DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II and species A) low pressure treatment of particles in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 31-32, 36,38, 45 and 49-50 read on the elected group and species (while applicant did not designate claim 49 as being in the elected group, claim 50 depends therefrom accordingly the examiner has examined claims 49-50 as being within the elected group and species).
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 15-18, 20, 25-26, 29, 35 and 48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/2026
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/21/23, 3/14/23 and 2/16/23 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION/INTRODUCTION
The following claim interpretation introduction is expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
Regarding Ranges:
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Polymers which have pendant groups include various alkyl methacrylate etc. as well as those set forth below.
PNG
media_image1.png
212
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding “about” as used to refer to ranges, ratios, values will be interpreted as set forth in the instant specification so as to afford the broadest reasonable interpretation:
PNG
media_image3.png
130
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 31-32, 36,38, and 45 and claims 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al (US 2019/0202100) further in view of Niang OA 11020
Regarding Claims 31-32, 36,38, and 45
Thomas et al (US 2019/0202100) discloses a composite comprising agro-waste particles in an average particle diameter of 100 to 1000 microns [0018]waste plastic and other waste particles polymer pellets are formed (Abstract)[0023]
The polyolefin includes polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene etc. [00156] (meeting claim 45)
The average diameter of the polymer pellet is 0.1 to 10 mm [0024] (overlapping the range of claim 31)(given the size of the pellets the particles therein must be smaller than the overall particle thereby overlapping the ranges of claim 38)
The polymer contains a polyolefin as well as a secondary polymer such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyvinyl chloride, vinyl ester etc. [0044] polyvinyl ether polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. [0045] (pendant group includes nitrile/cyano of claim 31) (meeting the limitation for at least some particles comprise surface comprising pendant groups)
Additional additives are mixed with the mixture (meeting the limitation for at least some particles comprise surface comprising pendant groups) to improve one or more physical/mechanical properties of the composite such as ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers, ethylene acrylic acid copolymers, ethylene methacrylic acid copolymers, ethylene ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate grafted polybutylene, methyl methacrylate styrene grafted rubber, ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer, ethylene ethyl acrylate copolymers etc. in ranges of 1 to 25 wt.% [0072] (pendant groups such as methacrylate and acrylic acid meeting carboxyl and ester)(meeting claim is 31-32 for ester or carboxyl) (meeting the limitation for at least some particles comprise surface comprising pendant groups)
The pellets are plasma treated as a sub atmospheric pressure [0054] (i.e. low pressure plasma) Plasma treating forms functional groups o the surface of the polymer pellets including carboxyl aldehyde etc. [0054] [0055][0063]
Since the prior art teaches the claimed particles in overlapping size ranges at least some will necessarily not express a glass transition temperature as in instant claim 36). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The composite imparts improved physical characteristics such as tensile strength impact resistance etc. [0047] Treatment with the plasma will impart improved adhesion bonds [0056]
[0075] The polymer composite may be used in various applications including, but not limited to car manufacturing, aerospace, electronics, pharmaceutical, medical devices, sport goods, kitchen supplies, food packages, water bottles, chemical containers, toy manufacturing, caps, wire, cable jacketing, etc. Depending on final applications of the polymer composite, additional processing steps may be involved. For example, the polymer composite may first be polished and then be coated with coloring dyes to be used in car manufacturing and aerospace industries.
Thomas discloses The composite imparts improved physical characteristics such as tensile strength impact resistance etc. [0047] Treatment with the plasma will impart improved adhesion bonds [0056]
[0075] The polymer composite may be used in various applications including, but not limited to car manufacturing, aerospace, electronics, pharmaceutical, medical devices, sport goods, kitchen supplies, food packages, water bottles, chemical containers, toy manufacturing, caps, wire, cable jacketing, etc. Depending on final applications of the polymer composite, additional processing steps may be involved. For example, the polymer composite may first be polished and then be coated with coloring dyes to be used in car manufacturing and aerospace industries.
While Thomas discloses the pellets may be used in many applications, it does not expressly disclose with cement and in concrete.
Niang OA 11020 discloses a concrete aggregate comprising recycled plastic waste recycled plastic pellets (Abstract)
See reference claims:
Cement sand and plastic pellets are mixed the plastic granules (Reference claim 1) have a maximum diameter of 5 mm (reference claim 5)
Reference claim 6 (overlapping the claimed specific volume ratio) Lightweight concrete of recycled plastic waste aggregates, without incorporation of additive, according to claim 1, the dosage of which is such that:
1200 The W/W3 ⟨ density ⟨ 1300 kg/m3 0.40 ⟨ water/cement ratio ⟨ 0.0,55
25 340 kg/m3 ⟨ cement ⟨ 420 kg/m3 -160
The following articles 1,020 kg/m3⟨water⟨1 kg/m3
450 Kg/m3 ⟨
sand ⟨ 480 kg/m3
200
The following are preferred: kg/m3⟨plastic granules⟨300 kg/m3
4,0%
5 7-/ Light concrete of recycled plastic waste aggregates, without incorporation of additive, according to claims 1 and 6, usable as light, insulating and bearing concrete, in any type of conventional construction.
(overlapping the claimed ratios)
8-/ Lightweight concrete of recycled plastic waste aggregates, without 10 incorporation of additive, according to claims 1, 6 and 7, the simple compressive strengths of which at 28 days are comprised between 7.90 MPa and 11.75 MPa, and therefore comply with international standards (3.5 MPa ⟨ Rc ⟨ 15 MPa)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the plastic particles of Thomas in a cement and concrete composition have the ratio of sand to aggregate in ranges taught by Niang in order to impart improved physical characteristics to the concrete.
