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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/2026 has been entered.
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-13, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN1736623A) in view of Mukhopadhyay (US 2004/0054018 A1) as evidenced by Viot (US 2015/0353703 A1). As the cited CN publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 7-9, and 19, Yan teaches methods of recycling waste metal-plated plastic films comprising treating recycled plastic with an aqueous solution of 85 wt% sulfuric acid, removing from the aqueous sulfuric acid, treating the obtained material with roughly 5.1 wt% aqueous sodium hydroxide, removing from the aqueous sodium hydroxide, and then collecting plastic fragments for recycling (¶ 6, 13). Yan teaches processing the films into fragments prior to acid treatment (¶ 8), construed as flaked/pelletized form. The pH of the first solution would intrinsically be 2.0 or lower owing to sulfuric acid being a strong acid. Likewise, owing to sodium hydroxide being a strong base, the pH of the second solution would intrinsically be 7.0 or higher. Yan differs from the subject matter claimed in that the plastic is not identified as polyolefin plastic with VOCs.
In this regard, Mukhopadhyay teaches laminated metal-polyethylene packaging materials are known, of which it is desirable to recycle the polyethylene from (¶ 1-11), of which acid/base treatment is applicable (Examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recycling process of Yan with polyethylene-metal laminates because doing so would facilitate the re-use/recycling of conventional packaging materials as taught by Mukhopadhyay. As evidenced by Viot, it is well known in the art VOCs are produced over the lifetime of polyethylenes owing to ageing, temperature, and light degradation (¶ 13). Thus, while the prior art does not comment on the presence of VOCs or measure the quantity of hydrophobic/hydrophilic VOCs after treatment, the position is taken that the waste polyethylene plastics would intrinsically possess both relatively hydrophilic and hydrophobic VOCs and, since Yan teaches a substantially similar if not identical procedure, such VOCs would intrinsically be reduced by such a protocol in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 3, Yan teaches treating in acid for 5-10 minutes (¶ 8). As no temperature is specified, treatment at room temperature is implied.
Regarding Claim 4, Yan treats with base so as to react/separate the metal and plastic materials (¶ 8). As no temperature is specified, treatment at room temperature is implied. Although not providing an exact timeframe for treatment, the time of treatment is indicated to be a result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 optimal/workable treatment times within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable delamination/degradation of metal/plastic substrates.
Regarding Claim 10, Yan teaches the fragments are treated within a mixer (¶ 8), implying the mixture is subjected to agitations through mechanical mixing.
Regarding Claim 11, Yan teaches rinsing the fragments after acid treatment / removal of fragments from acid so as to remove acid mixture (¶ 8).
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, Yan teaches the plastic films are waste plastic films polluting farm/urban environments (¶ 4). There is no apparent difference in structure between the waste films of the prior art and what is indicated within the claims with respect to “post-consumer waste” since “consumer” only designates the origin of such materials.
Regarding Claim 13, Yan teaches treating waste plastic using substantially similar materials (acid / base aqueous mixtures). It therefore stands to reason the same decreases in VOC content would necessarily be exhibited in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 16, Yan teaches the waste films are fragmented prior to acid treatment (¶ 8), reading on shredding.
Regarding Claim 18, the 5 wt% NaOH is equivalent to roughly 1.25 M NaOH. Since pOH = -log[ 1.25M] = -0.1 and pH = 14 – pOH, the pH of such a mixture is seen to be slightly above 14.0 (~ 14.1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pH’s of the prior art are close to the upper limit claimed to the extent that the same results/characteristics would be expected to occur, particularly at the high alkalinity levels at issue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues Yan treats metal-plated plastic whereas the specification describes treating polypropylene/polyethylene plastics. Applicant generally argues the purposes of acid/base washing is fundamentally different. This is not found persuasive as Yan meets all limitations claimed. There does not appear to be any limitations that exclude metal-plated plastics within the claims.
Applicant argues residual water would be present on the washed metal-plated plastic films so that the wt% of sulfuric acid would be lower. Applicant generally argues Yan uses a lower wt/wt acid/polymer ratio than that used within the examples of the specification. This is not found persuasive. The claims only require the solution A used to treat recycled plastic have an acid concentration in the range of 70-98 wt%. The claims do not require any particular acid/polymer ratio.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the method of Voit is not perceived to be relevant toward the rejections of record as Voit is only relied upon to provide evidence establishing VOCs are produced over the lifetime of polyethylenes owing to ageing, temperature, and light degradation. The method steps of Voit are not relied upon.
Applicant generally argues Yan’s protocol would not inherently reduce VOCs, reasoning the specification indicates using water alone, base alone, and/or acid alone gives lower reductions in VOCs as opposed to using a combination of acid and base. This is not found persuasive. Claim 1 does not require any particular degree of VOC reduction and the evidence set forth within the specification indicates even simply washing with water yields a reduction in VOCs. Moreover, Yan’s protocol uses the same acid/base washing features that is presently claimed. It is unclear how or why Yan’s protocol would fail to reduce VOC contents while the opposite holds true in the hands of Applicant. While Applicant points to the presence of metal and/or a lower acid/polymer weight ratios within Yan, the examiner finds no evidence of record that such features are material to, or impact in any way, the ability of such materials to remove VOCs. Mere attorney argument is not factual evidence.
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, 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