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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1, 4 are amended.
No claims are canceled.
No claims are newly added.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “wherein seid vlPE is produced in parallel with said vlPP” however claim 1, upon which it depends, now recites using the same extractor, dissolution equipment, settling equipment, purification equipment and solvent separation equipment for PP and PE. In order to be produced in parallel, separate equipment would have to be used. Thus claim 3 improperly widens the scope of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 2, 4-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180171096 by Layman et al (“Layman1”) in view of US 20190322832 by Chen et al is repeated and amended herein to reflect applicant’s amendment.
Layman1 describes a method for purifying reclaimed polymers.
Regarding claim 1, Layman1 describes a method of separating (paragraph 98) and purifying (paragraph 89) a mixed stream, in an embodiment, of contaminated reclaimed polyethylene (crPE) and contaminated reclaimed polypropylene (crPP) (paragraph 62 “mixture of several different polymer compositions…polyethylene and isotactic polypropylene”). Since Layman1 describes purifying polyethylene or polypropylene (paragraph 1), and describes an embodiment where the starting reclaimed polymer is a mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene (paragraph 62), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the method to purify both polypropylene and polyethylene from the mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene. Still, Layman1 does not explicitly describe saving the second stream and recycling the polymer therein.
Chen describes converting plastic waste into useful stock.
Chen states that currently less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled into useful products for two reasons: First, the options for making high-value products using mixed plastic waste are either limited or not cost-effective. Second, sorted plastics could be converted into many useful products, but the costs associated with sorted plastics are high. Furthermore, prices of sorted plastics are mainly due to sorting costs.
Chen describes recovering pristine polymers from a mixture of waste feedstock of different types of plastics (paragraph 12) including PP/PE (paragraph 59, Table 1) by selecting a solvent based on the target pristine plastic (paragraph 11). Chen describes saving the second stream for a “next cycle” and recycling it (paragraph 11, 15, Fig.7c). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to save the second stream in Layman1 for a “next cycle” in order to successfully sort plastic in order that it may be converted into useful products.
Layman1 describes producing a polypropylene-heavy stream or a polyethylene-heavy stream, for example via any extraction method outlined in paragraphs 68-71 or dissolution method outlined in paragraphs 77-79. These achieve virgin-like optical p.roperties (paragraph 55, 60, 105, 160).
Specifically, the steps may comprise:
Extracting the mixed stream of crPE and crPP with a polyethylene extraction solvent in a PE extractor, e.g. of polyethylene with n-butane at a temperature of 130-180C and a pressure of 3000-6000 psig (paragraph 68). At this temperature and pressure the polyethylene remains at least partially solid (paragraph 66; paragraph 76 describes polyethylene partially dissolving at 130-180C and 1000psig to 12000psig). This temperature and pressure range overlaps with that of dissolving polypropylene (listed as 130-180C and 350 psig-4,000psig; paragraph 78).
Notably, Layman1 describes selecting the solvent depending on the polymer mixture that is being purified. The selection of polymer being purified dictates the temperature and pressure ranges used to perform the steps of the invention (paragraph 65). Layman1 describes the starting reclaimed polymer as a mixture of polyethylene and polypropylene in an embodiment (paragraph 62) and states that his invention is particularly useful for the purification of polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph 1). Thus Layman1 provides direction which includes keeping polyethylene at least partially solid in one stream and dissolving polypropylene along with some polyethylene and other contaminants in another.
Regarding the term “PE extractor”, any vessel in which the extraction takes place is a PE extractor. Regarding the “extraction mass ratio of extraction solvent to mixed stream”, since some amount of solvent and mixed stream is present in Layman1 such a mass ratio exists. Regarding the term “nameplate capacity”, any vessel similarly has a capacity, meeting the term.
Regarding the crPE forming two phases and crPP forming one phase: this is a natural extension of the steps outlined by Layman1. Layman1 describes the polyethylene as staying at least partially solid in n-butane at 130-180C and a pressure of 3000-6000 psig (paragraph 68 and 76). The polyethylene that does not stay solid (paragraph 76) forms a second crPE phase; Layman1 describes polypropylene as dissolving in n-butane in temperature/pressure ranges overlapping with 130-180C and a pressure of 3000-6000 psig (paragraph 78).
Thus Layman1’s mixed stream of crPP and crPE separates into (a) a PE-light stream comprising crPP and a low molecular weight fraction of crPE soluble in the solvent conditions and extractable contamination (paragraph 66) (b) a PE-heavy stream comprising solid crPE minus the low molecular weight fraction crPE which has dissolved.
