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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated September 12, 2025. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (WO 2021/092478 A1) in view of Rackovan et al. (USPGPub 2014/0069587 A1).
Williams et al. disclose a wrap-around label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0006 and 0084), the wrap-around label comprising: a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that comprises crystallized PET (Paragraph 0084) and is compatible with PET in a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0008 and 0084); an adhesive layer (Paragraph 0084); and an ink layer configured to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0008 and 0079); wherein the recyclable layer is positioned between the adhesive layer and the ink layer (Paragraphs 0073, 0079, 0082, 0088, 0090) as in claim 1. For claim 4, the ink layer comprises a washable ink configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution (Paragraph 0006 and 0079). In claim 5, a primer layer that is configured to increase the binding affinity of the ink layer to the label substrate, wherein the primer layer is positioned between the recyclable layer and the ink layer (Paragraph 0083). However, Williams et al. fail to disclose an adhesive layer configured to be affixed to an article made of PET and to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process, the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive that is configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution, a varnish layer is positioned above the ink layer, and a second recyclable layer and a second adhesive layer, wherein the second recyclable layer comprises a second label substrate, wherein the second label substrate comprises CPET, and wherein the second adhesive layer is positioned between the recyclable layer and the second recyclable layer.
Rackovan et al. teach a label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0005 and 0006), the label comprising: a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that is compatible with PET in a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0005 - 0007), a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that comprises crystallized PET (Paragraph 0015); an adhesive layer configured to be affixed to an article made of PET and to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0005 - 0007); and an ink layer (Paragraph 0036); wherein the recyclable layer is positioned between the adhesive layer and the ink layer (Paragraph 0030), the adhesive layer comprises an adhesive that is configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution (Paragraphs 0005 – 0007), and a varnish layer is positioned above the ink layer (Paragraphs 0036 and 0066) for the purpose of removing an adhesive composition, facestock and/or packaging label containing same, from a plastic article that is to be recycled (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive layer configured to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process in Williams et al. in order to remove an adhesive composition, facestock and/or packaging label containing same, from a plastic article that is to be recycled as taught by Rackovan et al.
With regard to the limitation of “a second recyclable layer and a second adhesive layer, wherein the second recyclable layer comprises a second label substrate, wherein the second label substrate comprises CPET, and wherein the second adhesive layer is positioned between the recyclable layer and the second recyclable layer”, Rackovan et al. clearly states that the label may contain one or more layers and additional non-disclosed layers (Paragraph 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have another recycle layer and adhesive layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (WO 2021/092478 A1) in view of Rackovan et al. (USPGPub 2014/0069587 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Henderson (WO 2010/117767 A1).
Williams et al., as modified with Rackovan et al., disclose the claimed invention except for the primer layer comprises a material configured to react with a caustic bath solution, wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl esters and polyacrylates.
Henderson teaches a label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paragraph 0031) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraph 0025) with a primer layer comprises a material configured to react with a caustic bath solution, wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylates (Paragraph 0053) for the purpose of providing abrasion resistance to the ink layer (Paragraph 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a polyacrylate varnish in the modified Williams et al. in order to provide abrasion resistance to the ink layer as taught by Henderson.
Claims 9, 10, 12 – 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rackovan et al. (USPGPub 2014/0069587 A1) in view of Williams et al. (WO 2021/092478 A1).
Rackovan et al. teach a pressure-sensitive label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0005 and 0006), the pressure-sensitive label comprising: a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that is compatible with PET in a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0005 - 0007); an adhesive layer configured to be affixed to an article made of PET and to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0005 - 0007); and an ink layer (Paragraph 0036); wherein the recyclable layer is positioned between the adhesive layer and the ink layer (Paragraph 0030) as in claim 9. With respect to claim 10, a liner layer, wherein the liner layer is positioned below the adhesive layer, and wherein the liner layer is configured to be removed from the pressure-sensitive label before the pressure-sensitive label is applied to an article made of PET (Paragraphs 0036 and 0037). Regarding claim 9, the label substrate comprises crystallized PET (CPET) (Paragraph 0015). For claim 12, the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive that is configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution (Paragraphs 0036 and 0037). With respect to claim 16, a varnish layer, wherein the varnish layer is positioned above the ink layer (Paragraphs 0036 and 0066). However, Rackovan et al. fail to disclose an ink layer configured to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process, the ink layer comprises a washable ink configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution, and a primer layer that is configured to increase the binding affinity of the ink layer to the label substrate, wherein the primer layer is positioned between the recyclable layer and the ink layer.
