DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
HDPE stream – ([0141] The recyclability of the packages in the HDPE stream is calculated via calculating the % of PE by weight of the total package (including labels and adhesives) and deducting a recyclability penalty of 2% for each parameter criterium not met for the pellets of PR.sub.25 and PR.sub.50, the injection molded parts of PR.sub.25 and PR.sub.50 and the blow molded bottles of PRB.sub.25 and PRB.sub.50. The parameter criteria may be either absolute values or comparative values to the control sample (PR-control or PRB-control).) HDPE stream appears to be a specific variation as taught by Applicant, such should be included in the claims as HDPE stream does not appear to be a constant. Without such an explanation, it is not clear or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what is being claimed.
LDPE stream – ([0150] The recyclability of the packages in the LDPE stream is calculated via calculating the % of PE by weight of the total package (including labels and adhesives) and deducting a recyclability penalty of 1.5% for each parameter criterium not met for the pellets of PF.sub.25 and PF.sub.50 and the films of PFB.sub.25 and PFB.sub.50. The parameter criteria may be either absolute values or comparative values to the control sample (PF-control or PFR-control).) LDPE stream appears to be a specific variation as taught by Applicant, such should be included in the claims as HDPE stream does not appear to be a constant.
PP rigids stream – ([0154] The recyclability of the packages in the PP rigids stream is calculated via calculating the % of PP by weight of the package, including labels and adhesives, and deducting a recyclability penalty of 2% for each parameter criterium not met for the pellets of PP.sub.25 and PPR.sub.50, the injection molded parts of PPR.sub.25 and PPR.sub.50 and the blow molded bottles of PPRB.sub.25 and PPRB.sub.50. The parameter criteria may be either absolute values or comparative values to the control sample (PPR-control or PPRB-control).) PP rigids stream appears to be a specific variation as taught by Applicant, such should be included in the claims as HDPE stream does not appear to be a constant. Without such an explanation, it is not clear or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what is being claimed.
PP flexibles stream – ([0159] The recyclability of the packages in the PP flexibles stream is calculated via calculating the % of PP by weight of the package, including labels and adhesives, and deducting a recyclability penalty of 1.5% for each parameter criterium not met for the pellets of PPF.sub.25 and PPF.sub.50 and the films of PPFB.sub.25 and PPFB.sub.50. The parameter criteria may be either absolute values or comparative values to the control sample (PPF-control or PPFB-control).) PP flexibles stream appears to be a specific variation as taught by Applicant, such should be included in the claims as HDPE stream does not appear to be a constant. Without such an explanation, it is not clear or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what is being claimed.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 contain the trademark/trade name Recycling Rate Test. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a test which as best understood by paragraph [0128] is not a constant test and includes variables and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is not understood as to what the test includes or excludes, and such should be added to the claims for clarification purposes. Without such an explanation, it is not clear or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what is being claimed.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Versepej et al. (US 2003/0159403 A1 – hereinafter Verespej).
Re Claims 1-4:
Versepej discloses a package for disposable wipes, the package comprising: a dispensing fitment (150) formed of a first polymer composition (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]); and a flexible package body (152) formed of a second polymer composition and optionally lamination adhesives and lamination hardeners (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]); and wherein the first and second polymer composition may be the same or different (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]), wherein the package (152) comprises at least 80% by weight of the total package of one polymer type selected from the group consisting of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051] – Versepej teaches using, to or about to, 100% of polyethylene – layer or layers); and wherein the package exhibits a recyclability of at least 80% in either the HDPE stream and/or the LDPE stream; or the PP rigids stream and/or the PP flexibles stream according to the Recycling Rate Test method described herein (Examiner notes that a package of to or about to 100% of polyethylene will achieve a recyclability of at least 80% in either the HDPE or LDPE streams or the PP rigids of Pp flexibles stream). Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer et al. (US 2022/0242639 A1 – hereinafter Meyer).
Re Claims 5-9:
Versepej discloses a package for disposable wipes, the package comprising: a dispensing fitment (150) formed of a first polymer composition (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]); and a flexible package body (152) formed of a second polymer composition and optionally lamination adhesives and lamination hardeners (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]); and wherein the first and second polymer composition may be the same or different (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]), wherein the package (152) comprises at least 80% by weight of the total package of (PE) (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051] – Versepej teaches using, to or about to, 100% of polyethylene – layer or layers), but fails to each wherein pellets obtained from the package according to the Material preparation and Pellet preparation of the LDPE stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein and comprising 100% by weight of package material (PF100) exhibit a bulk density of at least 500 kg/m3 and a density in water of between 941 kg/m3 and 970 kg/m3 according to the LDPE stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein.
Meyer teaches wherein pellets obtained from the package according to the Material preparation and Pellet preparation of the LDPE stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein and comprising 100% by weight of package material (PF100) exhibit a bulk density of at least 500 kg/m3 (see Table B) and a density in water of between 941 kg/m3 and 970 kg/m3 according to the LDPE stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein (see Table B) (see paragraph [0054]). Re Claim 6: Meyer teaches wherein pellets comprising 100% by weight of package material (PFi00) exhibit a melt index of between 0.2 and 0.9 g/ 10 min according to the LDPE stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein (see Table B). Re Claim 7: Meyer teaches wherein pellets comprising 100% by weight of package material (PF100) exhibit an ash content of less than 2% by weight of the overall pellets weight and/ or a moisture content of less than 0.1% by weight of the overall pellets weight and/ or a volatiles content of less than 1% by weight of the overall pellets weight according to the LDPE stream test of the Recycling Rate Test method described herein (see Table B continued). Re Claim 8: Meyer teaches wherein pellets comprising 100% by weight of package material (PF100) exhibit a melt temperature of less than 140°C according to the LDPE stream test of the Recycling Rate Test method described herein (see Table B continued). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej with that of Meyer, so as to meet standards acceptable for recycling purposes. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange et al. (US 2019/0291942 A1 – hereinafter Lange).