According to the instant specification Fig.1, a pressure between 1000-4000psig at 120C or a pressure between 2000-45000psig at 180C is between the cloud point pressures of PP and PE. These are within ranges disclosed by Layman1 and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Layman1 describes dissolving the solid PE (PE-heavy) stream in a PE dissolution solvent at a temperature and pressure wherein the polyethylene is dissolved at a mass percent concentration of at least 1% (paragraph 76, 77). The temperature is between 90-200C (paragraph 76) or 100 to 200C (paragraph 77) depending on the solvent. In n-butane the pressure is between 4000-10000psig in an embodiment (paragraph 76), and the cloud point of PE is instantly described as 4000-4500 psig in the temperature range of 120-180C (instant Fig.1). Since Layman1 describes values overlapping with values above the cloud point, the values claimed are obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Layman1 describes removing undissolved contaminants from a polymeric solution (paragraph 82, 83), and describes the dissolved polymer as containing suspended contaminants (abstract).
Regarding the “dissolution equipment” and “nameplate capacity”, Layman1’s dissolution step must happen on some equipment with some capacity, meeting these terms.
Layman1 describes settling the polyethylene suspension in n-butane at 90-220C and 1000-12000psig (paragraph 83). The cloud point of PE is instantly described as 4000-4500 psig in the temperature range of 120-180C (instant Fig.1). Since Layman1 describes settling pressure overlapping with values above the cloud point, the settling pressure claimed is obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding the terms “PE settling equipment” and “second PE suspension”, Layman1’s process must take place on a piece of equipment and produce a second suspension, meeting these terms.
Layman1 describes purifying the second PE suspension on solid media (purification equipment) at 90-220C and 1000-12000 psig, with narrower ranges preferred (paragraph 92). The cloud point of PE is instantly described as 4000-4500 psig in the temperature range of 120-180C (instant Fig.1). Since Layman1 describes purifying pressure overlapping with values above the cloud point, the purifying pressure claimed is obvious to one of ordinary skill. Layman1 describes the purification process as removing contaminants (paragraph 89), thus creating a third purer PE suspension.
Layman1 describes separating the purer polyethylene from the fluid solvent (paragraph 98, 99) to create a virgin-like polymer (paragraph 60).
Layman1 describes recovering polypropylene via contacting the polypropylene composition with a fluid solvent at a temperature and pressure at which the polypropylene is mostly solid (paragraph 66). Layman1 describes an embodiment including contacting polypropylene with n-butane at 80-220C and 150-3000psig (paragraph 70) in n-butane, which creates a fluid phase in addition to the polypropylene solid phase. According to the instant specification Fig.1, at 120C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 900 psig and at 200C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 2400psig. Since Layman1 describes extraction pressure values overlapping with values below the cloud point, the extraction pressure claimed is obvious to one of ordinary skill.
The composition of the two phases outlined in the instant claims flow naturally from the conditions outlined by Layman1. Layman1’s temperature and pressure at which the polypropylene is mostly solid in a solvent creates a solvent phase containing contaminants and low molecular weight polypropylene.
Layman1 describes dissolving the polypropylene after extraction (abstract, paragraph 74, 78). Layman1 describes a polypropylene dissolution temperature of 90-220C and pressure of 350-4000psig (paragraph 78), arriving at a polypropylene dissolution mass percent concentration of at least 1% (paragraph 77). According to the instant specification Fig.1, at 120C in n-butane the cloud point of polypropylene is about 900 psig and at 200C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 2400psig. Since Layman1 describes dissolution pressure values above the cloud point, the claimed dissolution pressure is obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Layman1 describes removing undissolved contaminants from a polymeric solution (paragraph 82, 83), and describes the dissolved polymer as containing suspended contaminants (abstract).
Regarding the “dissolution equipment” and “nameplate capacity”, Layman1’s dissolution step must happen on some equipment with some capacity, meeting these terms.
After dissolving the polymer Layman1 describes settling the suspension (paragraphs 19-20). Layman1 describes settling the polypropylene suspension in n-butane (solvent) at 90-220C and 350-4000 psi (paragraph 85). According to the instant specification Fig.1, at 120C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 900 psig and at 200C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 2400psig. Since Layman1 describes settling pressures above the cloud point, the claimed settling pressure is obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding the terms “PP settling equipment” and “nameplate capacity”, Layman1’s technique must take place on some equipment with some capacity, meeting these terms.
After the settling step Layman1 describes purifying the second suspension (paragraph 20, 21). Layman1 describes purifying polypropylene by contacting the polymer solution with solid media (paragraph 89). Layman1 describes polypropylene in n-butane solvent at 90-220C and 350-4000 psig (paragraph 94). According to the instant specification Fig.1, at 120C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 900 psig and at 200C the cloud point of polypropylene is about 2400psig. Since Layman1 describes purifying pressures above the cloud point, the claimed purifying pressure is obvious to one of ordinary skill. The solution after purification is purer because the step removes contaminants (paragraph 89).
Layman1 describes separating the polypropylene dissolution solvent from the purified suspension (paragraph 98, 101) to create a virgin-like polypropylene (paragraph 60).
Regarding the overlapping ranges of temperature and pressure above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed ranges because Layman1 describes values overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding the stipulation that the PE extraction solvent, the PE dissolution solvent, the PP extraction solvent and the PP dissolution solvent be the same, Layman1 describes such a situation; see examples cited above in which n-butane is the solvent for PE extraction in step a), the solvent for PE dissolution in step b), the PP extraction solvent in step f) and the PP dissolution solvent in step g).
Regarding the new stipulation that the extractors, dissolution equipment, settling equipment, purification equipment, and solvent separation equipment is the same for PP and PE- Layman1 discloses using the same apparatus for different procedures -Example 2 and Example 3 both use “the apparatus shown in Fig.3A and Fig.3B”(paragraph 144, 165)- thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the same extractor, settling equipment, purification equipment, and separation equipment for different batches, i.e. a polyethylene-heavy and a polyethylene-light stream.
Regarding claim 2, the polyethylene and polypropylene is described as post-consumer, post-industrial, post-commercial or mixtures (“and/or”) (paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 4, given that Layman1 describes purifying polypropylene and polyethylene, it is obvious when faced with Layman1’s described mixture of polypropylene and polyethylene (paragraph 62) to recover one from another- see also Chen reference in rejection of claim 1 above. Chen describes recovering pristine polymers from a mixture of waste feedstock of different types of plastics (paragraph 12) including PP/PE (paragraph 59, Table 1) by selecting a solvent based on the target pristine plastic (paragraph 11). Chen describes saving the second stream for a “next cycle” and recycling it (paragraph 11, 15, Fig.7c). ). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to save the second stream in Layman1 for a “next cycle” in order to successfully sort plastic in order that it may be converted into useful products.
In such a scenario, there are two options: recover PE from PP or recover PP from PE. Both are obvious to one of ordinary skill, making the choice of producing vlPE first and thus initially collecting the PE light stream (PP-containing) one of two obvious options.
Regarding claim 5, Layman1 describes the same range for PE dissolution, settling and purification pressure (paragraph 76, 83, 92) and the same range for PP dissolution, settling and purification pressure (paragraph 78, 85, 94). Further, Layman1 exemplifies the same pressure for the three steps (paragraph 154-157, 176-178).
Regarding claim 6, Layman1 describes the same range for PE dissolution, settling and purification temperature (paragraph 76, 83, 92) and the same range for PP dissolution, settling and purification temperature (paragraph 78, 85, 94). Further, Layman1 exemplifies the same temperature for the three steps (paragraph 154-157, 176-178).
Regarding claim 7, Layman1 describes n-butane solvent for PE extraction and dissolution as well as PP extraction and dissolution (paragraph 68, 76; 70, 78). Layman1 describes a preferred range for PP and PE extraction of 100-200C (paragraph 68-70). Layman1 describes PE extraction pressure of preferably 150-6500 psig (paragraph 68). Layman1 describes the PE dissolution, settling and purification pressure is preferably 4000-6000 psig (paragraph 76, 83, 92). Layman1 describes the PP extraction pressure as 150-3000 psig (paragraph 70). Layman1 describes the PP dissolution, settling and purification pressure as 350-4000 psig, preferably 1000-3500 psig (paragraph 78, 85, 94).
Regarding claim 8, Layman1 describes the PE extraction, dissolution, settling temperature and purification temperature as preferably between 130-180C (paragraph 68, 76, 83, 92). The PP extraction temperature is also preferably 130-180C (paragraph 70). This encompasses the claimed value, rendering it obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Layman1 describes the PP extraction, dissolution, settling and purification pressure as 1000-2700 psig (paragraph 70) or 1000-3500 psig (paragraph 78, 85, 94). This encompasses the clamed value, rendering it obvious.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Layman1 describes the PE extraction and dissolution solvent and PP extraction and dissolution solvent as n-butane (paragraph 68, 70, 76, 78). The PE extraction, dissolution and settling temperature and PE purification temperature encompass 160C and 140C (paragraph 68, 70, 76, 83, 92). The PE extraction pressure is 150-6500 psig, preferably 3000-6000 psig (paragraph 68), encompassing the claimed values. The PE dissolution, settling and purification pressure is preferably 4000-6000 psig (paragraph 76, 83, 92), encompassing the claimed values. The PP extraction value encompasses the claimed values (paragraph 70). The PP dissolution, settling and purification temperature are preferably 100-200C, encompassing the claimed values (paragraph 78, 85, 94). The PP extraction, dissolution, settling and purification pressure are 150-3000 psig, preferably 1000-2750 psig (extraction paragraph 70) and preferably 1000-3500 psig (paragraph 78, 85, 94), encompassing the claimed values.