Williams et al. teach a wrap-around label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0006 and 0084), the wrap-around label comprising: a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that is compatible with PET in a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0008 and 0084); an adhesive layer (Paragraph 0084); and an ink layer configured to be removable from the wrap-around label in at least one of a wash process or a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0008 and 0079); wherein the recyclable layer is positioned between the adhesive layer and the ink layer (Paragraphs 0073, 0079, 0082, 0088, 0090), the ink layer comprises a washable ink configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution (Paragraph 0006 and 00790, and a primer layer that is configured to increase the binding affinity of the ink layer to the label substrate, wherein the primer layer is positioned between the recyclable layer and the ink layer (Paragraph 0083) for the purpose of having an ink layer is separable from a label during a recycling process (Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ink layer comprises a washable ink configured to dissolve or disperse when subjected to at least one of a wash solution or a caustic bath solution in Rackovan et al. in order to have an ink layer is separable from a label during a recycling process as taught by Williams et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rackovan et al. (USPGPub 2014/0069587 A1) in view of Williams et al. (WO 2021/092478 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Henderson (WO 2010/117767 A1).
Rackovan et al., as modified with Williams et al., disclose the claimed invention except for the primer layer comprises a material configured to react with a caustic bath solution, wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl esters and polyacrylates.
Henderson teaches a label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paragraph 0031) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraph 0025) with a primer layer comprises a material configured to react with a caustic bath solution, wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylates (Paragraph 0053) for the purpose of providing abrasion resistance to the ink layer (Paragraph 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a polyacrylate varnish in the modified Rackovan et al. in order to provide abrasion resistance to the ink layer as taught by Henderson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant submits that, in the art, specific types of labels (names of labels) carry particular meanings, and that those skilled in the art recognize different constructions, possibly different materials, different performances, etc. between labels based on the particular type of label being discussed. As noted above, independent claim 1 of the present application, and its dependent claims 2-8, are directed to (and recite) a wrap- around label. However, Williams never mentions a wrap-around label. Not only does Williams not mention a wrap-around label by name, Williams also never discusses or discloses a label structure that would be considered a wrap-around label.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not deemed persuasive since arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record to overcome a rejection. See MPEP 2145. As evidenced by Amberg, it is well known in the art of labels that a shrink label may be a wrap-around label (Figures 27, 28, 29, 31, 32). Therefore, the label of Williams may also be a shrink wrapped wrap-around label.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant notes in the present application (at least at paragraph [0009] that wrap-around labels are different from, and have different considerations than, shrink sleeve labels. In that regard, Applicant clearly states in paragraph [0009] that wrap-around labels and pressure-sensitive labels, as claimed in the present application, are "[a]nother type of label" which are different than shrink- sleeve labels described in [0007]-[0008]. These differences include that wrap-around labels are "applied to the circumference or the perimeter of the article using an adhesive to bind the label to the article" without changing the size of the label stock, whereas it is known in the art that shrink-sleeve labels use applied heat or steam to ", the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As evidenced by Amberg, it clearly shows that it is known to use an adhesive in combination with an adhesive (Abstract). Therefore, Williams et al. clearly disclose a wrap-around label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0006 and 0084), the wrap-around label comprising: a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that comprises crystallized PET (Paragraph 0084) and is compatible with PET in a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0008 and 0084); an adhesive layer (Paragraph 0084).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “The Examiner suggests that Williams is not limited to shrink sleeve labels. Applicant does not agree with this reasoning. First, while shrink sleeve labels are typically used without adhesives (rather relying on the friction force of the shrink to retain label on container), this does not mean that adhesives cannot be used with shrink films. Further, even if Williams mention of an adhesive were taken to mean a label other than a shrink sleeve label - this is still not necessarily a disclosure of a wrap- around label, like that recited in independent claim 1.” As evidenced by Amberg, it is well known in the art of labels that a shrink label may be a wrap-around label (Figures 27, 28, 29, 31, 32). Therefore, the label of Williams may also be a shrink wrapped wrap-around label. Also, as evidenced by Amberg, it clearly shows that it is known to use an adhesive in combination with an adhesive (Abstract). Therefore, Williams et al. clearly disclose a wrap-around label configured to be recyclable with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) when subjected to a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0006 and 0084), the wrap-around label comprising: a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that comprises crystallized PET (Paragraph 0084) and is compatible with PET in a caustic bath recycling process (Paragraphs 0008 and 0084); an adhesive layer (Paragraph 0084).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant also notes that independent claim 1 presently recites that the label substrate comprises cPET. Williams, however, does not teach or suggest a label substrate comprising cPET.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Williams et al. clearly discloses a recyclable layer that comprises a label substrate that comprises crystallized PET (Paragraph 0084), wherein the labels are made of derivatives of PET, which include PETC. Also, Rackovan et al. clearly states the label substrate comprises crystallized PET (CPET) (Paragraph 0015).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, There is motivation to combine Rackovan et al. and Williams et al. Both are directed towards labels that are attached to surfaces using adhesive and may be formed from recycled materials.
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 Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 November 5, 2025