DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 16-30, 32-35 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 16-23, 25-30, 32-35 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 24 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 1-15, 31 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (a)(i) and (b)(i) and (c)(i) in the reply filed on 09/23/2025is acknowledged.
Species (a)(ii)-(a)(iii) and (b)(ii)-(b)(iii) and (c)(ii) is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/23/2025.
Claim(s) 24 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/23/2025.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous Office Action mailed 08/29/2024 have been withdrawn in view of the Specification Amendments filed 04/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, (regarding new matter) in the previous Office Action mailed 08/29/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 04/02/2025.
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 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the previous Office Action mailed 08/29/2024 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed on 04/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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.
Claims 16-23, 25-30, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
GILBERT (US 2007/0243362),
in view of DE 10343964 (HAUER-DE ‘964),
and in view of SUZUKI (US 2002/0099135),
and in view of RICKETTS ET AL (US 2011/0084148).
GILBERT ‘362 discloses plastic cards (e.g., transaction or credit cards, information cards, identification cards, etc.) formed from plastic card stock containing at least one layer containing recycled scrap (and/or post-consumer) polymeric material (e.g., polyolefins, etc.), wherein the recycled polymeric material can contain recycled material and optionally virgin material from a single family of polymeric materials. The plastic card stock is produced by:
• providing a recycled plastic material, which has been processed into a recycled polymeric material suitable for use in the manufacture of a plastic card;
• forming the recycled plastic material into a sheet material containing at least one layer containing recycled polymeric material (e.g., using calendaring, extrusion, co-extrusion, etc.);
wherein the resulting plastic card stock or plastic cards can comprise:
• multiple layers containing one or more layers containing the recycled polymeric material which is optionally blended with virgin polymeric material (e.g., a core layer) in combination of veneer and/or overlay on one or both sides of the core layer, wherein the veneer(s) and/or overlay(s) can contain virgin material.
The plastic card stock or resulting plastic cards are optionally:
(i) post-processed with printing, marking, hot stamping, personalization (e.g., applying names and/or numbers to the card surface and/or encoding a magnetic strip on the card), embossing, punching, and/or scoring; etc.); and/or
(ii) contain an information storage device (e.g., magnetic strip, IC chips, etc.).
(entire document, e.g., Figure 2-9, etc.; paragraph 0001-0003, 0010, 0014-0021, 0037-0041, 0043-0046, 0048-0070, 0077-0085, 0087-0088, 0091, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss the modification of recycled plastic materials with thermoplastic elastomers.
HAUER-DE ‘964 discloses that it is well known in the art to produce recycled plastic material using a method comprising:
(a) providing raw recycled polyolefin material (e.g., recycled polyethylene, recycled polypropylene, etc.) which has been shredded and washed;
(b) modifying the recycled polyolefin material with known additives (e.g., but not limited to, fillers, colorants, peroxides, etc.);
(c) modifying the recycled polyolefin material with a mediator (e.g., thermoplastic elastomers, polyolefin elastomers, etc.), wherein the mediator is preferably used in amounts of up to 10 wt%;
in order to produce a homogeneous product with controlled melt flow rate properties, good processing characteristics, and good mechanical (e.g., elongation at break, impact strength, etc.) and/or thermal properties which can be used in place of new (i.e., virgin) polyolefin materials. (paragraph 0001, 0003-0005, 0010-0011, 0013-0016, etc.)
SUZUKI ‘135 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize olefin-group rubber (corresponding to the recited “thermoplastic olefin elastomer”) compatibilizers / recycle aid agents in compositions containing recycled polyolefin-group resins because the presence of the same or similar monomer units (e.g., ethylene, propylene, other olefin groups, etc.) results in similar solubility parameters in the olefin-group rubber compatibilizers / recycle aid agents and the recycled polyolefin-group resins, which in turn generally results in good compatibility between the olefin-group rubber compatibilizers / recycle aid agents and the recycled polyolefin-group resins. (paragraph 0027-0032, 0040-0047, 0074, etc.)
RICKETTS ET AL ‘148 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate additives (e.g., fillers, pigments such as opacifying pigments, etc.) into recycled polymeric material in order to provide the desired performance properties (e.g., durability; impact strength; heat stability; visual appearance; transparency (or semi-opacity or opaqueness); etc.). (paragraph 0014, 0021, 0023-0029, 0036, 0042-0043, etc.)
Regarding claims 16-17, 19-23, 25-30, 34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a known method of improving and/or enhancing the processing characteristics and/or performance properties of recycled plastic materials via the use of thermoplastic elastomeric additives as disclosed in HAUER-DE ‘964 to prepare the recycled polymeric material used to make the recycled plastic card stock of GILBERT ‘362 in order to produce plastic cards from recycled materials with performance properties comparable to cards made from only virgin materials.
Further regarding claims 16-17, 33, one of ordinary skill in the art would have maximized the purity of the raw recycled plastic material modified in the recycled polymeric material preparation method disclosed in HAUER-DE ‘964 in order to minimize undesirable contamination that can negatively and/or unpredictably affect performance properties (e.g., visual appearance, processing characteristics, durability, mechanical properties, etc.)
Further regarding claims 16-17, 33, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of known functional additives as suggested in RICKETTS ET AL ‘148 in the recycled polymeric material used to make the recycled plastic card stock of GILBERT ‘362 in order to tailor various performance properties (e.g., visual appearance, processing characteristics, durability, mechanical properties, etc.) for specific applications.
Regarding claim 18, 32-33, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known, commercially available thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers (e.g., having a block structure and/or containing hard and soft segments) as the mediator in the recycled polymeric material preparation method disclosed in HAUER-DE ‘964 in order to produce recycled polymeric materials with performance properties and processing characteristics comparable to new (i.e., virgin) polymeric materials which can be used known recycled material applications such as the plastic card stock and plastic cards of GILBERT ‘362, wherein the thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers desirably have repeat units (e.g., olefin-group repeat units) which are the same as (or similar to) to the recycled polymeric material (e.g., polyolefin) of the recycled plastic card stock of GILBERT ‘362 in order to provide enhanced compatibility between the mediator (or compatibilizer or recycle aid) and the recycled polyolefin resin (as suggested in SUZUKI ‘135).
Regarding claims 22-23, 27, one of ordinary skill in the art would have: (i) selected the amount of recycled polymeric material forming the core layer of a multilayered recycled plastic card stock in accordance with GILBERT ‘362 depending on the performance properties (e.g., visual appearance, mechanical properties, etc.) required for specific applications; and (ii) utilized virgin polymeric materials or recycled polymeric materials with low recycled material content in the outward-facing veneer(s) and/or overlay layers in a multilayered recycled plastic card stock in accordance with GILBERT ‘362 in order to obtain enhanced performance properties (e.g., better visual appearance, better mechanical properties, better abrasion resistance, better chemical resistance, etc.) in surface layers; wherein the use of relatively large amounts of recycled polymeric materials in interior layers and the use of smaller (or zero) amounts of recycled polymeric materials in exterior layers allows for the production of plastic cards with excellent surface properties while minimizing the overall amount of virgin material utilized.
Regarding claim 25, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the amount of recycled polymeric material forming a single-layer recycled plastic card stock depending on the specific performance properties (e.g., visual appearance, mechanical properties, etc.) for specific applications.
Regarding claim 26, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known and/or conventional coextrusion techniques to form a multilayered recycled plastic card stock in accordance with GILBERT ‘362.
Regarding claims 28-30, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated elements conventionally used in plastic or data cards (e.g., security features, IC chips, etc.) in plastic cards produced from the recycled plastic card stock of GILBERT ‘362 in order to provide conventional card features (e.g., tamper-resistance, data storage, etc.).
Regarding claim 34, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known additives (e.g., pigments, cavitating agents, etc.) in order to control the opacity of recycled plastic card stock in order to obtain the desired aesthetic and/or optical effects for specific card applications.
Regarding claim 35, one of ordinary skill in the art would have mixed different types of additives (e.g., fillers, pigments, etc. as suggested in RICKETTS ET AL ‘148; the thermoplastic elastomeric additives as suggested in HAUER-DE ‘964) in separate blending or compounding stages (e.g., separate compounding operations; different mixing zones in an extruder, etc.), in order to allow for conveniently optimized mixing and blending conditions (e.g., mixing time, temperature, shear rates, etc.) tailored for specific additives (e.g., to ensure uniform dispersion of physically and/or chemically different additives; etc.).
Further regarding claim 35, one of ordinary skill in the art would have compounded the relatively less heat-sensitive additives (e.g., inorganic fillers, pigments, stabilizers, etc. as suggested in RICKETTS ET AL ‘148) into the recycled polymeric material used to make the recycled plastic card stock of GILBERT ‘362 prior to compounding relatively more heat-sensitive additives (e.g., the thermoplastic elastomeric additives as suggested in HAUER-DE ‘964) in order to minimize thermal damage and/or degradation of the more heat-sensitive additives (e.g., the thermoplastic elastomeric additives as suggested in HAUER-DE ‘964).
Claims 18, 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
GILBERT (US 2007/0243362), in view of DE 10343964 (HAUER-DE ‘964), and in view of RICKETTS ET AL (US 2011/0084148),
as applied to claims 16-34 as applied above,
and further in view of OVERVIEW OF THERMOPLASTIC OLEFINIC ELASTOMERS (TPOs),
and further in view of BRACHMAN (US 4,229,504).
OVERVIEW OF THERMOPLASTIC OLEFINIC ELASTOMERS (TPOs) discloses that it is well known in the art that thermoplastic olefinic elastomers (TPOs) typically contain: (i) hard segments of polypropylene, polyethylene, or other polyolefin; and (ii) soft segments of ethylene propylene rubber (e.g., EPM; EPDM (ethylene-propylene-diene monomer); etc.). (page 1)
BRACHMAN ‘504 discloses that it is well known in the art that thermoplastic elastomers with break elongation values of greater than 200% are useful for providing polyolefin resin compositions with improved impact resistance and/or impact strength. (line 12-15, col. 3; etc.)
Regarding claims 18, 32-33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known and/or commercially available thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers (e.g., having a block structure and/or containing hard and soft segments, as evidenced in OVERVIEW OF THERMOPLASTIC OLEFINIC ELASTOMERS (TPOs)) as the mediator in the recycled polymeric material preparation method disclosed in HAUER-DE ‘964 in order to produce recycled polymeric materials with performance properties and processing characteristics comparable to new (i.e., virgin) polymeric materials which can be used known recycled material applications such as the plastic card stock and plastic cards of GILBERT ‘362.
Further regarding claims 18, 32-34, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized known and/or commercially available thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers with elongation at break values of more than 200% as the mediator in the recycled polymeric material preparation method disclosed in HAUER-DE ‘964 in order to provide the recycled polymeric materials used to produce plastic card stock and plastic cards of GILBERT ‘362 with at least some degree of improved impact resistance and/or impact strength (as suggested in BRACHMAN ‘504).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/02/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by: (i) the Claim Amendments filed 04/02/205; and (ii) the Response to the Election of Species Requirement filed 09/25/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SUZUKI (US 2004/0126607) and SUZUKI (US 2002/0103267) disclose the use of compatibilizer / recycle aid agents containing same or similar repeat units and/or the use of compatible rubber-like materials in recycled thermoplastic resin compositions.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
January 15, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787