Claim(s) 31-32, 36,38, 45 and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niang OA 11020 further in view of Thomas et al (US 2019/0202100)
Niang OA 11020 discloses a concrete aggregate comprising recycled plastic waste recycled plastic pellets (Abstract)
See reference claims:
Cement sand and plastic pellets are mixed the plastic granules (Reference claim 1) have a maximum diameter of 5 mm (reference claim 5)
Reference claim 6 (overlapping the claimed specific volume ratio) Lightweight concrete of recycled plastic waste aggregates, without incorporation of additive, according to claim 1, the dosage of which is such that:
1200 The W/W3 ⟨ density ⟨ 1300 kg/m3 0.40 ⟨ water/cement ratio ⟨ 0.0,55
25 340 kg/m3 ⟨ cement ⟨ 420 kg/m3 -160
The following articles 1,020 kg/m3⟨water⟨1 kg/m3
450 Kg/m3 ⟨
sand ⟨ 480 kg/m3
200
The following are preferred: kg/m3⟨plastic granules⟨300 kg/m3
4,0%
5 7-/ Light concrete of recycled plastic waste aggregates, without incorporation of additive, according to claims 1 and 6, usable as light, insulating and bearing concrete, in any type of conventional construction.
8-/ Lightweight concrete of recycled plastic waste aggregates, without 10 incorporation of additive, according to claims 1, 6 and 7, the simple compressive strengths of which at 28 days are comprised between 7.90 MPa and 11.75 MPa, and therefore comply with international standards (3.5 MPa ⟨ Rc ⟨ 15 MPa)
Niang does not expressly disclose th plastic particles possessing the instantly claimed particle size with the instantly claimed pendant grous treated by low pressure plasma.
However,
Thomas et al (US 2019/0202100) discloses a composite comprising agro-waste particles in a average particle diameter of 100 to 1000 microns [0018]waste plastic and other waste particles polymer pellets are formed (Abstract)[0023]
The polyolefin includes polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene etc. [00156] (meeting claim 45)
The average diameter of the polymer pellet is 0.1 to 10 mm [0024] (overlapping the range of claim 31)(given the size of the pellets the particles therein must be smaller than the overall particle thereby overlapping the ranges of claim 38)
The polymer contains a polyolefin as well as a secondary polymer such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyvinyl chloride, vinyl ester etc. [0044] polyvinyl ether polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. [0045] (pendant group includes nitrile/cyano of claim 31) (meeting the limitation for at least some particles comprise surface comprising pendant groups)
Additional additives are mixed with the mixture (meeting the limitation for at least some particles comprise surface comprising pendant groups) to improve one or more physical/mechanical properties of the composite such as ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers, ethylene acrylic acid copolymers, ethylene methacrylic acid copolymers, ethylene ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate grafted polybutylene, methyl methacrylate styrene grafted rubber, ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer, ethylene ethyl acrylate copolymers etc. in ranges of 1 to 25 wt.% [0072] (pendant groups such as methacrylate and acrylic acid meeting carboxyl and ester)(meeting claim is 31-32 for ester or carboxyl) (meeting the limitation for at least some particles comprise surface comprising pendant groups)
The pellets are plasma treated as a sub atmospheric pressure [0054] (i.e. low pressure plasma) Plasma treating forms functional groups o the surface of the polymer pellets including carboxyl aldehyde etc. [0054] [0055][0063]
Since the prior art teaches the claimed particles in overlapping size ranges at least some will necessarily not express a glass transition temperature as in instant claim 36).
The composite imparts improved physical characteristics such as tensile strength impact resistance etc. [0047] Treatment with the plasma will impart improved adhesion bonds [0056]
[0075] The polymer composite may be used in various applications including, but not limited to car manufacturing, aerospace, electronics, pharmaceutical, medical devices, sport goods, kitchen supplies, food packages, water bottles, chemical containers, toy manufacturing, caps, wire, cable jacketing, etc. Depending on final applications of the polymer composite, additional processing steps may be involved. For example, the polymer composite may first be polished and then be coated with coloring dyes to be used in car manufacturing and aerospace industries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the plastic particles of Thomas in a cement and concrete composition have the ratio of sand to aggregate in ranges taught by Niang in order to impart improved physical characteristics to the concrete of Niang; further Niang expressly contemplates the use of plastic particle pellets as such using the plastic particle pellets of Thomas in Niang amounts to nothing more than use of a known composite (plastic particle pellets) in a known environment (concrete) in order to achieve an entirely expected result (concrete with improved physical mechanical properties).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action teaching various plastic particles in concrete For example:
WO 2004/060827A1 Doyle et al discloses a composition comprise a particulate polymeric plastic material used in cement (Abstract) (P2 second full par) The composition is sued for manufacturing building elements and comprises cement and particulate polymeric substance (See reference claim 1) the composition includes sand (clam 10 reference) gravel (claim 11 reference) stone claim 12 reference
Dillon Elliott (GB 2525454A) discloses a construction material of concrete or cement comprising particulate aggregate comprising 25-100 % vol particle of plastic 10-75 vo. % of particles having a size of 0.1 – 2 mm and 25-90 % having a size of 2-10 mm (P1 L25-P2 L4) The aggregate includes rubber glass and stone (P2 L3-5) The ratio of plastic to cement is 0.6:1 to 3.5 ! (P3 L3-10)
The plastic includes polyethylene terephthalate high and low density polyethylene polyvinyl chloride polypropylene and a mixture of different types of plastics (P3 L10-25)
The composition comprises 30 % cement 20 % and 30 % plastic, 20 % sand (Table 1) overlapping the claimed sand : aggregate ratio of claim 50
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights