DETAILED ACTION
Non 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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 33 recites the limitation "the internal strip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 34-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawasaki (WO 2021/182519);
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki as applied to claim 23 and 32 above.
Kawasaki discloses in claim 23: Recyclable packaging (541 figures 23-25, 30) comprising parts (139, 137, 132, 536b, 133, 134, 135) assembled to one another so as to form said 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), said interface (536a) making it possible to ensure sufficient adhesion between said structural and functional layers to maintain the 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 they can be recycled in their appropriate recycling channels after they have been separated (as discussed in the second embodiment, or ph 216) wherein at least a part of the packaging comprises 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) in such a way that the external strip is used to facilitate the separation between the structural layer (133) and the functional layer (132) of said part.
Kawasaki discloses in claim 24: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein said parts of the packaging comprise a tubular body (5100/6100) and/or (the use of and/or indicates an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) additional parts (602/611.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 25: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein said additional parts comprise a head and/or a base and/or a cap (602/611.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 26: 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).
Kawasaki discloses in claim 27: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein the external strip (132 paper paper) is made of the first type of material.
Kawasaki discloses in claim 28: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein the first type of material is based on cellulose (paper is cellulose.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 29: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein at least a part of the packaging comprises an internal strip (134/135) secured to the functional layer (via film layer 133 and adhesive 536), said internal strip making it possible to keep the packaging sealed after separation of the structural and functional layers (from each other as shown…)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 30: 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 in claim 31: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein the second type of material is based on polyethylene, and/or based on polypropylene (133 is polypropylene) and/or based on bio-based and/or biodegradable resin.
Kawasaki discloses in claim 32: Packaging according to claim 23, said packaging forming, after separation, two recyclable pieces of waste comprising a first piece of waste (501) comprising at least one structural layer (133) and a second piece of waste (“A”) comprising at least one functional layer (132).
Kawasaki discloses in claim 33: Packaging according to claim 32, wherein the [second] piece of waste comprises the external strip and/or the [first] piece of waste comprises the internal strip; Kawasaki does not disclose: the external strip is the first piece of waste, the internal strip as the second piece of waste, but considering one of ordinary skill in the packaging art would consider: the reversibility of parts when ordering disposability of parts as a routine and obvious matter of design choice;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to arrange Kawasaki so that the external strip can be the first piece of waste and the internal strip can be the second piece of waste (i.e. by ordering the disposal thereof) especially considering that placement or rearrangement of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Kawasaki discloses in claim 34: Packaging according to claim 23, wherein the structural layer (132/137/139) is monolayer or multilayer and the functional layer (501 is inclusive of 133/134/135) is monolayer or multilayer.
Kawasaki discloses in claim 35: Packaging according to claim 23, 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 in claim 36: Packaging according to claim 23, 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 in claim 37: Packaging according to claim 23, 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]… Method for recycling packaging (541 figures 23-25, 30) comprising parts (139, 137, 132, 536b, 133, 134, 135) assembled to one another so as to form said 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), said interface (536a) making it possible to ensure sufficient adhesion between said structural and functional layers to maintain the integrity of the packaging during its use thereof, in which method the structural and functional layers are separated at their peelable interface (as 536a is interposed there between, and easily peelable to separate the body) in such a way that they can be recycled in their appropriate recycling channel after they have been separated (as discussed in the second embodiment, or ph 216).
Kawasaki discloses in claim 39: Method according to claim 38, wherein separation of the layers is started during the use or after the use of the packaging (as seen in figure 30.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 40: Method according to claim 38, wherein the packaging comprises 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 a structural layer (133 film layer) by a peelable interface (from 507) in such a way that the external strip is used to facilitate the separation between the structural layer (133) and the functional layer (132) at the peelable interface.
Kawasaki discloses in claim 41: Method according to one of claim 38, wherein the packaging comprises an internal strip (134/135) secured to the functional layer (via film layer 133 and adhesive 536) in such a way that sealing of the packaging is maintained after separation of the structural and functional layers (from each other as shown.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 42: Method according to one of claim 38, wherein the external strip (“A”) is least partially separated from the structural layer (133.)
Kawasaki discloses in claim 43: Method according to one of claim 38, wherein at least two recyclable pieces of waste (waste piece 501 an waste piece “A”) are formed from the packaging by separation (figure 30.)
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 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