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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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).
Priority
While Applicant’s foreign priority claims to GB2013341.9 and GB2109182.2 are acknowledged, the limitations regarding fractionating at least one reclaimed polymer according to molecular weight set forth within claim 1 are not found within the foreign priority documents. Claims 2-11, 13-16, 19-22, and 25 depend from claim 1 and therefore contain all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to the foreign priority dates and claims 1-11, 13-16, 19-22, and 25 are construed as having a filing date of 8/25/2021 (that of PCT/EP2021/073529). 1-11,13-16,19-22,25
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 26. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 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 4 indicates the wt% addition of reclaimed polymer to solvent can be 100 wt%. Since the solution at issue comprises at least reclaimed polymer and solvent, it is unclear how the concentration of reclaimed polymer can be 100 wt%. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht (US 2024/0191051 A1) in view of Taniguchi (JP2019-081142A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The examiner has reviewed priority document EP21168640.7 of Albrecht and finds written support for the citations below.
Regarding Claim 1, Albrecht teaches method of fractionating reclaimed polymers in at least one solvent, comprising inputting reclaimed polymer and solvent in a vessel to create mixture, operating the reactor vessel at a first temperature to dissolve a first fraction of polymers F1 in the solvent, separating F1 solution from undissolved material (i.e. fractionating first polymers in solution from the second polymers), and removing the first polymers F1 from the vessel independent from the second polymers (¶ 14, 17-26, 58-61). The second polymer fraction exhibits a higher molecular weight than the first polymer fraction (¶ 26).
Albrecht describes embodiments where the mixing device comprises a plurality of discs aligned parallel to each other in a tacked arrangement, each disc extended over a majority of the cross-sectional area of the reactor vessel and one or more supports to hold the discs in position (¶ 61; Figure 3). Albrecht differs from the subject matter claimed in that the mixing device is not described to have plurality of perforations or that the discs oscillate at a first frequency/first amplitude.
Taniguchi teaches mixing devices comprising a plurality of parallel perforated agitation plates within a body to allow mixture to flow from one end to the other, each disc extending over a majority of the cross-sectional area of the reactor vessel (Abstract; Figures 5 and 2A; ¶ 22). The shaft connected to the plates exhibits reciprocating motion (¶ 21), which creates linear motion such that the discs are moved to oscillate at a first frequency and first amplitude. Taniguchi teaches the mixers efficiently obtain uniform mixtures, particularly for liquids/powders (¶ 1,15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the agitation mixers of Taniguchi within the processes of Albrecht because doing so would afford uniform mixtures efficiently as taught by Taniguchi.
Regarding Claim 2, Albrecht teaches the second polymer fraction can be contacted with solvent, heated to dissolution, and subsequently recovered (¶ 22-25). The same solvent can be used for both dissolution steps (¶ 57,100).
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, Albrecht teaches first dissolution step occurs at 80-120 degrees Celsius for 5 min to 2 hr (¶ 20). The disclosed ranges 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 Albrecht suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Albrecht. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 4, Albrecht teaches the weight ratio of solvent to polymer material ranges roughly from 3:1 to 20:1 (¶ 81), equivalent to 4.8-25 wt% of polymer.
Regarding Claim 5, 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 9, Albrecht teaches heating to 90-160 degrees C to dissolve second polymers (¶ 24), which overlaps the range 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 Albrecht suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Albrecht. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Albrecht teaches polyolefins such as polypropylene and/or polyethylene (¶ 18).
Regarding Claim 14, Taniguchi teaches solvent being pumped through the mixer from a first end to a second end (Figure 5; ¶ 18).
Regarding Claims 15 and 19, Albrecht teaches the process can be done as a batch process or continuous process (¶ 54).
Regarding Claim 16, Taniguchi illustrates the plurality of discs aligned parallel to each other in a vertical stack, where the mixture flows vertically upward through the discs (Figure 5).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht (US 2024/0191051 A1) in view of Taniguchi (JP2019-081142A) 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 Albrecht and Taniguchi within ¶ 10-22 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, 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 20, 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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2003/0146547 A1) in view of Taniguchi (JP2019-081142A). 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, Fischer teaches methods of treating mixed plastic waste for purification, specifically of removing low molecular weight polymeric materials (Abstract). Fisher teaches embodiments where waste material is brought into contact with solvent within an agitator (construed as a reactor vessel) to dissolve low molecular weight polymers at a first temperature / time duration, and the low molecular weight polymer solution is removed/fractionated from the undissolved second polymers (implied to have a higher molecular weight) (¶ 42-43). Fischer differs from the subject matter claimed in that the particular mixing device of the claims is not described.
