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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 7-20; species of claim 18 in the reply filed on 1/7/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election with traverse of the species of a combination of all listed entities in claim 14; and separately low-density polyethylene as a carrier in claim 20 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that the group in each of claim 14 and 20 should not be restricted because each and any of the listed entities are recyclable plastic materials. This is not found convincing because each entity of claim 14 and 20 is a separate kind of polymer with specific chemistry- specific reactivity, specific use, specific properties which result in different treatments. Each has its own classification in the art. Thus the search burden for the list of claim 14 and 20 is too high and the election requirement is upheld in each case.
Claims 1-6, 16, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/7/26.
Rejoinder
The species elected for each of claim 14 and 18 was not found, therefore the search was extended for claim 14 to any combination of PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, polycarbonate, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene and nylon (polyamide PA).
The species of claim 18 was searched and not found; the search was extended to claim 16 and 17 which are rejoined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tri antimony oxide” should be “antimony trioxide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “diatomaceous earth” in claim 18 is considered a species of “alluvium material”; see submitted specification paragraph 34.
Reference in the claims to “sulfate” is taken to mean the definition in Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary of “the salt of sulfuric acid as in sodium sulfate” (Hawley’s p.1287 col 2).
In claim 18 the term “grains” is taken to mean ‘wheat or any other cultivated cereal crop used as food’, a dictionary definition, since the specification example of “grain” is oatmeal.
In claim 18 the term “cera alba” is a known alternative nomenclature for beeswax.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0334420 by Bertolino in view of FR 2563212 by Vitry in further view of “Plastics, Additives” by Wolf et al.
Bertolino describes reusing mixed thermoplastic wasted.
Regarding claim 7, Bertolino describes a method of recycling mixed plastic waste comprising:
-forming a recycling mixture of a feedstock of mixed plastic waste of different types (translation p.4 item 2) with a carrier (“polyolefins…as a binding agent” p.4 item 2) and an effective amount of alluvium material (sand, p.4 item 4).
Bertolino is silent as to the elected binder LDPE- he describes more generically polyethylene (p.4 item 7). Bertolino is silent as to the addition of specific additive materials in addition to the alluvium material, although he does state “other inert additives” on p.4 item 4.
Vitry describes an agglomerate of sand with binder.
Vitry describes an agglomerate of sand (translation p.5 Example) with binder comprising LDPE (translation p.5 Example) which Vitry describes as allowing good wetting of other components (p.3 paragraph 9). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a binder comprising LDPE where Bertolino more broadly describes polyethylene because Vitry describes LDPE as allowing good wetting of other components.
Wolf describes different polymeric additives.
Wolf describes-for example- light stabilizers, which reads on “UV protective agents” (p.627-638). Wolf states that incorporation of light stabilizers in plastic protects plastic from photodegradation (p.628 col 1 paragraph 1). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add a light stabilizer to Bertolino’s composition in order to protect the product from photodegradation.
Alternatively, Wolf also describes motivation to add pigment (p.661 col 1 final paragraph “impart decorative character and sales appeal”), antioxidant (p.620 col 2 final paragraph “prevent or retard autoxidation of polymers”), foaming (blowing) agent (p.667 col 2 “to obtain substantial savings in weight and improve insulating properties”), and fibers (p.660 col 1 penultimate paragraph “improve tensile and flexural strength”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add these additives to Bertolino for the motivations Wolf describes for each.
Regarding claim 8, Bertolino describes
- providing the feedstock of mixed plastic waste (p.3 end of page to p.4 paragraph 1 Claim 1 “any plastic material recovered from industrial and/or solid urban waste”)
- grinding and drying the feedstock (p.4 claim 2 first and second items) and mixing
-adding polyethylene to the mix (p.4 claim 7, reads on “carrier”). Vitry describes the elected LDPE see rejection of claim 7 above.
- adding an additive comprising sand or gravel (reads on “alluvium material” i.e. “recycling composition”) to the mix (p.4 claim 4)
-melt-blending the feedstock, polyethylene, and additive (p.4 claim 2)
-vacuum melting (p.4 claim 2) which reads on “drying the combined carrier”
-extruding the melt (p.4 claim 2)
Bertolino differs from the instant claim in that he describes melt-blending the ground feedstock, polyethylene (carrier) and additive (“recycling composition”, alluvium material) together where the instant describes first melt-blending the ground feedstock and additive, then adding the carrier, and further melt-blending. However, this difference in order of steps – adding the carrier in the middle of melt blending, in lieu of melt blending after mixing ground feedstock, carrier and additive- is obvious to one of ordinary skill. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Since Bertolino describes a ground feedstock, a “recycling composition” and a carrier which are melt-blended, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill to change these steps to melt-blend the feedstock and recycling composition, add the carrier, and further melt-blend the entire composition.
