DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Post consumer recyclate polyethylene is understood to refer to used polyethylene that is unrefined and does not include recycled polyethylene plastic that has been chemically reprocessed from recycled plastic waste, e.g., see Achillas NPL 20081)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-5 and 6, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancker (US 6516736 B1) in view of in view of Doblanovic (HRP20020059A2).
In reference to claim 1,2, 4, Lancker teaches a rotomoulded product (Claim 6) comprising at least two layers of material that form a wall of the product, a first layer of the at least two layers of material comprising PCR PE and a second layer of the at least two said layers comprising virgin PE (Claim 1, 4, 6 and corresponding descriptions in the specification. See Fig 11, e.g.,
“the skin comprises a recyclable material” [Claim 4]
)
Lancker discloses PE and specifically PCR PE. Lanker does not specify that the PE that is not PCR PE is virgin PE. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the PE used by Lanker that is not referred to as PCR PE encompasses virgin PE. Thus, the claim is found to be obvious because the genus of generically disclosed PE encompasses the species of virgin PE; and, a person of skill in the art would recognize that the PE of Lanker encompassed virgin PE.
Lancker forms a product with a foam core and skin (Fig 11). The product of Lancker would absorb sound and thus reads on a sound absorbing panel as evidenced by Doblanovic discloses rotomolding forms products that have good sound blocking properties (“Upon completion of rotary casting, objects with a smooth edge and a smooth outer wall are obtained, which are completely or partially filled with foamed polyethylene from the inside. Due to the lower density of expanded polyethylene, compared to non-expanded polyethylene, such objects have a thicker wall than objects made of non-expanded polyethylene of the same mass, and are therefore stronger. In addition to greater wall strength, objects made with the described technology are characterized by low heat and sound conductivity (they are good heat and sound insulators”) therefore the product of Doblanovic would be a sound absorbing panel..
In reference to claim 3, Lancker discloses a three layers in Fig 11.
In reference to claim 5, Lanker discloses the skin is PCR PE (“the skin comprises a recyclable material” [Claim 4]). Fig 11 shows a structural foam layer between the skin layers. This reads on PCR PE, PE, PCR PE as first, second, and third layers.
In reference to claim 6, 17-18, Lancker discloses the invention but not the claimed thicknesses.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, rotomolding of recycled PE, Doblanovic teaches a similar rotomoulded product comprising at least two layers of material that form a wall of the product, a first layer of the at least two layers of material comprising PCR PE and a second layer of the at least two said layers comprising virgin PE (see example 62); and,
Doblanovic discloses the outer layer thickness being 2mm thick; the inner layer being about 10mm thick (“an outer layer of unexpanded polyethylene, about 2 mm thick, and an inner layer of expanded polyethylene, about 10 mm in thickness” [example 6]).
Lanker discloses the skin is PCR PE (“the skin comprises a recyclable material” [Claim 4]).
The combination is to form the skin of Lanker that is disclosed without a specific thickness using the specific thickness of Doblanovic.
This is an obvious selection of parameters from the art that would be suitable for the same intended use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khoon, L.K., 2003. Modelling of the rotational moulding process for the manufacture of plastic products. Nottingham Trent University (United Kingdom) provides modelling of the rotational moulding process for the manufacture of plastic products and a general background regarding the art.
US 20050181932 A1 provides method for producing rotomoulding polyethylene.
US 4629409 A provides rotational apparatus for molding dolls including an automatic control mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 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, Xiao 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 Achilias, D.S., Antonakou, E., Roupakias, C., Megalokonomos, P. and Lappas, A., 2008. Recycling techniques of polyolefins from plastic wastes. Global NEST Journal, 10(1), pp.114-122.
2 “In form C, 20 kg of low-density linear polyethylene was placed and the mold was rotated for 20 minutes in open flame. After all the polyethylene was sintered along the mold wall, 25 kg of polyethylene was prepared as in test 4 through which the opening was molded into the mold. The mold continued to rotate for another 25 minutes. The experimental casting of the boat had a rigid wall consisting of two sharply separated layers: an outer layer of unexpanded polyethylene, about 2 mm thick, and an inner layer of expanded polyethylene, about 10 mm in thickness and a density of 0.26 g / cm3. The pore size of expanded polyethylene was less than 1 mm. The outer surface of the boat's walls was smooth, with no visible deformations or defects.”
Prosecution Insights