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 amendments/arguments & TD filed on 04/10/2026
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 Lee et al. (US 2022/0058458).
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+).
Lee et al. teaches method and system of tracking & tracing for supply chain by the use of barcode and peer review, wherein associating the computer-readable matrix barcode with a web landing page {herein Lee et al. teaches that the SmartBarcode may include information on a web address, and may include one or more links to different information} that displays the tracing information (¶ 29-34+).
In view of Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee 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 Lee et al. (US 2022/0058458) 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 Lee 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 Sharma 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farmer et al. (US 2010/0106660) teaches method and system for readily accessing commodity information.
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
Prosecution Insights