Regarding claim 12, Bertolino describes feedstock which is unidentified, uncleaned, unsorted plastic (“directly from urban dumps without being subjected to preliminary operations” p.3 bottom of page to p.4 paragraph 1) which have any type of molecular weight or chain lengths (“regardless of their origin or molecular structure” p.2 paragraph 1). Regarding the terms “compacted and homogenized”, Bertolino describes collecting the plastics from dumps (p.2 paragraph 1) which reads on compaction- the plastics are more condensed than they were prior to being taken from the dump- and homogenized- the plastics no longer contain as many other articles.
Regarding claim 15, Bertolino describes Trial #3 in which 50% sand (p.2 penultimate paragraph) is added to a combination of plastic waste, polyethylene (50% p.2 paragraph 5 “Trial #2”). Wolf’s light stabilizers, for example, are added in an amount of 0.05-0.5% (Wolf p.637 col 2 paragraph 3). Thus the total amount of plastic waste (“feedstock”) is 33%, the amount of polyethylene is 33% and the amount of “recycling composition” (sand+ light stabilizer) is 33%. The recycling composition and feedstock thus amount to 66 wt% in this example. See also Bertolino Claim 4 (p.4) which describes 10-400% sand.
Regarding claim 20, Vitry describes binder comprising the elected LDPE (translation p.5 Example).
Claims 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0334420 by Bertolino in view of FR 2563212 by Vitry in further view of “Plastics, Additives” by Wolf et al as evidenced by “Types of Plastic and Their Recycle Codes” by Mertes.
Bertolino is described above.
Regarding claim 13, Bertolino describes the presence of non-returnable items molded from thermoplastics such as “shopping bags, bottles, crates, jars, and similar items in solid urban waste” (p.1 penultimate paragraph), although he does not state what the resin codes of these items are. Mertes describes all plastics as falling into one of the seven resin codes (p.1 paragraph 2) and exemplifies how the waste described in the cited section of Bertolino falls into each category (p.2-3 “uses”)
Regarding claim 14, Bertolino’s identification of “shopping bags, bottles, crates, jars, and similar items in solid urban waste” encompasses at least resin codes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (Mertes p.2-3 “uses”); i.e. any combination of PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, and miscellaneous plastics including polycarbonate, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene and nylon (polyamide PA) (Mertes p.2-3 “polymer name”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0334420 by Bertolino in view of FR 2563212 by Vitry in further view of “Plastics, Additives” by Wolf et al in further view of US 5335786 by Roberto.
Bertolino is described above.
Regarding claim 9, Bertolino describes fine grinding the feedstock (p.4 claim 2) but is silent as to the size of the ground feedstock particles.
Roberto describes a method and apparatus for separation and recycling plastics.
Roberto describes reducing waste plastic to the size of about 3/8 of an inch (0.375”) (claim 10; col 3 ln 50-55), which falls within the claimed range. Roberto states that his method not only reduces the plastic parts to small pellets (col 2 ln 10-15) but also removes small fines and loose labels and cleans the pellets before drying (col 2 ln 15-25). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt Roberto’s method of grinding where Bertolino is less specific in order to arrive at clean, dry, small pieces of waste plastic.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0334420 by Bertolino in view of FR 2563212 by Vitry in further view of “Plastics, Additives” by Wolf et al in further view of “Manufacturing of plastic sand bricks from polypropylene and polyethylene waste plastic” by Patil et al.
Bertolino is described above.
Regarding claim 10, Bertolino describes melt blending the components including polyethylene but is silent as to the temperature of the melt (p.4 Claim 2).
Patil also describes waste plastic mixed with sand, to form bricks.
Patil describes heating the mixture to 180C (356F) for melt mixing (p.2064 final paragraph), which falls within the claimed range. Patil states that the process liquifies the plastic which enables later shaping (p.2067 paragraph 1). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the temperature described by Patil where Bertolino is silent in order to liquify the plastic and enable later shaping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 18 and 19 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.
Claims 16 and 17 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the claim objection to claim 16 set forth at the beginning of the office action also needs to be addressed. Otherwise, claims 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the closest art is EP 0334420 by Bertolino, which is inapplicable because Bertolino describes vacuum melting which reads on drying and would not be likely to take place at 165F because it is a temperature likely too low for a melt.
Regarding claims 16 and 18 and their dependents, each of these lists is long and requires the presence of each specific ingredient. There is insufficient motivation to add each to the closest art, Bertolino.
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