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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
No new ground(s) of rejection are presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Information Disclosure Statement
NPL Cite #1 of the IDS received 3/3/2026 has been lined through and not considered because a date associated with the NPL document has not been specified on the IDS. See MPEP 609.04(I): “Where the actual publication date of a non-patent document is not known, the applicant must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval (e.g., the date a webpage was retrieved) or a time frame (e.g., a year, a month and year, a certain period of time) when the document was available as a publication.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the amount of the intermediate stream diverted to the centrifugal mixer may vary based upon the desired amount of waste polyester in the outlet stream”, which appears to depend on the subjective opinion of one purported to be practicing the invention. Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 11 further states “while maintaining a constant flow of the outlet stream…”. Since the previous limitation of claim 11 “may” occur, it is unclear whether the maintaining constant flow criteria is meant to be optional or required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawleski (WO 2019/162265 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2020/0399437 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document.
Regarding Claim 1, Pawleski teaches methods of manufacturing polyesters using waste polyester comprising providing intermediate prepolymer stream from continuous polymerization unit “101” and diverting a portion of the intermediate polymer stream “1” to a dynamic mixer “200”, adding waste polymer stream “2” to dynamic mixer “200” to obtain a homogenous melt stream “3”, and combining the homogenous melt stream “3” with the remaining portion of the intermediate polymer stream at postesterification reactor “102”, forming an outlet stream (Figure 1; ¶ 51, 111-114). Pawleski teaches the dynamic mixer can be a centrifugal mixer (¶ 48).
Pawleski differs from the subject matter claimed in that it is not expressly indicated waste polyester is not heated when added to centrifugal mixer. In this regard, Pawleski teaches the waste polyester on entry into the dynamic mixer has an average temperature ranging from 0-200 degrees C (¶ 69), which overlaps temperatures where waste polyester is neither heated nor melted when introduced. 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 Pawleski suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Pawleski. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 2, Pawleski teaches PCR flakes (¶ 25).
Regarding Claim 3, Pawleski teaches 10-100% of the overall stream is branched off to dynamic mixer, whereby 5-60 wt% of recycled polyester is combined with the intermediate product stream at the dynamic mixer (¶ 76-78), suggesting an outlet stream with recycled polyester contents ranging from a minimum of roughly (10 x 0.05) / (100 + (10 x 0.05)) = 0.5% to 60%.
Regarding Claim 6, Pawleski teaches dwell / residence times of not more than 60 seconds within the dynamic mixer (¶ 72).
Regarding Claim 8, Pawleski teaches additives such as dyes can be introduced into dynamic mixer (¶ 79, 112; “230” of Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Pawleski teaches pre-drying the waste polyester flakes prior to adding to mixer (¶ 93).
Regarding Claim 10, Pawleski teaches 10-100% of the overall stream is branched off to dynamic mixer, whereby 5-60 wt% of recycled polyester is combined with the intermediate product stream at the dynamic mixer (¶ 76-78), suggesting ratios of 10.5:90 = 1:8.6 and higher. The described ratios overlap those 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 Pawleski suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Pawleski. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 11, whatever amount of waste polymer and diverted intermediate product stream is used within Pawleski is deemed to be desirable. The postesterification reactor “102” to which the outlet stream is directed to deemed to be a finisher section within the continuous polymerization unit of Pawleski. The dynamic mixer is operated continuously (¶ 42), suggesting a constant flow rate.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawleski (WO 2019/162265 A1) in view of Nichols (U.S. Pat. No. 5,876,644). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2020/0399437 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document.
The discussion regardiing Pawleski within ¶ 10-18 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Pawleski differs from the subject matter claimed in that the difference in intrinsic viscosities between intermediate and waste polyester streams is not indicated. In this regard, Nichols also pertains to methods of blending virgin and post-consumer polyesters to form new polyesters (Abstract). Nichols teaches it was known in the art that the intrinsic viscosities of waste and virgin materials are preferably matched in order to improve product uniformity (Col. 7, Line 57 to Col. 8, Line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to match the intrinsic viscosities of waste/virgin-containing homogenous melt stream and virgin containing intermediate stream, such that such intrinsic viscosities are essentially the same, because doing so would promote product uniformity in the resulting polyester materials as taught by Nichols.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawleski (WO 2019/162265 A1) in view of Dickey (Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2020/0399437 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document.
The discussion regardiing Pawleski within ¶ 10-18 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 7, Pawleski differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular stirring powers are not described. Dickey teaches it was known in the art stirring intensity and stirring power per volume are known result effective variables subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art for effective mixing, particularly in those systems involving mixing solid particles in a liquid medium (Sections 2.1 and 7). See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover workable or optimal mixing energies within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable degrees of virgin/waste polyester mixing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has failed to address the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Therefore, they are maintained. Applicant is reminded a fully responsive reply must address every ground of objection and rejection in the prior office action. MPEP 714.02.
Applicant generally argues Pawleski teaches away from centrifugal mixers at ¶ 43. This is not found persuasive.
¶ 43 of Pawleski states a requirement that the dynamic mixer is an in-line mixer, whereby classic tubular or drum mixers are excluded. Notably, ¶ 48 of Pawleski is explicit in that the dynamic mixer can be a centrifugal mixer. Thus, Pawleski is seen to convey that non-inline mixers such as tubular/drum mixers are excluded, but alternative inline mixers that rely on centrifugal force can be used. Claim 1 only requires a “centrifugal mixer” generically. Thus, Pawleski reads on the claims.
Applicant urges ¶ 61-64 of the specification (PG-PUB) describes drum mixers as being used as a centrifugal mixer. This is not found persuasive as ¶ 61-64 does not set forth an express re-definition of the term “centrifugal mixer” to mean a non-inline drum mixer. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant argues the examples of Pawleski use paddle stirrers and/or heat the waste flakes. This is not found persuasive as Pawleski is not limited to the examples therein. MPEP 2123. The broader disclosure of Pawleski meets all limitations claimed for reasons set forth within the rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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