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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed invention must be shown. No new matter should be entered. It is understood that the claimed invention is a method, not an apparatus, and therefore does not directly take physical form. However, the current drawings merely represent results of the method and not the method itself. Because the method involves the use of several physical items, it is recommended to depict the combination of parts used in the method, and/or a flowchart demonstrating the steps of the method(s), thereby providing a sufficient illustration of the claimed invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The term “about” in claims 8, 9, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, 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. Therefore, the ranges in these claims are rendered indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 10-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EU Ecolabel, "Appendix II: test procedure for measuring the residual quantity", pages 1-2 (2014) (Year: 2014) (EU Ecolabel).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, and 17-18: EU Ecolabel teaches a method for measuring an amount of residual product remaining on a plastic product package, the method comprising: a first step of removing substantially all residual product from a plastic product package that has been emptied of product (Section (1) Definition of the indicator describes what constitutes ‘emptiness’); a second step of weighing the plastic product package having the amount of residual product to obtain an initial weight (W1) (Section (2) Measurements: m2); a third step of rinsing the plastic product package having the amount of residual product with a non-polar solvent (Section (2) Measurements: m3 describes a cleaned package); an optional fourth step of drying the plastic product package having the amount of residual product after rinsing with a non-polar solvent (the teaching in Section (1) to take into consideration water remaining in the product from the user implies that this amount is dried away and removed from calculation); and a seventh step of weighing the rinsed and dried plastic product package to obtain a final weight (W2) (Section (2): Measurements: m3); and an eight step of determining the percent residual product weight using the formula: percent residual product weight = ((w1-w2)/w1) x 100% (Section (3) Results).
EU Ecolabel does not directly teach a fifth step of rinsing the plastic product package having the amount of residual product with water and a sixth step of drying the plastic product package having the amount of residual product after rinsing with water for a drying period.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the steps of rinsing and drying because it would increase the cleanliness of the measured package and therefore give a more accurate measurement of the residual product in the package. Duplication of these steps does not require inventive skill.
Claims 10-11 consist of limitations existing in claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 also applies to claim 10 and 11, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 17-18 include limitations relating to the duplication of rinsing and drying steps addressed above. Therefore, this rejection of claim 1 also applies to claims 17-18, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 3 and 4: EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the drying period in the optional fourth step is 10 to 20 minutes (claim 3), nor that the drying period in the sixth step is at least one hour (claim 4).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to find the appropriate range of time for a drying period through routine experimentation based on the situation at hand.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drying time periods to a specific interval. This is important in order to ensure proper package drying without excessively wasting time and delaying measurements.
Regarding claim 12: EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 10 (see above), wherein the plastic product package comprises a fitment and the step of emptying the plastic product package comprises emptying through the fitment and rinsing through the fitment (the section “Normal conditions of use” teaches the removal of product through a cap or tip).
Regarding claim 13: EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 10 (see above), wherein the method further comprises making an opening in the plastic product package and rinsing the plastic product package through the opening (the section “Normal conditions of use” teaches the removal of product through a cap or tip).
Regarding claim 14: EU Ecolabel teaches the method of any one of claims 10-13 (see above), wherein no part of the plastic product package is removed from the plastic product package for the measurement (the variables and calculations in the Results section require that no part of the container is removed, otherwise the calculation would be inaccurate and contrary to the goal of the reference).
Claim(s) 5-9, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EU Ecolabel, "Appendix II: test procedure for measuring the residual quantity", pages 1-2 (2014) (Year: 2014) (EU Ecolabel) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of European Commission, "Commission Decision of 22.10.2021 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for cosmetic products and animal care products", pages 1-2 (2021) (Year: 2021) (European Commission).
Regarding claims 5 and 15: EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 1 (see above) but does not directly teach that the plastic product package comprises a composition qualified for recycling.
However, European Commission teaches that the EU Ecolabel for rinse-off cosmetics would emphasize the use of recyclable materials (point 8, on page 2 of the decision).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the packaging of EU Ecolabel with recyclable materials as described in European Commission. This is because the decision described is for the very designation that is being described in the process of EU Ecolabel. This is important in order to have a limited impact in terms of eco-toxicity and biodegradability.