Re Claims 10-12 and 17:
Versepej discloses a package for disposable wipes, the package comprising: a dispensing fitment (150) formed of a first polymer composition (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]); and a flexible package body (152) formed of a second polymer composition and optionally lamination adhesives and lamination hardeners (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]); and wherein the first and second polymer composition may be the same or different (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051]), wherein the package (152) comprises at least 80% by weight of the total package of polyethylene (PE) (see paragraphs [0050 and 0051] – Versepej teaches using, to or about to, 100% of polyethylene – layer or layers), but fails to teach wherein the package comprises at least 80% by weight of the total package of PP; and wherein pellets obtained from the package according to the Material preparation and Pellet preparation of the PP flexibles stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein and comprising 100% by weight of package material (PPF100) exhibit a bulk density of at least 480 kg/m? and a density in water of less than 950 kg/m? according to the PP flexibles stream test of the Recycling Rate Test method described herein.
Meyer teaches wherein pellets obtained from the package according to the Material preparation and Pellet preparation of the PP Flexibles stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein and comprising 100% by weight of package material (PF100) exhibit a bulk density of at least 480 kg/m3 (see Table B) and a density in water of less than 950 kg/m3 according to the PP flexibles stream test of Recycling Rate Test method described herein (see Table B) (see paragraph [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej with that of Meyer, so as to meet standards acceptable for recycling purposes. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Lange teaches polypropylene (see paragraphs [0044 and 0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej with that of Meyer and Lange to provide a selection of material of an art recognized equivalent, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for a particular purpose. Examiner notes that combination would be capable of providing wherein the package comprises at least 80% by weight of the total package of PP, by way of substituting known equivalents as suggested by Lange.
Further Re Claim 13:
Versepej discloses wherein the package further comprises an adhesive disposed between the dispensing fitment and the flexible package body (see paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange and further in view of Krauth et al. (US 2008/0179326 A1 – hereinafter Krauth).
Re Claim 14:Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange discloses the device of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the adhesive is a hotmelt adhesive.
Krauth further in view teaches wherein an adhesive is a hotmelt adhesive (see paragraph [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange with that of Krauth to provide a selection of material for a particular purpose as known within the art.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange and further in view of Grimard et al. (US 2008/0054011 A1 – hereinafter Grimard).
Re Claim 15:Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange discloses the device of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the adhesive comprises one or more polymers selected from the polyolefin group.
Grimard further in view teaches wherein an adhesive comprises one or more polymers selected from the polyolefin group (see paragraph [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange with that of Grimard to provide a selection of material for a particular purpose as known within the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer, Lange, and Grimard and further in view of JP 4601785 (hereinafter – JP-785).
Re Claim 16:Versepej in view of Meyer, Lange, and Grimard discloses the device of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the one or more polymers of the adhesive are obtained by copolymerization of ethylene or propylene with a linear or branched monoalkene, preferably by copolymerization of ethylene with a linear alpha-olefin.
JP-785 further in view teaches wherein the one or more polymers of the adhesive are obtained by copolymerization of ethylene or propylene with a linear or branched monoalkene, preferably by copolymerization of ethylene with a linear alpha-olefin (see paragraphs [0019-0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej in view of Meyer, Lange, and Grimard with that of JP-785 to provide a selection of material for a particular purpose as known within the art. Examiner further notes that adhesive is well known within the art, and the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, thus, the selection of material is an obvious skill within the art.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange and further in view of Lyons et al. (US 2021/0316978 A1 – hereinafter Lyons).
Re Claim 18:Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the flexible package body exhibits a near infra-red (NIR) response, which is substantially the same on any surface.
Lyons further in view teaches wherein the flexible package body exhibits a near infra-red (NIR) response, which is substantially the same on any surface (see paragraph [0350]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange with that of Lyons to provide a selection of material for a particular purpose as known within the art. Examiner further notes that adhesive is well known within the art, and the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, thus, the selection of material is an obvious skill within the art.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 2020/0046177 A1 – hereinafter Simmons).
Re Claim 19:Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to specifically teach wherein the flexible package body comprises a weakened region to facilitate creation of a dispensing opening upon first opening of the package and wherein the dispensing fitment is situated over the weakened region.
Simmons further in view teaches wherein a flexible package body comprises a weakened region to facilitate creation of a dispensing opening upon first opening of the package and wherein the dispensing fitment is situated over the weakened region (see paragraph [0009]). Re Claim 20: Simmons further in view teaches wherein the dispensing fitment is formed via an injection molding process and optionally comprises an in-mold label preferably made from PE (see paragraph [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Versepej in view of Meyer and Lange with that of Simmons to protect the contents of a container prior to usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651