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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “… characterized wherein …”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims should be amended as follow “ The method Method of treating complex films according to of claim ….. , characaterised in that , wherein ”…. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the steps" , “the single films” , “the at least two single films”, “the agents” in line s 5 , 6, 7, and 8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the breaking stage", “the sub-step”, “the flakes”, “the complex foils”, “the liquid element”, lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims dependent of claim 5 are also rejected. The term “ hot ” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ hot ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. All the claims dependent of claim 5 are also rejected. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second shaker bath" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sub-steps" and “the resulting single sheet” in line s 2 and 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first film" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one single film" and “the polyethylene terephthalate film” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims dependent of claim 10 are also rejected. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the stage" , “the sub-steps” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims dependent of claim 11 are also rejected. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the liquid element “ in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 limitation “ FILLIN "Recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph." \d "[ 1 ]" subjecting the complex foils to means of reducing the liquid element " inv okes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Furthermore, no association between the structure and the function is found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 11 and 13 limitation “ FILLIN "Recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph." \d "[ 1 ]" a container with mixing and drying means. " in v okes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim 12 limitation “ FILLIN "Recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph." \d "[ 1 ]" the shaker bath in water, means of reducing the liquid element " inv okes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 , 8- 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Graham (US 5628832 A) (“Graham” herein) Claim 1. Graham discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above , a method of treating complex films, comprising at least a first single film of a polymer, a second single film of a polymer and at least one layer of adhesive, the method comprising the steps of breaking up the complex films, separating the single films and further treating at least one of the at least two single films, characterised in that the agents for breaking up the complex films are at least one acidic agent and at least one caustic agent. (Col. 2 l. 19-34, Col. 6 l. 63+ & Col. 7l. 1-25) Claim 4. Graham discloses m ethod of treating complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the at least one caustic agent is selected from the group consisting of caustic soda (NaOH) and caustic potash (KHO). (Col. 2 l. 54+) Claim 8. Graham discloses method of processing complex sheets according to claim 1, characterised in that the separation stage comprises the sub-steps of: subjecting the complex sheets to liquid element reduction means; subjecting them to at least one densifying bath; and separately extracting the resulting single sheets. (Col. 3 l. 23-44) Claim 9. Graham discloses method of processing complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the first film of the complex film is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and the second film is made of polyethylene (PE). (Col. 2 l. 19-34 ) Claim 10. Method of treating complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the at least one single film that undergoes further treatment is the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film. (Col. 2 l. 19-34 ) Claim 11. Graham discloses method of treatment of complex films according to claim 10, characterised in that the stage of further treatment of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films comprises the sub-steps of: subjecting the films to a shaker bath in water and placing them in a container with mixing and drying means. (Col. 3 l. 23-44) Claim 12. Graham discloses method of treatment of complex films according to claim 11, characterised in that before and after subjecting the PET films to the shaker bath in water, means of reducing the liquid element present in the films are applied to them. (Col. 3 l. 23-44) Claim 13. Graham discloses method of processing complex films according to claim 11, characterised in that after depositing the PET films in the container with mixing and drying means, they are passed through a foreign particle detection device. (Col. 3 l. 23-44 , Col. 5 l. 21-43) Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Ohara et al. (US 2021/0178744 A1) (“Ohara” herein). Claim 1. Ohara discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above , a method of treating complex films, comprising [0012] at least a first single film of a polymer, a second single film of a polymer and at least one layer of adhesive, the method comprising the steps of breaking up the complex films, separating the single films and further treating at least one of the at least two single films, characterised in that the agents for breaking up the complex films are at least one acidic agent and at least one caustic agent . [0018-0021, 0025-0030, 0033-0034, 0043-0055, 0068-0069 ] Claim 2. Ohara discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the at least one acidic agent is a compound of at least one dicarboxylic acid (HOOC- R-COOH) and at least one fatty acid. [00 6 8-00 6 9] Claim 3. Ohara discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 2, characterised in that the at least one dicarboxylic acid OOC-R-COOH) is oxalic acid and the at least one fatty acid (R-COOH) is oleic acid (C18H3402). [00 68-0069 ] Claim 4. Ohara discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the at least one caustic agent is selected from the group consisting of caustic soda (NaOH) and caustic potash (KHO). [00018-0021] Claim 5. Ohara discloses method of treating complex foils according to claim 1, characterised in that the breaking stage comprises the sub-steps of: subjecting the flakes to a stirring bath in hot water and a solution of at least one acidic agent; subjecting the complex foils to means of reducing the liquid element and subjecting them to a second stirring bath in hot water and a solution of at least one caustic agent . [0043-0055, 00 68-0069 ] Claim 6. Ohara discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 5, characterised in that the solution of at least one acidic agent comprises at least one dicarboxylic acid(HOOC-R-COOH) and at least one fatty acid (R-COOH ). [00 68-0069 ] Claim 7. Ohara discloses method of treatment of complex films according to claim 5, characterised in that a surfactant is also added to the second shaker bath. [0028-0030] Claim 8. Ohara discloses method of processing complex sheets according to claim 1, characterised in that the separation stage comprises the sub-steps of: subjecting the complex sheets to liquid element reduction means; subjecting them to at least one densifying bath; and separately extracting the resulting single sheets. [0030-0034,] Claim 9. Ohara discloses method of processing complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the first film of the complex film is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and the second film is made of polyethylene (PE). [0043-0051] Claim 10. Ohara discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 1, characterised in that the at least one single film that undergoes further treatment is the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film. [0043-0051] Claim 11. Ohara discloses method of treatment of complex films according to claim 10, characterised in that the stage of further treatment of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films comprises the sub-steps of: subjecting the films to a shaker bath in water and placing them in a container with mixing and drying means. [0028-0031, 0043-0051] Claim 12. Ohara discloses method of treatment of complex films according to claim 11, characterised in that before and after subjecting the PET films to the shaker bath in water, means of reducing the liquid element present in the films are applied to them. [0030-0031, 0043-0051] Claim 13. Ohara discloses method of processing complex films according to claim 11, characterised in that after depositing the PET films in the container with mixing and drying means, they are passed through a foreign particle detection device. [0030-0031, 0043-0051, 0078] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 . Claims 2- 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham, as applied claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohara. Claim 2. Graham discloses me thod of treating complex films according to claim 1 . Graham however does not exilically disclose , characterised in that the at least one acidic agent is a compound of at least one dicarboxylic acid (HOOC- R-COOH) and at least one fatty acid. Ohara teaches the above limitation ( See paragraphs 00 047, 0068, and 0069 → Ohara teaches this limitation in that In the layered film laminated and adhered with the reactive adhesive, which is the subject of the present separation and recovery method, an adhesive layer made of the reactive adhesive is often laminated between at least two resin film layers or between the resin film and a metal foil or a deposited film layer. Specifically, in the layered film, when the resin film layer is represented by (F), a metal foil layer of the metal foil or the deposited film layer is represented by (M), and the adhesive layer of the reactive adhesive is represented by (AD), the following constitutions can be considered as the specific aspects of the layered film, but it is needless to say that the layered film is not limited thereto. addition, examples of the low-molecular-weight compound having an acidic group include saturated fatty acids, unsaturated fatty acids, hydroxy acids, aromatic carboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids, tricarboxylic acids, oxocarboxylic acids, carboxylic acid derivatives, acid anhydrides, and the like, and these low-molecular-weight compounds having an acidic group can be used singly or a plurality of the low-molecular-weight compounds can be mixed together and used. Examples of the saturated fatty acids include lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, margaric acid, stearic acid, and the like, and examples of the unsaturated fatty acids include oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid, arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, sorbic acid, and the like. Examples of the hydroxy acids include lactic acid, malic acid, citric acid, and the like, and examples of the aromatic carboxylic acids include benzoic acid, phthalic acid, isophthalic acid, terephthalic acid, salicylic acid, gallic acid, mellitic acid, cinnamic acid, and the like. Examples of the dicarboxylic acids include oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid, fumaric acid, maleic acid, and the like, and examples of the tricarboxylic acids include aconitic acid and the like. ) for the purpose of having e ach separated substance is dried, then, solidified, produced as a recycled product, and reused as a recycled raw material for recycled plastic. [0041] Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Graham with the above limitation, as taught by Ohara, in order to produce a recycled product, and reused as a recycled raw material for recycled plastic. [0041] Claim 3. Graham discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 2 . Graham however does not exilically disclose, characterised in that the at least one dicarboxylic acid OOC-R-COOH) is oxalic acid and the at least one fatty acid (R-COOH) is oleic acid (C18H3402). (Same as claim 2) Claim 5. Graham discloses method of treating complex according to claim 1, characterised in that the breaking stage comprises the sub-steps of: subjecting the flakes to a stirring bath in hot water and a solution of at least one acidic agent; subjecting the complex means of reducing the liquid element and subjecting them to a second stirring bath in hot water and a solution of at least one caustic agent. (Col. 6 l. 63+ & Col. 7l. 1-25) Graham however does not explicitly disclose subjecting the complex foils . (Same as claim 2) Claim 6. Graham discloses method of treating complex films according to claim 5 . Graham however does not exilically disclose, characterised in that the solution of at least one acidic agent comprises at least one dicarboxylic acid(HOOC-R-COOH) and at least one fatty acid (R-COOH). (Same as claim 2) Claim 7. Graham discloses method of treatment of complex according to claim 5, characterised in that a surfactant is also added to the second shaker bath. (Col. 6 l. 63+ & Col. 7l. 1-25) Graham however does not explicitly disclose subjecting the complex foils. (Same as claim 2) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hally et al. (US 5143308 A) Recycling System teaches Apparatus and process for recycling post-consumer plastic containers supplied as compressed bales thereof to recover at least uncolored and colored PET uncolored and colored HDPE in flake form is provided. The apparatus and process includes debaling , sortation of the desired containers from the bale, granulation of these containers into flakes, wet processing to dissolve glue and the residue of contents of the containers and to provide separation of contaminants from the desired flake by specific gravity difference, and recovery of the purified flakes , Hagen et al. (US 2022/0063138 A1) Solvent-based Recycling With A Roll-to-roll Processing Step teaches Subject-matter of the present invention is a method for removing at least one polymer component from plastic waste film material, wherein the plastic waste film material comprises at least a first polymer to be solved and a second polymer component, wherein the method comprises the steps of moving said plastic film material across at least one solvent bath which is filled with a solvent, wherein said solvent is a solvent for the first polymer component to be solved, and wherein at least the second polymer component is non-soluble in said solvent , and Yamane et al. (US 2005/0175801 A1) Bottle Excellent In Recyclability And Method For Recycling The Bottle teaches There are provided a bottle which has a laminate structure including a glycolic acid polymer layer showing good gas-barrier property in addition to a principal resin layer and is yet provided with excellent recyclability, and also an efficient method of recycling the bottle. More specifically, a bottle having a laminate structure including at least one layer of glycolic acid polymer in addition to a principal resin layer, is obtained. After breaking the bottle, the broken pieces are washed with alkaline water, water or acidic water to remove the glycolic acid polymer layer, thereby recovering the principal resin. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5415 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-4:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Doug Hutton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4137 . 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. /SILVANA C RUNYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 03/12/2026