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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/25 has been entered.
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) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg,Jr et al (USP 2013/0221572) in view of RoHS Substances in mixed plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (submitted with the IDS filed 8/12/22, hereinafter RoHS).
It should be noted that the phrase “for a water bearing appliance” found in claim 14 has not been afforded patentable weight since it is an intended use that does not result in a manipulative difference to the claimed method of manufacturing. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 14, Berg,Jr et al teach:
14. A method for producing a component for a water bearing appliance (Berg,Jr et al: co-injection molded tub; para. 0007), the method comprising:
providing a mold comprising internal surfaces defining a cavity (Berg,Jr et al: figs 7-12D);
injecting a first polymeric material into the mold so that the first polymeric material fills a first portion of the cavity and at least partially solidifies to form a first portion of an external solidified layer (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D);
injecting a first amount of a second polymeric material into the mold so as to force a not yet solidified portion of the first polymeric material into a second portion of the cavity to form a second portion of the external solidified layer, wherein the second polymeric material is recycled (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041,0046), and wherein the first and second polymeric materials differ; and
injecting a second amount of the second polymeric material in the mold (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D),
wherein the second polymeric material is derived from a styrenic polymers.
(Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0061;0075-0081; figs 7-12D)
However, Berg,Jr et al do not teach the recycled second polymeric material comprising Lead in an amount of 7ppm to 90ppm and Bromine in an amount of 5ppm to 100pm. RoHS teaches producing products from recycled polyolefin having a number of chemical elements including Lead with a concentration of 12ppm (Section 6.1 on page 36 of RoHS) and Bromine as PentaBDE with a concentration of 0.1g/kg (converts to 100ppm). Since Berg,Jr et al and RoHS are analogous with respect to repurposing recycled polyolefin plastic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the polyolefin having lead with a concentration of 12ppm as taught by RoHS in the process of Berg,Jr et al in order to ensure the core of Berg,Jr et al is made from recycled material having being less hazardous.
Regarding claim 15, such is taught by Berg et al (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041 and 0046).
Regarding claim 16, such is taught by Berg et al (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041 and 0046).
Claim(s) 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg,Jr et al (USP 2013/0221572) in view of RoHS Substances in mixed plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (submitted with the IDS filed 8/12/22, hereinafter RoHS).
It should be noted that the phrase “for a water bearing appliance” found in claim 18 has not been afforded patentable weight since it is an intended use that does not result in a manipulative difference to the claimed method of manufacturing. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 18, Berg,Jr et al teach:
18. A method for producing a component for a water bearing appliance (Berg,Jr et al: co-injection molded tub; para. 0007), the method comprising:
injecting from at least one injection point a not recycled first polymeric material into a cavity of a mold for a first time so that the not recycled first polymeric material reaches internal surfaces of the mold and at least partially solidifies to form an external solidified layer (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D); and
injecting from the at least one injection point, after the first time, a recycled second polymeric material (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041,0046) into the mold for a second time so that the recycled second polymeric material fills the core of the cavity and pushes a not yet solidified portion of the not recycled first polymeric material (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D),
wherein the recycled second polymeric material is derived from polyolefin polymers (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D).
However, Berg,Jr et al do not teach the recycled second polymeric material comprising Lead in an amount of 7ppm to 90ppm and Bromine in an amount of 5ppm to 100pm. RoHS teaches producing products from recycled polyolefin having a number of chemical elements including Lead with a concentration of 12ppm (Section 6.1 on page 36 of RoHS) and Bromine as PentaBDE with a concentration of 0.1g/kg (converts to 100ppm). Since Berg,Jr et al and RoHS are analogous with respect to repurposing recycled polyolefin plastic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the polyolefin having lead with a concentration of 12ppm as taught by RoHS in the process of Berg,Jr et al in order to ensure the core of Berg,Jr et al is made from recycled material having being less hazardous.
Regarding claim 19, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0014).
Regarding claim 20, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0015).
Regarding claim 21, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0015) (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0015; figs 7-12D).
Regarding claim 22, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0046)
Regarding claim 23, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041 and 0046).
Claim(s) 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg,Jr et al (USP 2013/0221572) in view of RoHS Substances in mixed plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (submitted with the IDS filed 8/12/22, hereinafter RoHS).
It should be noted that the phrase “for a water bearing appliance” found in claim 24 has not been afforded patentable weight since it is an intended use that does not result in a manipulative difference to the claimed method of manufacturing. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 24, Berg,Jr et al teach:
24. A method for producing a component for a water bearing appliance (Berg,Jr et al: co-injection molded tub; para. 0007), the method comprising:
injecting not recycled first polymeric material into a cavity of a mold so that the not recycled first polymeric material reaches internal surfaces of the mold and at least partially solidifies to form an external solidified layer (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D); and
injecting after the not recycled first polymeric material, a recycled second polymeric material (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041,0046) into the mold so that the recycled second polymeric material fills the core of the cavity and pushes a not yet solidified portion of the not recycled first polymeric material (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D),
wherein the recycled second polymeric material is derived from polyolefin or styrenic polymers (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D).
However, Berg,Jr et al do not teach the recycled second polymeric material comprising Lead in an amount of 7ppm to 90ppm and Bromine in an amount of 5ppm to 100pm. RoHS teaches producing products from recycled polyolefin having a number of chemical elements including Lead with a concentration of 12ppm (Section 6.1 on page 36 of RoHS) and Bromine as PentaBDE with a concentration of 0.1g/kg (converts to 100ppm). Since Berg,Jr et al and RoHS are analogous with respect to repurposing recycled polyolefin plastic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the polyolefin having lead with a concentration of 12ppm as taught by RoHS in the process of Berg,Jr et al in order to ensure the core of Berg,Jr et al is made from recycled material having being less hazardous.
Regarding claim 25, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0014).
Regarding claim 26, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0015).
Regarding claim 27, such is taught by Berg Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D).
Regarding claim 28, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0015) (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0015; figs 7-12D).
Regarding claim 29, such is taught by Berg Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0014-0016, 0041,0046; 0075-0081; figs 7-12D).
Regarding claim 30, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: para 0046)
Regarding claim 31, such is taught by Berg,Jr et al (Berg,Jr et al: paras 0041 and 0046).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-16,18-23, and 24-31 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding instant claims 8-11, documents D4,D9, and D10 cited on the Written Opinion filed in the instant application on 8/12/22 teach the materials and threshold amounts. EP0887170,EP1873207, and CA2762589 teach co-injection molding using a recycled material for the core layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744