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, claims 1-12 and 28-32 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2024
Information Disclosure Statement
Foreign Ref Cite #1 has been lined through in the IDS received 2/10/2023 because a copy of the foreign patent document was not received. 37 CFR 1.98(a) requires a legible copy of each foreign patent document.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (two instances in ¶ 4; also in ¶ 6). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “set of plastics” should be “the set of plastics”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 12, and 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 12 recite “The system of claim 1”, but claim 1 pertains to a process. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 11 and 12 are construed as if they stated “The process of claim 1”.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the treating step comprises treating with a fluid under supercritical conditions”. It is unclear whether the “a fluid” of claim 32 is meant to be one in the same as the introduced “a fluid” of claim 1, which is specified as water within claim 1. Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 32 is construed as if it stated “the fluid under supercritical conditions”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gorin (WO 2022/015529 A1).
The Examiner has reviewed priority document 63/052,028 of Gorin and finds written support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Gorin teaches treating plastic materials in melt form with water at elevated temperatures and pressures, preferably 110-280 degrees C (Abstract; ¶ 39-40) construed as treating with water under subcritical conditions.
Regarding Claim 4, Gorin teaches mechanical blending such as within an extruder (Abstract; ¶ 28).
Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 10-12, Gorin teaches the polymer/plastic treated can be various thermoplastics, inclusive of polyolefins such as polyethylene and/or polypropylene (¶ 19-25). Copolymers (polymeric materials with two or more monomeric components) can be used (¶ 19).
Regarding Claim 8, Gorin teaches molten thermoplastic/dispersing agent/additives are blended with water under subcritical conditions, after which thermoplastic polymer is collected (¶ 42, 45; examples), construed as a homogenous blend.
Regarding Claim 9, Gorin teaches processing conditions are set such that thermoplastic is not degraded (¶ 39).
Claim(s) 1-12 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JPH11-035734A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Kato teaches methods of recycling plastics comprising treating polyolefins with water at 250-350 degrees C and 10-30 MPa, construed as subcritical conditions, so as to hydrolyze organic substances other than the polyolefins themselves (Abstract). Plastic pellets are obtained (Examples) construed as precursor blend of plastic.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Kato teaches melt kneading the resins with water in an extruder (¶ 15), construed as mechanically blending during treatment.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 10-12, Kato teaches various polymeric resins inclusive of copolymers (resins comprising two or more monomeric components) (¶ 8-9). Polyolefins such as polypropylenes or polyethylenes can be used (¶ 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Kato teaches examples where two types of plastic materials are treated (¶ 23).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Kato teaches embodiments where plastic material comprising polyolefin is treated such that pellets of polyolefin are ultimately obtained (¶ 23-24), seen to be a homogenous blend. As polyolefin is obtained, the polyolefin is not broken down into monomers.
Regarding Claims 28-31, Kato teaches the new polyolefin pellets can be compounded with conventional additives and/or virgin polyolefin resin to form new materials (¶ 18). Additives such as colorants are described (¶ 11), which would intrinsically affect physical/aesthetic properties of the resulting blends.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorin (WO 2022/015529 A1).
Gorin teaches treating plastic materials in melt form with water at elevated temperatures and pressures, preferably 110-280 degrees C (Abstract; ¶ 39-40) construed as treating with water under subcritical conditions.
Regarding Claim 7, to the extent Gorin differs from the subject matter claimed in that two or more types of plastic materials are not used, it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960). Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Also, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Gorin teaches a variety of differing plastic materials can be used (¶ 19-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two or more of Gorin’s materials for the same purpose, namely for the creation of recycled plastics with reduced contents of contaminates as taught by Gorin.
Claim(s) 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorin (WO 2022/015529 A1) in view of Kato (JPH11-035734A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Gorin within ¶ 31-32 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 28-31, to the extent Gorin differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the details concerning the re-creation of new articles, Kato also pertains to the treatment of waste plastics using water (Abstract). Kato teaches it was known in the art the resulting treated polyolefins are useful via by compounding with conventional additives and/or virgin polyolefin resin to form new materials (¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the compounding protocols of Kato with respect to the obtained materials of Gorin because doing so would facilitate the creation of new useful materials from waste plastics in accordance with the teachings of Kato. Kato describes additives such as colorants (¶ 11), which would intrinsically affect physical/aesthetic properties of the resulting blends.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vachon (WO 2018/121980 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 32, Vachon teaches methods of recycling plastics/polyolefins comprising treating polyolefins with extraction fluid at 100-1000 bar and 20-80 degrees C and subsequently treating the polyolefins with supercritical fluid to provide polyolefin particles, construed as precursor blend of plastic (Abstract). Examples are taught where extraction solvent/supercritical fluid is CO2 (Page 11), which differs from the subject matter claimed in that water is not used.
In this regard, Vachon teaches a variety of extraction/supercritical solvents can be used, inclusive of water (Page 4, Line 16 and Page 9, Line 33). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute CO2 solvents with water, thereby predictably affording workable methods of treating waste polyolefins to remove contaminants in accordance with the teachings of Vachon (Page 2, Lines 7-20). The former extraction step is construed as subcritical conditions and the latter supercritical treatment is construed as supercritical conditions.
Regarding Claim 2, 100-1000 bar corresponds to roughly 1,450-14,500 psi. The disclosed range overlaps that claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Vachon suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Vachon. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 3, it is noted the method of Vachon reads upon claim 1 with respect to supercritical conditions. As a combined use of subcritical/supercritical conditions is not required by claim 1 and Vachon satisfies all criteria claimed with respect to supercritical treatment, the further conditions with respect to subcritical treatment are met by Vachon.
Regarding Claim 4, Vachon teaches mixing with supercritical fluid can be achieved either by static mixer or by dynamic/mechanical mixers such as stirrers/extruders (Page 6, Lines 24-29).
Regarding Claims 5, 7, and 10-12, Vachon teaches polyolefin polymers such as polypropylenes and polyethylenes (Page 8, Lines 26-31), which can be used as one type or a mixture of different types (Page 4, Lines 1-6).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Vachon teaches the polyolefin polymers are treated to ultimately yield polyolefin particles (Page 9, Lines 4-25), construed as homogenous blend. As polyolefins are obtained, the treated polyolefins were not broken down into monomeric components.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vachon (WO 2018/121980 A1) as evidenced by Simpson (Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology).
The discussion regarding Vachon within ¶ 37-43 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 6, Vachon teaches various polyolefins such as LLDPE (Page 8, Lines 29-31). As evidenced by Simpson, polyolefins such as LLDPE are copolymers of ethylene and alpha-olefin, and thus comprise two or more monomeric components (Pages 441-442).
Claim(s) 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vachon (WO 2018/121980 A1) in view of Kato (JPH11-035734A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Vachon within ¶ 37-43 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 28-31, Vachon teaches the resulting polyolefin particles can be re-used in various applications (Page 9, Lines 4-13). To the extent Vachon differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the details concerning the re-creation of new articles, Kato also pertains to the treatment of waste plastics using water (Abstract). Kato teaches it was known in the art the resulting treated polyolefins are useful via by compounding with conventional additives and/or virgin polyolefin resin to form new materials (¶ 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the compounding protocols of Kato with respect to the obtained materials of Vachon because doing so would facilitate the creation of new useful materials from waste plastics in accordance with the teachings of Kato. Kato describes additives such as colorants (¶ 11), which would intrinsically affect physical/aesthetic properties of the resulting blends.
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knez (US 2019/0002646 A1) is also seen to be pertinent toward the claims, but is presently seen to be cumulative with respect to Vachon discussed above.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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