Regarding the values of temperature and pressure above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed ranges because Layman1 describes values overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 12-14, Layman1 exemplifies the PE extraction and dissolution solvent and PP extraction and dissolution solvent as n-butane (paragraph 68, 70, 76, 78) but describes n-pentane as a related alternative to n-butane (paragraph 64). Layman1 describes conditions in the related n-butane solvent as: PE and PP extraction temperature as 80-220C (paragraph 68, 70). The PE extraction pressure is 150-6500 psig (paragraph 68). The PE dissolution, settling and purification pressure are preferably 2000-10000 psig (paragraph 76, 83, 92). The PP extraction pressure is 150-3000 psig (paragraph 70). The PP dissolution, settling and purification pressure are 350-4000 psig (paragraph 78, 85, 94).
In addition for claim 14, the PE dissolution, settling and purification temperature is preferably 130-180C (paragraph 76, 83, 92). The PE extraction, dissolution, settling and purification pressure are 150-6500 psig (paragraph 68) or 1000-12000 psig (paragraph 76, 83, 92). The PP dissolution, settling and purification temperature is preferably 130-180C (paragraph 78, 85, 94).
Regarding the values of temperature and pressure above, which overlap or encompass the claimed values: in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed ranges because Layman1 describes values overlapping with the claimed ranges. It is obvious to choose ranges from n-butane examples since Layman1 describes n-pentane as related to n-butane.
Regarding claim 15, Layman1 describes inorganic and carbon-based solid media and mixtures (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 16, Layman1 describes silica, alumina, iron oxide, aluminum silicate, amorphous volcanic glass and mixtures (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 17, Layman1 exemplifies activated alumina (paragraph 157).
Regarding claim 18, Layman1 describes anthracite coal, carbon black, coke, activated carbon and cellulose and mixtures (paragraph 32).
The rejection in the previous action of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180171096 by Layman1 et al in view of US 20190322832 by Chen et al in further view of “Benefits of Parallel Processing” posted by Baumber is repeated and maintained herein.
Layman1 is described above.
Regarding claim 3, Layman1 is silent as to producing the vlPE in parallel with vlPP.
Matcon describes parallel processing.
Matcon states that separating manufacturing stages creates the potential for multiple processes to take place simultaneously, allowing manufacturers to produce more than one batch or different recipe batches at any given time (p.3 paragraph 2) instead of restricting production line capacity as in traditional coupled systems (p.2 paragraph 1). Thus it would be obvious to produce vlPE in parallel with vlPP in order to simultaneously produce the batches and not restrict production capacity.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180171096 by Layman et al (“Layman1”) in view of US 20190322832 by Chen et al in further view of US 20190390033 by Layman et al (“Layman2”) is repeated and maintained herein.
Layman1 is described above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Layman1 broadly describes the purification step as contacting the polymer solution with solid media by absorption, adsorption, size-exclusion, ion exclusion, ion exchange (paragraph 89) but is silent as to the specific apparatus of solid media besides “solid media column” in examples and figures (paragraph 157, Fig.3B).
Layman2 describes a method for purifying reclaimed polymers.
Layman2 describes a similar process to Layman1 involving extracting and dissolving a reclaimed polymer followed by sedimentation and filtration/purification (Layman2 abstract). Like Layman1, Layman2’s process is specifically aimed at polypropylene and polyethylene to achieve virgin-like polymers (Layman2 paragraph 1). The mechanism of contaminant removal in by contacting the polymer solution with solid media in Layman2 is the same as Layman1 (Layman2 paragraph 117; Layman1 paragraph 89).
For claim 19 Layman2 describes an embodiment of axial flow filters to contain the solid media (paragraph 120).
For claim 20 Layman2 describes an embodiment of candle filters to contain the solid media (paragraph 96, 106, 120).
The filters in Layman2 contain the same kind of solid media that Layman1 describes (Layman2 paragraph 102; Layman1 paragraph 31, 32).
Layman2 describes his invention as producing a colorless or clear, odor-free, virgin-like polymer (Layman2 paragraph 1), which is the same goal as Layman1 (Layman1 paragraph 1). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt the filters described in Layman2 where Layman1 is silent in order to achieve the stated goal of producing a colorless or clear, odor-free, virgin-like polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.1 final paragraph of Remarks submitted 12/18/25 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that neither Layman nor Chen expressly teach or disclose a reason to modify to arrive at an invention wherein all the PE and PP equipment are the same. This is not found convincing because Layman1 describes using the same equipment for both PE and PP process. See rejection of claim 1 above. The Office’s position is not one of mere conclusory statement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766