DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 11/4/2025. In particular, claim 24 has been amended to recite that the molten mixture is “characterized as having a viscous melt flow sufficient for injection molding.” Claim 44 is amended to change “unknown” to “other thermoplastic” polymer content.
It is noted that the newly introduced limitations were not present at the time of the preceding action. For this reason, it is proper to make the present action FINAL.
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.
Claims 24-38 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnham et al. (WO 98/08667) (which is cited on the IDS filed by Applicants on 6/29/2021) and further in view of Sander (US 5,514,310) (which is cited on the IDS filed by Applicants on 6/29/2021).
The rejection set forth in paragraphs 20-30 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5/2/2025 is incorporated herein by reference.
With regards to the amendment to claim 24 reciting “characterized as having a viscous melt flow sufficient for injection molding,” Burnham et al. teaches that the polymer is in melt form as it flows through the die and the temperature of the melt is controlled using the die. See page 25, lines 22-25. A polymer in melt form is necessarily of a sufficient viscosity to be injection molded, because it is a melt, i.e. a viscous fluid. The burden is shifted to Applicants to provide factually supported objective evidence showing that the polymer melt of Burnham et al. cannot be injected molded, i.e. does not have a “viscous melt flow sufficient for injection molding.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 44 is 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 closest prior art is that discussed above (1) Burnham et al. (WO 98/08667) and (2) Sander (US 5,514,310), which are discussed in paragraphs 20-30 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5/2/2025, the rejection of which is incorporated herein by reference. Neither Burnham et al. nor Sander teach a specific combination in the waste stream, let alone 10 -90% polyolefin content, 10 – 90% PET content, 1-25% polystyrene content, and 1-50% other thermoplastic polymer by weight, as required by instant claim 44.
Additional close prior art is (3) Mack et al. (US 5,212,223).
Mack et al. teach an extrudable composition comprised of waste polyolefins and a foaming agent (abstract), wherein the waste polyolefins which contains at least 80% by weight polyolefins and up to 20% by weight of one or more other polymeric materials such as PVC; polystyrene; chloro-sulfonated polystyrenes; unmodified, compounded, reinforced, alloys or blends of engineering plastics such as polyamides, polycarbonates, thermoplastic polyesters (PET or PBT), ABS, polyphenylene oxide, and combinations thereof. See col. 3, ln. 10-19 of Mack et al.
Mack et al. fail to teach that the waste polyolefin comprises 10 -90% polyolefin content, 10 – 90% PET content, 1-25% polystyrene content, and 1-50% other thermoplastic polymer by weight, as required by instant claim 44. It would not have been obvious, based on Mack et al. to select the amounts of polyolefin, PET, polystyrene and other thermoplastic polymer as required by instant claim 44.
Response to Arguments
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 11/3/2025 has been approved. The rejection of claims 24-38 and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of US Patent 11,396,584 and further in view of Sander (US 5,514,310) is withdrawn in light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed over 11,396,584.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 with regards to the rejection of the claims over Burnham et al. (WO 98/08667) in view of Sander (US 5,514,310) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Burnham et al. does not disclose injection molding.
This is not persuasive.
The instant claims do not require injection molding. Rather, the claims recite a molten mixture characterized as having a viscous melt flow sufficient for injection molding. The mixture produced in Burnham et al. is a polymer melt. The melt is of a sufficient viscosity that it can be ejected from, i.e. extruded from, a die. It is unclear why the use of a die, precludes a composition from being capable of being injection molding.
The fact that a die used, does not mean the polymer melt of Burnham et al. is not of a sufficient viscosity to be injection molded. The instant specification contains no specific viscosity values to indicate what would be capable of being injection molded and what would not. Thus, a teaching of a polymer melt which is extruded through a die, is capable of also being injected from an injection molding device and is capable of being injection molded. Applicants have provided no evidence which demonstrates the contrary. The fact that a die is used in Burnham et al., is not evidence that the polymer melt is not of a viscous melt flow sufficient for injection molding. The polymer is in melt form, which is extruded, and it is not clear why a melt extruded from a die could not also be injected molded.
For the reasons provided above, Applicant’s argument filed on 11/3/2025 is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7338. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/K. BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766