DETAILED ACTION
Final
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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 23-39, 41-45 are pending. Claims 23-19, 41-43 are currently amended. Claims 44 and 45 are newly added. Claim 40 is canceled and incorporated into the independent parent claim. It appears that no new matter has been entered. The amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 second paragraph rejections. The amendments have required further adjustment to the claim language to meet the limitations provided, for at least this reason the action must be made final.
The amendments and remarks have also required additional application of teaching reference Thomasset as the amendments have clarified the claim language, and so in the alternative, the claims are considered unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Thomasset.
Regarding the remarks, they are narrowly tailored to the previous interpreted reasonably broad claim language and thus are not found persuasive. Applicant in particular remarks that Kawasaki lacks certain features as discussed in page 13, second and third paragraph of the remarks. It is noted that Kawasaki when deconstructed provides these features as claimed where it is noted that the multi-layer strip of Kawasaki teaches the features as claimed. The remarks of attaching, removing, peelable layer, laminate etc… are respectively not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations perse, and the remarks also indicated method steps in an apparatus that cannot necessarily be limiting. Nonetheless, the alternative rejection addresses many of the argument/clarifying amendments provided in the response and/or amendment so as to advance prosecution on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
Each of the information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 05/05/2026 and 05/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
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) 23-32, 34-39, 41-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawasaki (WO 2021/182519), or In the alternative Claims 23-32, 34-39, 41-45 and along with claim 33, as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki and further in view of Thomasset (EP 1884348) and see attached English language translation (ELT.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 23: A recyclable packaging (541 figures 23-25, 30) comprising: parts (139, 137, 132, 536b, 133, 134, 135) assembled to one another to form said recyclable packaging, at least one of said parts of the packaging comprising a structural layer (132/133 paper/film layer) made of a first type of material, and a functional layer (132/133 paper/film layer) made of a second type of material, said structural and functional layers being attached to one another by a peelable interface (536a easy peelable layer), enabling sufficient adhesion between said structural and functional layers to maintain an integrity of the packaging during its use and to separate said structural and functional layers (as 536a is interposed there between, and easily peelable to separate the body) so that the structural and functional layers are able to [be] recycled in appropriate recycling channels after the structural and functional layers have been separated (as discussed in the second embodiment, or ph 216); and an external strip (paper layer strip “A” figure 30 which is a layer that separates from layer 501, and “A” layer includes 132/137/139 for peeling away after…) secured to the structural layer (133 film layer) by a peelable interface (from 507) such that the external strip facilitates the separation between the structural layer (133) and the functional layer (132) of said at least one part (the longitudinal strip layer “A” allows for separation of the layers 132 and 133 when peeled away from the end connection and detached, as seen in figures 30.a-30.c.)
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose: an external or internal strip separate from said structural or functional layer; Thomasset teaches: an external (10/12) or internal strip (10/12 which are longitudinally aligned and matched to be) separate from said structural (4/5) or functional layer (4/5, and provided for the purpose of guaranteeing a welded-bonded end to end film assembly for disassembly purposes, page 3-4 of attached English language translation;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kawasaki as taught in Thomasset with an external or internal strip as taught in Thomasset and which can be longitudinally aligned or arranged so as to be matched to be separate from said structural or functional layer of Kawasaki as taught in Thomasset, and all provided for the purpose of guaranteeing a welded-bonded end to end film assembly for disassembly purposes.
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 24: The packaging according to claim 23, wherein said parts of the packaging comprise one or more of a tubular body (5100/6100) and additional parts (602/611.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 25: The packaging according to claim 24, wherein said additional parts comprise one or more of a head (603), a base (601), and a cap (602/611.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 26: The packaging according to claim 25, wherein the external strip (“A”) is at least partially separated from the structural layer (133) upon separation of the structural layer (133) and the functional layer (132 as discussed above, or as noted above in the alternative, 10/12 can be external or internal strips that are able to be separate of structural or functional layers as arranged for the reasons discussed above).
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 27: The packaging according to claim 23, wherein the external strip (132 paper paper, or 10/12 as modified for the reasons discussed above) is made of the first type of material.
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 28: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein the first type of material is based on cellulose (paper is cellulose.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 29: the packaging according to claim 23, further comprising an internal strip (134/135 or 10/12 as modified for the reasons discussed above) secured to the functional layer (via film layer 133 and adhesive 536, or via connection arranged as discussed above), said internal strip configured to keep the packaging sealed after separation of the structural and functional layers (from each other as shown…, or as modified for the reasons discussed above, with 12 as the internal strip, the connection may be maintained.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 30: The packaging according to claim 29, wherein the internal strip (134) is made of the second type of material (film such as GL-RD which is a barrier film.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 31: The packaging according to claim 23, wherein the second type of material is based on one or more of polyethylene, polypropylene (133 is polypropylene), bio-based resin, and biodegradable resin.
