 and 26, the particular embodiments of Robertz differ from the subject matter claimed in that layer of printing ink and/or layer of aluminum is not described. Duan also pertains to laminates for packaging comprising plastic outerlayers and interior barrier layers (Abstract; ¶ 23-35). Duan teaches it was known in the art outer plastic layers can contain printing layers with ink for the purpose of surface attractiveness (¶ 26-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include printing layers within the laminates of Robertz because doing so would increase surface attractiveness as taught by Duan.
Alternatively, Duan teaches it was known in the art aluminum layers are excellent barrier materials in of themselves and can be used in combination with other barrier layers such as polyvinyl alcohol, for the purpose of increasing resistance to oxygen and/or water vapor diffusion through the material (¶ 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize additional barrier materials such as aluminum layers because doing so would increase resistance to oxygen and/or water vapor diffusion through the material as taught by Duan.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertz (WO 2021/121476 A1) in view of Duan (US 2012/0177307 A1) and Kleineberg (US 2006/0046067 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document DE 10 2019 134 689.4 of Robertz and finds written support for the citations below.
The discussion regarding Robertz and Duan within ¶ 22-26 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 27, Robertz differs from the subject matter claimed in that polyester-urethane adhesives are not described. Kleineberg teaches it was known in that art particular polyester-urethane adhesives are useful for laminates (Abstract; ¶ 2, 8) such that high processing stability can be obtained (¶ 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyester-urethane laminating adhesives of Kleineberg within the laminates of Robertz because such adhesives afford high processing stability as taught by Kleineberg.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuerle (WO 2019/209337 A1) in view of Mumpower (US 2004/0016208 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Beuerle teaches methods of recycling multilayered packaging articles with hollow body (Abstract; ¶ 24; Figures 1 and 2). Beurerle teaches embodiments where the multilayered substrate is polymer / PGA barrier layer / polymer; the polymer being present at 96 wt% (Figure 4; Right Column). The materials are collected, ground to particles, placed in an aqueous caustic wash to dissolve and separate the PGA intermediate layer, and the remaining thermoplastic polymer material is recovered from the wash and dried (¶ 23, 39; Figure 2). The PGA layers are oxygen barrier materials (¶ 27).
Regarding Claim 20, to the extent Beuerle differs from the subject matter claimed by the further inclusion of adhesive, Mumpower also describes barrier laminates for flexible packaging having hollow bodies resistant to atmospheric oxygen transmission (Abstract; Figure 2; ¶ 19). Mumpower teaches it was known adhesive/tie layers can be used to improve adherence between layers (¶ 98). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include adhesive/tie layers within the laminates of Beuerle because doing so would improve adherence in accordance with Mumpower.
Regarding Claim 21, to the extent Beuerle differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the further inclusion of a layer of printing ink, Mumpower teaches it was known in the art layers of ink printing material can be used on packaging barrier films so as to provide information such as package contents or nutritional information (¶ 116-118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include the printing layers of Mumpower within the laminates of Beuerle because doing so would provide the ability to convey information such as contents or nutritional information as taught by Mumpower.
Claim(s) 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumpower (US 2004/0016208 A1) in view of Robertz (WO 2021/121476 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document DE 10 2019 134 689.4 of Robertz and finds written support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 19, 20, and 22-25, Mumpower describes barrier laminates for flexible packaging having hollow bodies resistant to atmospheric oxygen transmission (Abstract; Figure 2; ¶ 19). The laminates comprise thermoplastic polymer layers with oxygen-barrier layers interposed between and adhesively secured to one another (Figure 2; ¶ 67, 69, 76-81). The thermoplastics used can be materials such as polyethylenes (¶ 79-80, 42-43). The barrier layers can be materials such as polyvinyl alcohol (¶ 83). Adhesives / tie layers are further described (¶ 76, 78, 98).
Mumpower teaches the total thickness of the barrier films are generally 10 mils or less whereby the thickness of outer/inner thermoplastic layers is roughly 0.05-5 mil (¶ 97, 102). Given such, Mumpower is descriptive of thermoplastic layers quantities such that the proportion of the thermoplastic polymer used overlaps the 95 wt% or greater range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Mumpower suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Mumpower. See MPEP 2123.
Mumpower differs from the subject matter claimed in that a particular protocol of recycling the laminates is not described.
Robertz teaches it was known in the art packaging laminates can be separated for recycling via a process comprising shredding discarded packaging materials into pieces, subjecting the pieces to an aqueous wash whereby water-soluble polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol is dissolved to separate thermoplastic polymer layers from one another, and recovering the resulting pieces of thermoplastic polymer from the aqueous wash and from any other materials present (¶ 2-5, 13, 20, 21, 30, 36-38). The method is advantageous as it allows the clean separation of polymer layer materials with high purity (¶ 14, 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recycling protocol of Robertz toward the laminates of Mumpower because doing so would facilitate the clean separation of polymer layer materials with high purity as taught by Robertz.
Regarding Claims 21 and 26, Mumpower teaches the further inclusion of layer of printing ink on the surface of the barrier films (¶ 116-118).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumpower (US 2004/0016208 A1) in view of Robertz (WO 2021/121476 A1) and Kleineberg (US 2006/0046067 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document DE 10 2019 134 689.4 of Robertz and finds written support for the citations below.
The discussion regarding Mumpower and Robertz within ¶ 36-41 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 27, Mumpower differs from the subject matter claimed in that polyester-urethane adhesives are not described. Kleineberg teaches it was known in that art particular polyester-urethane adhesives are useful for laminates (Abstract; ¶ 2, 8) such that high processing stability can be obtained (¶ 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyester-urethane laminating adhesives of Kleineberg within the laminates of Mumpower because such adhesives afford high processing stability as taught by Kleineberg.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759