Taniguchi teaches mixing devices comprising a plurality of parallel perforated agitation plates within a body to allow mixture to flow from one end to the other, each disc extending over a majority of the cross-sectional area of the reactor vessel (Abstract; Figures 5 and 2A; ¶ 22). The shaft connected to the plates exhibits reciprocating motion (¶ 21), which creates linear motion such that the discs are moved to oscillate at a first frequency and first amplitude. Taniguchi teaches the mixers efficiently obtain uniform mixtures, particularly for liquids/powders (¶ 1,15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the agitation mixers of Taniguchi within the processes of Fischer because doing so would afford uniform mixtures efficiently as taught by Taniguchi.
Regarding Claim 2, Fischer teaches after extraction, the remaining polymers are subsequently dissolved and recovered for re-use (¶ 42). Hexane is used as both first and second solvent (¶ 42-43).
Regarding Claim 4, Fischer teaches polymer concentrations of roughly 10-15 wt% (¶ 14).
Regarding Claim 5, 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 Claims 10 and 11, Fischer teaches embodiments where the mixed plastic comprises polyolefins such as polyethylene (¶ 46).
Regarding Claim 14, Taniguchi teaches solvent being pumped through the mixer from a first end to a second end (Figure 5; ¶ 18).
Regarding Claim 15, Fischer teaches embodiments where 100 g of mixed plastic is purified via a batch process (¶ 46).
Regarding Claim 16, Taniguchi illustrates the plurality of discs aligned parallel to each other in a vertical stack, where the mixture flows vertically upward through the discs (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 21, Fischer teaches alternative embodiments where after dissolution/extraction of low molecular weight compounds into solvent, further process steps are performed, inclusive of i) dissolving the mixed plastic waste and removing insoluble contaminants/additives and v) dissolving the mixed plastic waste and then fractionating/removing the low molecular weight polymers (¶ 38). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform additional purification steps, inclusive of dissolving the both low and high molecular weight fractions of mixed plastic waste, removing insoluble contaminants/additives, and fractionating/removing the low molecular weight polymers from the mixed plastic waste solution in view of the teachings of Fischer, thereby predictably affording purified fractions of high and low molecular weight materials.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 9, 13, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2003/0146547 A1) in view of Taniguchi (JP2019-081142A) and Miyake (JPS49-107070A). As the cited JP publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Fisher and Taniguchi within ¶ 28-37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 3, 8, 9, 13, and 22, Fischer teaches alternative embodiments where after dissolution/extraction of low molecular weight compounds into solvent, further process steps are performed, inclusive of i) dissolving the mixed plastic waste and removing insoluble contaminants/additives and v) dissolving the mixed plastic waste and then fractionating/removing the low molecular weight polymers (¶ 38). Fischer teaches purification can occur via selective precipitation (¶ 38). Fischer differs from the subject matter claimed in that temperature induced precipitation of second then first polymers is not described.
Miyake is also directed toward the purification of waste polymer material via dissolution, filtration, and precipitation (Page 1). Miyake teaches in the case of polyolefins, high and low molecular weight fractions of polyolefins can be dissolved in organic solvents such as xylene whereby after filtration, precipitation can occur via cooling (Pages 2 and 4). Miyake teaches it was known precipitation begins to occur at 70-80 degrees C, after which the mixture can be further cooled to room temperature in order to precipitate relatively low molecular weight polymers (Pages 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to utilize the selective precipitation protocol of Miyake within the protocols of Fischer because doing so would facilitate the isolation/fractionation/purification of high- and low molecular weight waste polyolefins while avoiding excessive costs of using different extraction solvents or precipitating agents. Miyake teaches an embodiment where the polyolefins (both high and low molecular weight) is dissolved in xylene at 120 degrees C at 5-14 minutes prior to cooling for precipitation (Page 4).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2003/0146547 A1) in view of Taniguchi (JP2019-081142A) 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 Fisher and Taniguchi within ¶ 28-37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, 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 20, 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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2003/0146547 A1) in view of Taniguchi (JP2019-081142A) and Albrecht (US 2024/0191051 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 Fisher and Taniguchi within ¶ 28-37 is incorporated herein by reference.
The examiner has reviewed priority document EP21168640.7 of Albrecht and finds written support for the citations below.
