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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 07/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This application is a CON of 18/980,817 filed on 12/13/2024 now PAT 12,373,662 which is a CON of PCT/CA2023/051457 filed on 11/01/2023 which has PRO 63/421,700 11/02/2022.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,662. (hereinafter referred as '662) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims are expressly found in the claimed application. For instance, claim 1 of the present application recites the following limitations:
A method of manufacturing a plastic article, the method comprising: obtaining input material suitable for manufacturing the plastic article and for which tracing information is known; forming the plastic article from the input material; generating a computer-readable matrix barcode scannable to display the tracing information; associating the computer-readable matrix barcode with a web landing page that displays the tracing information; and providing the computer-readable matrix barcode on a surface of the plastic article.
Whereas claim 1 of '281 application, the applicant claims:
A method of manufacturing a plastic article, the method comprising: obtaining input material suitable for manufacturing the plastic article and for which tracing information is known; forming the plastic article from the input material; generating a computer-readable matrix barcode scannable to display the tracing information; associating the computer-readable matrix barcode scannable with a web landing page that displays the tracing information; and providing the computer-readable matrix barcode on a surface of the plastic article, wherein the input material comprises a first ingredient and at least a second ingredient, the tracing information comprises first tracing information for the first ingredient and second tracing information for the second ingredient.
The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of '662 patent and differ only by terminology. To the extent that the present claims are generic to the claimed invention of '662 patent, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the application term by prohibiting claims in a second application not patentably distinct from claims of a first application. In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
Claim 2 limitations are enclosed in claim 1 of '662 patent.
Claims 3-10 recite exact limitations as of claim 2-9 of '662 patent respectively.
Claim 11 is rejected under double patent in view of claim 10 of '662 patent.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under double patent in view of '662 patent as being dependent of claim 11.
Claim 18 is rejected under double patent in view of claim 10 of '662 patent.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under double patent in view of '662 patent as being dependent of claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-12, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brian et al. (US 2021/0182801) in view of Wu et al. (US 2017/0349343).
Re Claims 1, 10, 11-12 and 18: O’Brien et al. {hereinafter referred as “O’Brien”} teaches plastic articles made from the segregation and purification of biomedical waste plastics, which includes obtaining input material suitable for manufacturing the plastic article and for which tracing information {herein a tracing element used in re-manufactured plastic articles} is known (¶ 12+); forming the plastic article {herein purify plastic waste streams for the purpose of recycling medical plastics to form plastic articles} from the input material: generating a computer-readable matrix barcode scannable to display the tracing information (¶ 17+, 27+); and providing the computer-readable matrix barcode {herein the waste tracking system may utilize unique barcodes or Quick Response (QR) codes as identifiers for waste receptacles} on a surface of the plastic article (¶ 66-74+).
O’Brien also teaches an electronic control device communicatively coupled to the barcode applicator, the electronic control device {herein “processor” or “processing device” refer to hardware within an electronic device that is capable of executing a programmed function} having one or more computer processors configured to collectively (¶ 46+).
O’Brien fails to specifically teach associating the computer-readable matrix barcode with a web landing page that displays the tracing information.
Wu et al. teaches bottle cap with identification code, wherein associating the computer-readable matrix barcode with a web landing page that displays the tracing information (¶ 87-96+).
In view of Wu et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to employ into the teachings of O’Brien associating the computer-readable matrix barcode with a web landing page that displays the tracing information so as to enable an automatically link to a specific website upon scanning the barcode. Such modification would be beneficial for providing all pertinent information regarding the article including audio, video and/or manufacturing process.
Re Claim 4: O’Brien as modified by Wu et al. teaches system and method, wherein said forming the plastic article comprises thermoforming {herein O’Brien teaches processing of the raw material can include melting, extrusion (step 120) or molding to create a plastic article} the plastic article, and wherein the method preferably further comprises extruding a plastic sheet made from the input material before said thermoforming the plastic article (¶ 102-109+).
Re Claims 5, 17 and 19: O’Brien as modified by Wu et al. teaches system and method, wherein the computer-readable matrix barcode is a quick response (QR) code 704 (¶ 66-74+).
Re Claim 7: O’Brien as modified by Wu et al. teaches system and method, further comprising generating a revised computer-readable matrix barcode in response to a change in the input material, wherein preferably the change in the input material comprises at least one of a composition change, a source change, and a proportion change for at least one ingredient of the input material (¶ 84+).
Re Claim 8: O’Brien as modified by Wu et al. teaches system and method, further comprising, after said providing the computer- readable matrix barcode on the surface of the plastic article, stacking the plastic article onto another plastic article manufactured by the method immediately prior thereto (¶ 68+).
Re Claim 9: O’Brien as modified by Wu et al. teaches system and method, wherein said forming the plastic article occurs after said generating the computer-readable matrix barcode, and preferably wherein said providing the computer-readable matrix barcode on the surface of the plastic article takes place within 1 minute of completion of said forming the plastic article (¶ 68+).
Re Claim 15: O’Brien as modified by Wu et al. teaches system and method, wherein the barcode applicator is positioned upstream of an article stacking operation (¶ 68+).
Claim(s) 6, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (US 2021/0182801) as modified by Wu et al. (US 2017/0349343) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2019/0306385).
The teachings of O’Brien et al. as modified by Wu et al. have been discussed above.
O’Brien et al. as modified by Wu et al. fails to specifically teach providing the computer-readable matrix barcode comprises using a laser to etch the computer-readable matrix barcode on the surface of the plastic article.
Sharma et al. teaches concerning digital marking and reading of plastic items, useful in recycling, wherein providing the computer-readable matrix barcode comprises using a laser to etch the computer-readable matrix barcode on the surface of the plastic article (¶ 65+).
In view of Wu et al.’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to employ into the teachings of O’Brien providing the computer-readable matrix barcode comprises using a laser to etch the computer-readable matrix barcode on the surface of the plastic article so as to imprint the identifier/barcode onto the plastic article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are 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: the prior art of record fails to specifically teach:
Re Claim 2: the input material comprises a first ingredient and at least a second ingredient, the tracing information comprises first tracing information for the first ingredient and second tracing information for the second ingredient;
Re Claim 13: the one of more computer processors are configured to collectively generate a revised computer-readable matrix barcode in response to a change in the input material, and wherein preferably the change in the input material comprises at least one of a composition change, a source change, and a proportion change for at least one of the one or more ingredients. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wolff et al. (US 2010/0185506) teaches system and method used in the operation of a recycling enterprise.
Bloom (US 2002/0130065) teaches method and apparatus for efficient packet delivery and storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876