Claim 15 consists of the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the rejection of claim 5 also applies to claim 15, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Modified EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 5 (see above) but does not directly teach that the composition is qualified for a recycling process directed toward one or more of polyolefin, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester and paper recycling.
However, European Commission teaches on Page 2 in point 8 that products should aim to improve in eco-toxicity and biodegradability. While it does not specifically name materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to find an appropriate material within these guidelines, especially since at least paper is well known to be biodegradable.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recycling process of Modified EU Ecolabel with a specific material within the specifications of European Commission. This is because one of ordinary skill is able to find a material appropriate for the situation at hand within routine experimentation. This is important in order to improve in the areas of eco-toxicity and biodegradability.
Claim 16 consists of the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 also applies to claim 16, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 7: Modified EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 5 (see above) but does not directly teach that the plastic product package comprises a polyethylene-based film.
However, European Commission teaches on Page 2 in point 8 that products should aim to improve in eco-toxicity and biodegradability. While it does not specifically name materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to find an appropriate material within these guidelines, especially since polyethylene is a recyclable material.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recycling process of Modified EU Ecolabel with a specific material within the specifications of European Commission. This is because one of ordinary skill is able to find a material appropriate for the situation at hand within routine experimentation. This is important in order to improve in the areas of eco-toxicity and biodegradability.
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 20: Modified EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 16 (see above), but does not directly teach that the plastic product package is eligible for entry into the recycling program when the percent residual product weight is from 0% to 10.5%, preferably from 0% to 8%.
However, the percent residual product weight is the result of the method. Therefore, a desired range for this result is regarded as an intended result, which is not given patentable weight.
Claims 8 and 9 consist of limitations found in claim 20 (such that combined, they have the same limitations as claim 20). Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 above also applies to claims 8 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: EU Ecolabel teaches the method of claim 10 (see above) and that the aqueous solvent is water (Section 1) Definition of the indicator), but does not teach that the non-polar solvent comprises one of more of pentane, hexane, heptane, or dichloromethane.
The limitation of claim 2 is included in claim 19. Therefore, claim 2 is allowable for the same reasons.
The Examiner has not found any other relevant prior art that sufficiently teach this limitation. Therefore, no prior art, individually or in combination, teaches the limitations of these claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EU Ecolabel, "Briefing: The EU Ecolabel celebrates its 30th birthday! What does the scheme stand for?", pages 9-10 (2022) (Year: 2022) teaches that packing should be minimized, refillable, and recyclable.
US 20210239455 A1 teaches an apparatus, system and method for a consumable sheet-product level monitoring system for association with a sheet-product filled consumable package.
GB 2581724 A teaches a package that includes at least one substantially volumetrically stable, wet consumer product, and a flexible substrate forming a sealed enclosure around the at least one wet consumer product.
US 20190219434 A1 teaches a system for measuring an amount of liquid in an elastic bag, where there is formed in the lower area of the elastic bag a liquid opening for retrieving liquid from the elastic bag.
US 20180178938 A1 teaches a system for forming a product package by online forming, filling and sealing, the system comprising: a sterilization apparatus, a forming apparatus, a conveyor belt, a filling apparatus and a first closing apparatus.
US 20180050829 A1 teaches a method for sealing a flexible package of collapsible type.
WO 2017046134 A1 teaches a method for filling a package with a liquid product. The method comprises the steps of filling said package with a predetermined volume of the liquid product through an opening of the package to a first level in the package, applying a pressure on the package in order to force the liquid product in the package to rise to a second level in the package, and providing the package with a seal at a distance from the second level.
CA 2883317 A1 teaches methods and systems for coordinating and balancing continuous product production, including continuous flow processes such as aseptic sterilization with package filling rate.
JP 2006525203 A teaches a discharge system that includes a discharge member that engages the product package and pressurizes the product package such that the product in the product package moves toward the outlet of the product package for dispensing.
BR 0317603 A teaches a vacuum packaging machine and a conveyor to deliver a product package from an upstream station to a position adjacent a vacuum chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA FITZPATRICK whose telephone number is (703)756-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
/JULIA FITZPATRICK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
