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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao (CN 106751157 A, attached with English translation).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 23, and 25-29, Hao teaches a floor tile composition of 100 kg waste PVC, 70 kg waste PE, 30 kg plasticizer, 200 kg filler, 5 kg stabilizer, 2 kg lubricant (mold releasing additive), and 15 kg flame retardant (p. 1). Hao does not require any virgin polymer. Of the total 392 kg of that composition, waste PVC contributes 25.5 wt%; waste PE contributes 17.9 wt%; plasticizer contributes 7.7 wt%; filler contributes 51.0 wt%; stabilizer contributes 1.3 wt%; lubricant contributes 0.51 wt%; and flame retardant contributes 3.8 wt%. The total contribution from waste polymer is therefore 43.4 wt%. The combined total of stabilizer and lubricant contributes 1.81 wt%. The total of flame retardant, all stabilizers, and lubricant is 5.6 wt%. These prior art values read on the claimed values.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 20-23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao.
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-10, and 26, Hao teaches 60-80 parts by weight of waste PE (30.6-57.9 wt%) with 1-3 parts lubricant ( 0.2-1.0 wt% mold releasing additive) (p. 1). Hao teaches use of the composition in floor tiles (p. 1). Hao does not require any virgin polymer. This prior art range overlaps the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4, 23, and 27-29, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. Hao further teaches use of 10-20 parts by weight of a flame retardant in the composition (p. 1). The resulting composition contains an amount of lubricant and flame retardant ranging from 11-23 parts by weight (2.1-7.6 wt%) in the total composition. This range overlaps the claim 29 range of 1-70 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 20-22, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. As previously discussed, Hao teaches a composition of the same ingredients as that of the instant claims. As such, Hao's composition will necessarily possess the same surface tension characteristics. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 3, 5, 15, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Prince (US 9175156 B2).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. However, Hao is silent as to the variety of recycled polymer that may be used. In the same field of endeavor, Prince teaches floor covering compositions including HDPE regrind (col. 10, lines 13 and 63-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Hao and the regrind of Prince to arrive at the claimed invention, and to reduce energy consumption, increase production rates, shorten cycle times, while maintaining desired mechanical performance characteristics, as taught by Prince (col. 4, lines 52-58).
Regarding claims 5 and 24-25, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. However, Hao does not specify what additives may be used. In the same field of endeavor, Prince further teaches use of conventional additives such as pigments and stabilizers (claim 13) that may be present in any amount sufficient to obtain a desired property (col. 6, lines 49-50). This prior art range encompasses the prior art range taught in claim 25. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range encompasses the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Hao with the additives of Prince to arrive at the claimed invention, and to control the physical characteristics of the composition, as taught by Prince (col. 2, lines 45-46).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Mancosh (US 2012/0077890 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. However, Hao is silent as to use of the composition in a sheet or film of the claimed thickness. In a similar field of endeavor, Mancosh teaches a regrind composition sheet having thickness ranging from about 0.0625 inches (1.588 mm) to about 2.0 inches (50.8 mm). This prior art range overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Hao and the sheet and thickness of Mancosh to arrive at the claimed invention, and to expand the composition's industrial applicability to include roofing or siding products, as taught by Mancosh (p. 11, [0078]).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Prince as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mancosh.
Regarding claims 16-19, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. However, Hao is silent as to the size and shape of the regrind that may be used. In a similar field of endeavor, Mancosh teaches regrind that is shredded, ground, and pulverized to generate pellets or granules having particle sizes ranging from 1" (25.4 mm) shreds to about 100 mesh (0.149 mm) (p. 3, [0036]; pp. 3-4, [0039]). The use of a commercial shredder in Mancosh, as in the instant application, will necessarily result in shreds having the same edge characteristics. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Hao and the regrind processing of Mancosh to arrive at the claimed invention, and to provide material suitable to produce the desired physical or visual appearance properties, as taught by Mancosh (p. 3, [0035]).
Claims 7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Prince as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bissonnette (US 6555627 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 11-14, Hao remains as applied to claim 1 above. However, Hao is silent as to the particle size of regrind suitable for use in the composition. In a similar composition, Bissonnette teaches regrind polymer powder having particle size from about 0.1 micrometers to 1000 micrometers (col. 4, lines 3-5) and compressed into a mold (claim 30). This prior art range overlaps the claimed particle size ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composition of Hao and the regrind powder size of Bissonnette to arrive at the claimed invention, and to render the composition suitable for automated assembly, as taught by Bissonnette (col. 6, line 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762