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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 grounds of rejection are presented within this office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, 15-20, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizmoto (U.S. Pat. No. 4,031,039) in view of Taniguchi (JP2013-141625A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claim 1, Mizmoto teaches methods of treating waste polymer mixtures via selective dissolution / fractionation of polymer blends (Abstract; Examples) construed as dissolving polymer in solvent for the removal of additives (e.g. other polymers) in plastics. Mizmoto also teaches selectively dissolving polymers allows for removal of other additives/materials that are not dissolved along with the synthetic polymers (Col. 3, Line 54 to Col. 4, Line 2). Examples are taught where polymer mixture is provided, selective dissolution in solvent occurs with stirring/mixing, and insolubles separated by filtration (Col. 5-6).
Mizmoto differs from the subject matter claimed in that the particular mixing / dissolution device of the claims is not described. Taniguchi teaches agitation mixers suitable for the dissolution of polymer powders in solvent (Abstract; ¶ 22). The mixers utilize both stirring and vibratory mixing in order to prevent aggregated particles and provide uniform dispersibility (¶ 12, 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the agitation mixers of Taniguchi within the protocols of Mizmoto because doing so would provide excellent mixing/dispersibility characteristics when dissolving polymers as taught by Taniguchi.
Taniguchi teaches the mixers comprise a plurality of perforated stirring discs aligned parallel to each other in a stacked arrangement, each disc extending over a majority of the cross-sectional area of the reactor vessel; the perforations allowing the mixture to flow from a first end to second end through the disks (¶ 27, Figures 2A, 2B, 2C). A support holds the discs in position, whereby the discs are vibrated in the vertical direction upon use (¶ 27), reading on a support connected to a linear motion generator so that the discs are moved to oscillate at a frequency/amplitude, the linear motion aiding the dissolution of polymer material into solvent.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 22, Mizmoto teaches embodiments where polyethylene products are dissolved in p-xylene solvent (b.p. 138 deg C) at 120 degrees C, where timeframes of roughly 5 or 14 minutes is required (Example 3).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Mizmoto teaches embodiments where 30 g of polymer mixture is treated with 400 mL p-xylene (density ~ 0.86 g/mL), suggesting roughly 8 wt% of polymer added to solvent.
Regarding Claim 7, while Taniguchi does not describe vessel volume, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the present case, the apparatus of Taniguchi is not seen to perform any differently if used at a reactor volume of 1,000 L or greater. Therefore, the disclosure of Taniguchi meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Mizmoto teaches temperatures spanning 90-150 degrees C (Col. 3, Lines 40-49), which overlaps the ranges 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 Mizmoto suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Mizmoto. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Mizmoto teaches the polymer blends can comprise mixtures of polyolefinic polymers, such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Col. 1, Lines 18-27).
Regarding Claim 23, Taniguchi teaches a vertical arrangement (¶ 27, Figures 2A, 2B, 2C).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizmoto (U.S. Pat. No. 4,031,039) in view of Taniguchi (JP2013-141625A) and Vesavker (US 2017/0203470 A1). 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 Mizmoto and Taniguchi within ¶ 6-14 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Taniguchi differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular frequencies / amplitudes is not described within the mixers. Vesavker is also directed toward vibrating plate mixers for the purpose of mixing solids and liquids (Abstract; Figure 1). Vesavker teaches the frequency/amplitude is selected so as to achieve optimal mixing/separation of dispersed solids (¶ 17). Thus, Vesavker teaches the frequency/amplitude of such mixers are known result effective variables because changing them will clearly affect the degree by which the solid/liquid blend is agitated/mixed. 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/optimal frequency/amplitude parameters within the mixers of Taniguchi by routine experimentation within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable agitation/mixing characteristics.