Regarding Claim 19, Fischer teaches embodiments where 100 g of mixed plastic is purified via a batch process (¶ 46). Fischer differs from the subject matter claimed in that a continuous process is not described. In this regard, Albrecht also pertains to the purification of waste polyolefins via selective dissolution (Abstract; ¶ 14, 17-26, 58-61). Albrecht teaches it was known such protocols can be achieved either as a batch or continuous fashion (¶ 54). In view of the teachings of Albrecht it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the batch protocol of Fisher with a continuous process, thereby predictably affording workable means of purifying waste polymer materials as taught by Albrecht.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 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 process of purifying reclaimed polymers whereby different polymers are mixed with the same mixing device and separated/fractionated according to molecular weight (Claims 1, 2, and 4), reading on fractionating/removing a lower molecular weight material from a high molecular weight material. Therefore, the copending claims anticipate the instant claims. The remaining limitations of the instant claims 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the priority issues, Applicant alleges the priority documents provide written support for the subject matter claimed. Applicant requests that the examiner “provide a detailed statement of rejection requirements”.
In response, the examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the “Priority” section of the previous office action, which is reproduced above and states concisely which subject matter claimed the examiner finds to lack written support. The Examiner finds no description of the limitations regarding fractionating at least one reclaimed polymer according to molecular weight as recited within claim 1 (i.e. the concept of first polymers with a first molecular weight range and second polymers with a second molecular weight range being separated from one another) within any of the priority documents. Even basic terminology such as “molecular weight” does not appear in any of the priority documents. If Applicant maintains that the foreign priority documents provide written support to the subject matter claimed, Applicant is kindly requested to provide citations as to where exactly such subject matter is found for the examiner’s consideration. In the absence of such, the examiner’s position remains that applicant is not entitled to the foreign priority dates and claims 1-11, 13-16, 19-22, and 25 are construed as having a filing date of 8/25/2021 (that of PCT/EP2021/073529).
With respect to the 112(b) rejection, Applicant argues ¶ 7 and 23 detail what is meant by percent weight addition, and alleges ¶ 23 indicates 100 wt% addition means a polymer solvent ratio of 1:100, a 20 wt% addition means a polymer solvent ratio of 1:20, and a 10 wt% addition means a polymer solvent ratio of 1:10. This is not found persuasive insofar as a direct correlation between “wt% addition” and “polymer solvent ratio” is not clearly stated within the cited paragraphs and the listed ratios do not appear to logically correspond with the wt% values listed. For instance, a polymer solvent ratio of 1:100 is equivalent to 1 pbw polymer / [1 pbw polymer + 100 pbw solvent] ~ 1 wt% and not 100 wt%. It also is unclear how the “100 wt%” figure is derivable from 1:100 polymer:solvent. Additionally, a 1:10 polymer:solvent ratio reflects a higher concentration of polymer, but the wt% figure (10 wt%) is less?
The plain and ordinary meaning of wt% addition is the ratio of the amount of additive relative to the total quantity of obtained composition in percentage form. The examiner does not find an express redefinition of the terminology within the specification. Therefore, the indefiniteness rejection at issue is maintained for reasons of record.
Applicant generally argues Albrecht fails to disclose the specific mixing device claimed. This is not found persuasive as the mixing device at issue is met by combination with Taniguchi. While Applicant urges Albrecht requires shear action at ¶ 58, the cited section is merely referring to a particular apparatus described by Albrecht that can be used “in one embodiment”. The examiner fails to see any sort of requirement by Albrecht in terms of what mixing apparatus must be used, notwithstanding that, as Applicant admits, Taniguchi actually does provide stirring elements within his apparatus.
Applicant argues Taniguchi is concerned with powders while Albrecht describes fine shredded solid material. The Examiner does not find any precise difference in structure between the terminology “powder” and “fine shredded solid material”. Moreover, Taniguchi provides no particular restriction in terms of size/shape of particulates/powders that may be treated.
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.
Likewise, Applicant argues Fischer fails to disclose the specific mixing device claimed. This is not found persuasive as the mixing device at issue is met by combination with Taniguchi.
Likewise, Applicant argues Fischer describes “pellets” and not “powders”. This is not found persuasive as Taniguchi provides no particular restriction in terms of size/shape of particulates/powders that may be treated. Moreover, Fisher indicates his “pellets” come in many forms, such as granulates or agglomerates (¶ 37). The Examiner does not find any precise difference in structure between such terminology and “powders”.
Applicant argues Taniguchi focuses on preventing secondary agglomeration when mixing which is not a problem taught by the primary references. The Examiner remains of the position that Taniguchi’s express teachings of obtaining uniform mixtures, particularly for liquids/powders, provides sufficient motivation to support the combination of references. There is no requirement that a primary reference express a need or otherwise require benefits taught by a secondary reference.
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