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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/02/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In the instant case, no copy of the untranslated foreign references JP H07-308922 A and WO 03-033581 A1 have been provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP H05208183 A) (Okada) in view of Takoungsakdakun et al. (“Separation of mixed post-consumer PET-POM-PVC plastic waste using selective flotation”, 2007) (Takoungsakdakun) and Sinha et al. (“Pet Waste Management by Chemical Recycling: A Review”, 2010) (Sinha).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JP H05208183 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches the production of combustible gas from plastic waste (Okada, Abstract) (i.e., a method of producing synthesis gas from a plastic material), wherein the process comprises pulverizing plastic waste in the presence of water and mixing the formed plastic slurry with a coal slurry (Okada, p. 3, Paragraphs 5-8) (i.e., size-reducing waste plastic and producing a size-reduced wet waste plastic stream, and combining sad size-reduced wet waste-plastic with a quantity of coal to produce a wet waste plastic-coal mixture; and combining a quantity of coal with at least a portion of said separated waste plastic to produce a plastic-coal mixture, wherein said separated waste plastic is a wet waste plastic prior to combining with coal).
Further, Okada teaches the plastic-coal mixture is supplied to a gasification furnace and is partially oxidized (Okada, p. 3, Last paragraph; p. 4, Paragraph 1) (i.e., feeding at least a portion of said wet plastic-coal mixture to a partial oxidation gasifier).
While Okada teaches the waste plastic is not particularly limited and may include waste plastics having polyethylene hydrocarbon chains (Okada, p. 3, Paragraph 9), Okada does not explicitly teach (a) the waste plastic is a separated waste plastic from a waste plastic separation process in which a waste plastic feedstock is fed to at least one density separation stage to form a PET-enriched stream and a PET-depleted stream, wherein said PET-enriched stream and/or said PET-depleted stream comprises at least a portion of said separated waste plastic; (b) at least a portion of a PET-enriched stream is supplied to a solvolysis facility; or (c) said wet waste plastic comprises a solvent from said solvolysis facility.
With respect to the difference (a), Takoungsakdakun teaches the separation of mixed post-consumer PET-POM-PVC plastic waste using selective flotation (Takoungsakdakun. Abstract). Takoungsakdakun teaches the in order to separate plastics with slight differences in density such as a PVC-PET-POM mixture, the separation process flotation is used to separate these according to type (i.e., PET-enriched stream and PET-depleted streams) (Takoungsakdakun, p. 249, Col. 1, Paragraph 2) (i.e., providing a separated waste plastic from a waste plastic separation process in which a waste plastic feedstock is fed to at least one density separation stage to form a PET-enriched stream and a PET-depleted stream, wherein said PET-enriched stream and/or PET-depleted stream comprises at least a portion of said separated waste plastic).
As Takoungsakdakun expressly teaches, plastics collected for recycling must first be separated into polymer type in order to reserve a quality recycled plastic. As such, an effective separation of mixed post-consumer engineering plastic waste is necessary (Takoungsakdakun, p. 248, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; p. 249, Col. 1, Paragraph 1).
Takoungsakdakun is analogous art as it is drawn to the recycling of mixed plastic waste (Takoungsakdakun, Abstract; p. 248-249, Introduction).
In light of the motivation of using a separated waste plastic from the process as disclosed by Takoungsakdakun, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the waste plastic starting material of Okada by using the PET-POM-PVC waste plastic separation flotation process of Takoungsakdakun in order to separate the mixed plastic into polymer type in order to reserve a quality recycled plastic, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the differences (b) and (c), Sinha teaches the use and disposal of synthetic polymers, in particular poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) (Sinha, Abstract). Sinha specifically teaches chemical recycling, i.e., hydrolysis, methanolysis, glycolysis, and aminolysis (i.e., forms of solvolysis) as tertiary recycling methods for PET.
As Sinha expressly teaches, the most important cause for recycling and reprocessing waste PET has arisen from the awareness and concern for environmental pollution and these solvolysis methods are a way to manage the waste (Sinha, Abstract).