Regarding Claim 24, Taniguchi differs from the subject matter claimed in that the mixers are not illustrated horizontally. Vesavker is also directed toward vibrating plate mixers for the purpose of mixing solids and liquids (Abstract; Figure 1). Vesavker teaches it was known in the art such mixers can be positioned either vertically or horizontally, whereby effective mixing occurs in either configuration (¶ 82). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to utilize mixers in either vertical or horizontal orientations, thereby achieving the predictable result of effective mixing of liquids and solids as taught by Vesavker.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizmoto (U.S. Pat. No. 4,031,039) in view of Taniguchi (JP2013-141625A) and Ragaert (Waste Management, 2017, 69, 24-58). 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 Mizmoto and Taniguchi within ¶ 6-14 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 21, Mizmoto differs from the subject matter claimed in that a first step involving mechanical separation of impurities is not described. Ragaert teaches various mechanical means of separating impurities from raw waste materials are known in the art for creating feedstocks, inclusive of separation of materials based on shape/size, removal of ferrous metal materials via magnets, or mechanical washing (Sections 2.1 through 2.1.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply conventional known mechanical separation methods to waste materials because doing so would remove contaminants/impurities in the feedstocks used.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12, 15-20, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JPS49-107070A) in view of Taniguchi (JP2013-141625A). As the cited JP publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to.
Regarding Claim 1, Miyake teaches methods of treating waste polymer mixtures via dissolving polymers and separating/removing insoluble substances (Abstract; Examples) construed as dissolving polymer in solvent for the removal of additives in plastics. Miyake teaches examples where polymer mixture is provided, dissolution in solvent occurs with stirring/mixing, and insolubles separated by filtration (Page 4).
Miyake differs from the subject matter claimed in that the particular mixing / dissolution device of the claims is not described. Taniguchi teaches agitation mixers suitable for the dissolution of polymer powders in solvent (Abstract; ¶ 22). The mixers utilize both stirring and vibratory mixing in order to prevent aggregated particles and provide uniform dispersibility (¶ 12, 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the agitation mixers of Taniguchi within the protocols of Miyake because doing so would provide excellent mixing/dispersibility characteristics when dissolving polymers as taught by Taniguchi.
Taniguchi teaches the mixers comprise a plurality of perforated stirring discs aligned parallel to each other in a stacked arrangement, each disc extending over a majority of the cross-sectional area of the reactor vessel; the perforations allowing the mixture to flow from a first end to second end through the disks (¶ 27, Figures 2A, 2B, 2C). A support holds the discs in position, whereby the discs are vibrated in the vertical direction upon use (¶ 27), reading on a support connected to a linear motion generator so that the discs are moved to oscillate at a frequency/amplitude, the linear motion aiding the dissolution of polymer material into solvent.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 22, Miyake teaches embodiments where polyethylene products are dissolved in p-xylene solvent (b.p. 138 deg C) at 120 degrees C, where timeframes of roughly 5 or 14 minutes is required (Page 4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Miyake teaches embodiments where a 5 wt% mixture of polymer and solvent is attained (Page 4).
Regarding Claim 7, while Taniguchi does not describe vessel volume, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the present case, the apparatus of Taniguchi is not seen to perform any differently if used at a reactor volume of 1,000 L or greater. Therefore, the disclosure of Taniguchi meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Miyake teaches temperatures spanning 100-150 degrees C (Page 2), which overlaps the ranges 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 Miyake suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Miyake. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Miyake teaches polypropylene, polyethylene, or mixtures thereof (Page 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Taniguchi teaches a vertical arrangement (¶ 27, Figures 2A, 2B, 2C).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JPS49-107070A) in view of Taniguchi (JP2013-141625A) and Vesavker (US 2017/0203470 A1). 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 Miyake and Taniguchi within ¶ 23-31 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Taniguchi differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular frequencies / amplitudes is not described within the mixers. Vesavker is also directed toward vibrating plate mixers for the purpose of mixing solids and liquids (Abstract; Figure 1). Vesavker teaches the frequency/amplitude is selected so as to achieve optimal mixing/separation of dispersed solids (¶ 17). Thus, Vesavker teaches the frequency/amplitude of such mixers are known result effective variables because changing them will clearly affect the degree by which the solid/liquid blend is agitated/mixed. 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/optimal frequency/amplitude parameters within the mixers of Taniguchi by routine experimentation within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable agitation/mixing characteristics.
