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 I and Species 1 in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/16/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The express definition of “essentially free of particulate material” as being “at least 99 wt% of particles smaller than 300 microns have been removed from the downsized plastic material” within the specification is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “said said solid additive”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 has been amended to recite “separating [said] solid additive by flash-evaporation”. Written support is only found for separating said thermoplastic target polymer comprising said solid additive by flash evaporation as opposed to solely solid additive. Therefore, claim 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guschall (WO 98/01276 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claim 1, Guschall teaches methods of recycling/treating mixed plastic materials so as to isolate plastic particles that exceed a particular weight or density (heavy fraction) Abstract). Plastic material is provided, downsized, and classified such as via air classifier and/or sieves to form uniform grain size for further processing (Pages 14-15). Particle sizes ranging roughly from 2 mm to 10 mm is described (Page 18; 2,000-10,000 microns) whereby smaller particles, such as less than 1.6 mm, are removed via sieving (Page 17). Therefore, Guschall anticipates classified downsized plastic particles where at least 99 wt% of particles smaller than 300 microns have been removed.
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 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) 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer (US 2019/0233609 A1) in view of Guschall (WO 98/01276 A1). As the cited WO publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Maurer teaches methods of solvent recycling polyolefins (Abstract) comprising dissolving cut pieces of plastic in solvent to obtain solution/suspension, purifying the resulting mixture by filtration, separating solvent and polymer via evaporation, and then extruding polymer (¶ 16-19, 33-25; Examples).
Examples are taught where treated plastic particles are of 1-5 square centimeter size (¶ 37). Maurer differs from the subject matter claimed in that specified protocols of obtaining classified/downsized materials is not described. Guschall teaches methods of recycling/treating mixed plastic materials so as to isolate plastic particles that exceed a particular weight or density (heavy fraction) (Abstract), the heavy fraction being polymers such as polyolefins (Page 3). The method allows a relatively simple and cost-effective means to isolate heavy fractions for further processing whereby various impurities such as glass or metals can be removed (Pages 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the methods of Guschall to process waste materials because doing so would afford waste polyolefin particles in a relatively simple and cost-effective means as taught by Guschall.
Guschall teaches plastic material is provided, downsized, and classified such as via air classifier and/or sieves to form uniform grain size for further processing (Pages 14-15). Particle sizes ranging roughly from 2 mm to 10 mm is described (Page 18; 2,000-10,000 microns) whereby smaller particles, such as less than 1.6 mm, are removed via sieving (Page 17). Therefore, Guschall suggests classified downsized plastic particles where at least 99 wt% of particles smaller than 300 microns have been removed.
Regarding Claims 7 and 10, Maurer teaches embodiments where additives such as pigments or particles are added to the solution/suspension prior to evaporation and subsequent extrusion (¶ 34-35), construed as adding an insoluble solid additive and subsequently separating the polymer/additive from solvent via flash evaporation.
Regarding Claim 9, Maurer teaches various polyolefins such as polyethylene or polypropylene (¶ 21), construed as thermoplastics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights