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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 and 10-12, 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.
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). 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.
Using blends of different copolymers or a blend of homopolymer(s) with copolymer(s) is seen to result in a copolymer blend of differing plastic materials. As Gorin teaches processing the plastics in molten form, the treatment process is seen to result in a homogenized blend of (co)polymers.
Regarding Claim 4, Gorin teaches mechanical blending such as within an extruder (Abstract; ¶ 28).
Regarding Claim 9, Gorin teaches processing conditions are set such that thermoplastic is not degraded (¶ 39).
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 ¶ 9-14 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) 1-4, 9-12, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, 2, and 10-12, 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.
To the extent the particular embodiments of Kato’s examples differ from the subject matter claimed with respect to treating two or more different plastic materials to ultimately form a homogenous copolymer blend of the two or more different plastic materials, Kato teaches various polyolefins such as polyethylenes, polypropylene, and ethylene copolymers can be used, inclusive of composites of these resins (¶ 8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize composites of polyolefins, inclusive of those with copolymers, thereby predictably obtaining recycled resin compositions in accordance with the teachings of Kato (Abstract; ¶ 8). As Kato teaches melt kneading (¶ 15), the resulting composites are seen to be homogenous copolymer blends of the polyolefin materials.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Kato teaches melt kneading the resins with water in an extruder (¶ 15), construed as mechanically blending during treatment.
Regarding Claim 9, Kato teaches the methods hydrolyze organic substances other than the polyolefins themselves (Abstract). 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(s) 1-4, 9-12, and 32 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).
Regarding Claims 1, 10-12, 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).
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). 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). Thus, Vachon is seen to be suggestive of using blends of different copolymers or a blend of homopolymer(s) with copolymer(s). As Vachon teaches the plastics are molten with treated with supercritical fluid (Abstract), the treatment process is seen to result in a homogenized blend of (co)polymers.
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 Claim 9, Vachon teaches the polyolefin polymers are treated to ultimately yield polyolefin particles (Page 9, Lines 4-25). As polyolefins are obtained, the treated polyolefins were not broken down into monomeric components.
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 ¶ 25-31 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has failed to address the specification/abstract objections. Per 37 CFR 1.111(b): “The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action”.
Applicant generally argues the cited art fails to obviate the treatment of two or more different plastic materials to obtain a homogenous copolymer blend of the two or more different plastic materials. This is not found persuasive. The treatment protocols of the cited art effectively melt compounds a blend of homopolymer(s) and/or copolymer(s) (two or more different plastic materials), which is seen to result in a homogenous copolymer blend when copolymer is treated.
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 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