Sinha is analogous art as it is drawn to the recycling of waste plastic, specifically PET (Sinha, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of sending a portion of the PET-enriched stream to a solvolysis unit to be recycled as disclosed by Sinha, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Okada by sending a portion of the PET-enriched stream to a solvolysis unit in order to recycle and reprocess part of the PET in an environmentally friendly way, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, as Sinha teaches hydrolysis as a form of solvolysis, which includes water as the solvent (Sinha, p. 12, Col. 2, Paragraph 3), one of ordinary skill in the art could use the water-based solvent from the solvolysis facility to form the wet waste plastic that is combined with coal in Okada to form the wet plastic-coal mixture.
Regarding claim 2, Okada, in view of Takoungsakdakun and Sinha, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste is pulverized in the presence of water which forms a slurry (Okada, p. 3, Paragraphs 5-7) (i.e., the separated waste plastic comprises water, and said water is introduced into said separated waste plastic during a size reduction process in which separated waste plastic is reduced in size).
Regarding claim 11, Okada, in view of Takoungsakdakun and Sinha, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste is pulverized in the presence of water which forms a slurry in which fine particles are dispersed, and is then combined with the coal slurry to form a mixed slurry (Okada, p. 3, Paragraphs 5-8) (i.e., said size-reduced wet waste plastic comprises particles of said separated waste plastic dispersed or suspended in a liquid medium forming a plastic slurry, and wherein said quantity of coal is combined with said plastic slurry to form said wet plastic-coal mixture).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada, in view of Takoungsakdakun and Sinha, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Flotation separation of waste plastics for recycling – A review”, 2015) (Wang).
Regarding claim 6, Okada, in view of Takoungsakdakun and Sinha, teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of said PET-enriched stream and/or said PET-depleted stream is fed to a melt tank without performing mechanical dewatering, thermal drying, and/or other drying processes thereon.
With respect to the difference, Wang teaches flotation separation of waste plastics for recycling (Wang, Abstract), wherein the mixed plastic waste must be separated before being melted and reprocessed (Wang, Abstract; p. 29, Col. 1, Paragraph 3), wherein melting would necessarily occur in a container to hold the melted plastic (i.e., melt tank) (i.e., at least a portion of said PET-enriched stream and/or said PET-depleted stream is fed to a melt tank without performing mechanical dewatering, thermal drying, and/or other drying process thereon).
As Wang expressly teaches, different plastics should not be mixed together for recycling processes including melting because they have different melting temperatures, and can lead to diminished physical properties such as discoloration and degradation (Wang, p. 29, Col. 1, Paragraph 4).
Wang is analogous art as it is drawn to separation of mixed plastics for recycling (Wang, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of melting after separation of mixed plastics as disclosed by Wang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Okada, in view of Takoungsakdakun and Sinha, by melting one of the PET-depleted or PET-enriched streams in order to reprocess the plastic material without discoloration or degradation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s amendment to claim 6, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection is withdrawn from the record.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Claim 1 has been amended to call for the inclusion of supplying a PET enriched stream to a solvolysis facility, and wherein the wet waste plastic also includes a solvent from the solvolysis facility. None of Okada, Takoungsakdakun, or Wang disclose or suggest a feature of supplying a PET enriched stream from the waste plastic separation process to a solvolysis facility, and using a solvent from that facility as a liquid source in the wet waste plastic. For this reason, Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, is patentable over the combination of references.”
Remarks, p. 4
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Okada does not expressly teach the claimed inclusion of supplying a PET enriched stream to a solvolysis facility, and wherein the wet waste plastic also includes a solvent from the solvolysis facility. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that Okada does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Sinha is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Okada. See item #10 above.
It is noted that while Takoungsakdakun does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Takoungsakdakun is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach the waste plastic is a separated waste plastic from a waste plastic separation process in which a waste plastic feedstock is fed to at least one density separation stage to form a PET-enriched stream and a PET-depleted stream, wherein said PET-enriched stream and/or said PET-depleted stream comprises at least a portion of said separated waste plastic, in order to separate the mixed plastic into polymer type in order to reserve a quality recycled plastic (Takoungsakdakun, p. 248, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; p. 249, Col. 1, Paragraph 1) , and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
It is noted that while Wang does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Wang is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach at least a portion of said PET-enriched stream and/or said PET-depleted stream is fed to a melt tank without performing mechanical dewatering, thermal drying, and/or other drying processes thereon, in order to reprocess the plastic material without discoloration or degradation (Wang, p. 29, Col. 1, Paragraph 4), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732