Regarding Claim 24, Taniguchi differs from the subject matter claimed in that the mixers are not illustrated horizontally. Vesavker is also directed toward vibrating plate mixers for the purpose of mixing solids and liquids (Abstract; Figure 1). Vesavker teaches it was known in the art such mixers can be positioned either vertically or horizontally, whereby effective mixing occurs in either configuration (¶ 82). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to utilize mixers in either vertical or horizontal orientations, thereby achieving the predictable result of effective mixing of liquids and solids as taught by Vesavker.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (JPS49-107070A) in view of Taniguchi (JP2013-141625A) and Ragaert (Waste Management, 2017, 69, 24-58). 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 Miyake and Taniguchi within ¶ 23-31 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 21, Miyake differs from the subject matter claimed in that a first step involving mechanical separation of impurities is not described. Ragaert teaches various mechanical means of separating impurities from raw waste materials are known in the art for creating feedstocks, inclusive of separation of materials based on shape/size, removal of ferrous metal materials via magnets, or mechanical washing (Sections 2.1 through 2.1.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply conventional known mechanical separation methods to waste materials because doing so would remove contaminants/impurities in the feedstocks used.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-9, 12, and 15-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 8-14, and 16-23 of copending Application No. 18/022,280. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically, the ‘280 application claims a method involving dissolving reclaimed polymer feedstocks in at least one solvent and then separating purer polymer from the solvent, broadly construed as a removal of “additives” from reclaimed plastics. Copending claim 4 recites the same mixing device to create solvated polymer mixtures. Therefore, the ‘280 application anticipates the instant claims. The remaining limitations claimed are found within the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 15-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13, 14, 16, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 18/022,558. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically, the ‘558 application claims a method involving dissolving reclaimed polymer feedstocks in at least one solvent, fractionating polymers, and then removing fractionated polymer from the solvent, broadly construed as a removal of “additives” from reclaimed plastics. Alternatively, claim 21 refers to the removal of additives. Copending claim 1 recites the same mixing device to create solvated polymer mixtures. Therefore, the ‘558 application anticipates the instant claims. The remaining limitations claimed are found within the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mizmoto teaches polymer fractionation rather than additive removal. This is not found persuasive. There is no apparent required structure as to what constitutes an “additive” within the claims. The examiner remains of the position that removing select polymers in a blend is no different than removing polymeric additives within the scope of the claims. Mizmoto also teaches selectively dissolving polymers allows for removal of other additives/materials that are not dissolved along with the synthetic polymers (Col. 3, Line 54 to Col. 4, Line 2).
Applicant generally argues Taniguchi describes mixing polymer powders whereas Mizmoto describe fragments/pieces. This is not found persuasive as Taniguchi provides no particular restriction in terms of size/shape of particulates/powders that may be treated. Moreover, the examiner does not any precise difference in structure between the terminology “powder” and “fragments/pieces”.
Likewise, Applicant argues Miyake teaches “halving” waste bottles as opposed to powders. This is not found persuasive. As above, Taniguchi provides no particular restriction in terms of size/shape of particulates/powders that may be treated. Even more so, Miyake teaches the waste bottles are “crushed into appropriate shapes and dimensions in a crusher” (see machine translation applicant submitted on 12/29/2025). Therefore, even if arguendo small fragments / powders are required, Miyake indicates such bottles can be treated as such.
Applicant argues Taniguchi’s apparatus includes additional elements such as a vibrating spiral blade and thus, one would “ignore” the vibrating perforated plates that read on the instant claims. This is not found persuasive as the apparatus of Taniguchi reads on the present claims. There does not appear to be any limitations excluding additional mixing elements such as Taniguchi’s vibrating spiral blade.
Applicant argues Miyake’s stirring device does not meet the claims. This is not found persuasive as such a mixing device is not relied upon. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s request to hold in abeyance a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer (TD) to the pending ODP rejection, it is noted that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below: “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
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, 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