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 32: The packaging according to claim 23, wherein said packaging forms, after separation, two recyclable pieces of waste comprising a first piece of waste (501) comprising the structural layer (133) and a second piece of waste (“A”) comprising the functional layer (132).
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 33: The packaging according to claim 32, wherein the [second] piece of waste comprises the external strip (“A” defines a strip that can be disposed of, or as modified for the reasons discussed above, 10 is a separable piece that can be disposed of) .
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 34: The packaging according to claim 23, wherein the structural layer (132/137/139, or 4/5) is one of monolayer (4/5 being mono layer) and multilayer and the functional layer (501 is inclusive of 133/134/135, or 10/12) is one of monolayer and multilayer.
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 35: The packaging according to claim 24, wherein the packaging forms a tube (as shown 5100/6100), and the additional parts are a tube head (602) and a cap (611).
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 36: The packaging according to claim 24, wherein the packaging forms a bottle (6100/601) and the additional parts are a tube head (602), a cap (611), and a base (605a).
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 37: The packaging according to claim 24, wherein the packaging forms a cartridge (6100 is a substance holding tubular unitary cartridge container), and the additional parts are a tube head (602), a cap (611), and a base (605a).
Kawasaki discloses in claim 38: [An apparatus that results in a]… A method for recycling packaging (541 figures 23-25, 30, 31) including parts (139, 137, 132, 536b, 133, 134, 135) assembled to one another to form said packaging, at least one part of said parts of the packaging including a structural layer (132/133 paper/film layer) made of a first type of material and a functional layer (132/133 paper/film layer) made of a second type of material, said structural and functional layers being attached to one another by a peelable interface (536a easy peelable layer) enabling sufficient adhesion between said structural and functional layers to maintain an integrity of the packaging during its use thereof, the packaging further including an external strip (paper layer strip “A” figure 30 which is a layer that separates from layer 501, and “A” layer includes 132/137/139 for peeling away after…) secured to the structural layer (133 film layer) by said peelable interface (from 507) such that the external strip facilitates separation between the structural layer (133) and the functional layer (132) of the at least one part the method comprising: separating the structural and functional layers [[are separated]] at the peelable interface (as 536a is interposed there between, and easily peelable to separate the body) by the external strip such that the structural and functional layers are able to be recycled in a respective appropriate recycling channel after the structural and functional layers are separated (as discussed in the second embodiment, or ph 216).
If it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose: an external or internal strip separate from said structural or functional layer; Thomasset teaches: an external (10/12) or internal strip (10/12 which are longitudinally aligned and matched to be) separate from said structural (4/5) or functional layer (4/5, and provided for the purpose of guaranteeing a welded-bonded end to end film assembly for disassembly purposes, page 3-4 of attached English language translation;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kawasaki as taught in Thomasset with an external or internal strip as taught in Thomasset and which can be longitudinally aligned or arranged so as to be matched to be separate from said structural or functional layer of Kawasaki as taught in Thomasset, and all provided for the purpose of guaranteeing a welded-bonded end to end film assembly for disassembly purposes.
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 39: The method according to claim 38, wherein the separating the structural and functional layers is started during the use or after the use of the packaging (as seen in figure 30.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 41: The method according to one of claim 38, wherein the packaging comprises an internal strip (134/135 or 10/12 based on viewpoint perspective) secured to the functional layer (via film layer 133 and adhesive 536, or as modified for the reasons discussed above, via interposed 4/5) such that sealing of the packaging is maintained after the separating the structural and functional layers (from each other as shown and discussed.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 42: The method according to one of claim 38, wherein the external strip (“A” or 10/12) is least partially separated from the structural layer (133 or 4/5 as modified for the reasons discussed above.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 43: The method according to one of claim 38, wherein at least two recyclable pieces of waste (waste piece 501 an waste piece “A” or 10/12) are formed from the separating the packaging (figure 30.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 44: The packaging according to claim 32, wherein the second piece of waste comprises an internal strip (501 or 12 as modified for the reasons discussed above.)
Kawasaki discloses (or as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 45: The packaging according to claim 32, wherein the first piece of waste comprises the external strip (the strip piece of “A” or the external piece 10 as modified for the reasons discussed above) and the second piece of waste (either 501 or 12 as modified above) comprises an internal strip (the parts can be considered strips when detached/deconstructed for disposal.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights