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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “heavy-duty molded plastic panels”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. The term “heavy-duty” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification provides some examples of items that are considered “heavy-duty”, it is not clear whether the claims are limited to these items (e.g. a shipping pallet) or whether a broad range of other items are in view or intended. As such, it remains unclear how “heavy-duty” the plastic panels need to be in order for them to be considered “heavy-duty”.
At line 11, claim 1 recites “said agri-platic waste the agri-plastic”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear whether this is merely a typographical or grammatical error or whether some unclear meaning is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
For the purposes of clarity, it is noted that the term “agri-plastic” utilized in the claims is sufficiently defined and described in paragraph [0007] of the published application and its scope is therefore sufficiently clear. Further, the term “predominately” at line 11 of claim 1 is sufficiently defined and described at paragraph [0011] of the published application and its scope is also sufficiently clear.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “(measured at about 200°C)” in two locations. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear whether this recitation is referring to a specific MFI test condition which remains unclear or whether something else, which also remains unclear, is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “said plastic waste comprise”. The limiting effect of the recitation is not clear. It is not clear whether this necessarily is referring to “said agri-plastic waste” or whether a different waste is intended. Further, it appears “comprise” should be “comprises”. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 17, at the end of line 4, the word “optionally” introduces an optional limitation directed to extracting and detaching. This much is clear. However, beginning at the end of line 6, the recitation “and the temperature difference between the top mold plate and the bottom mold plate is of at least about 25 °C”. It is not clear whether this is part of the optional limitation or whether this is a separate limitation required by the claim. Further, it appears that “is of at least” should be “is at least”. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk (US 8,691,038) in view of Wuorela et al. (WO 90/08020) and either one of Sugayoshi et al. (US 2003/0021991) or Sampson (US 5,236,603).
Regarding claim 1, Polk teaches a process for producing heavy-duty molded plastic panels (col. 37, lines 29-42; e.g. pallets, wall panels; Figure 11 (141)) from polyethylene in a double-helix/twin screw extruder to obtain a processed plastic melt (col. 8, line 55-col. 9, line 4; col. 34, lines 52-55), permitting the processed plastic melt to flow into one or more molds to at least partially fill said one or more molds (col. 9, line 65-col. 10, line 24; col. 12, lines 16-37; col. 13, lines 6-25; col. 13, line 47-col. 14, lines 35; Figures 4-6), applying pressure onto said one or more molds to shape the plastic melt into one or more of shaped plastic panels (col. 16, lines 11-47; Figures 8 and 9), and extracting said one or more shaped plastic panels from said one or molds to obtain said heavy-duty molded plastic panels (col. 16, line 55-col. 17, line 9; Figure 10), said plastic being predominately polyethylene with amounts of non-organic particulate matter within the claimed range (col. 8, lines 55-62 and col. 34, line 52-col. 35, line 42 - disclosing polyethylene; col. 35, line 44-col. 37, line 5 – disclosing other additives/filler/non-organic particulate matter at amounts within or which overlap the claimed range; overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Polk does not teach the polyethylene is sourced from agri-plastic waste, the agri-plastic waste being in the form of plastic sheets and producing agglomerated granules obtained from said plastic sheets and having a composition as claimed for use as the material for feeding the extruder.
However, Wuorela et al. teach an analogous method wherein waste polyethylene film having a composition substantially as claimed is formed into agglomerated granules for further use in an extrusion process to make molded products (Abstract; page 1, lines 5-9 and 32-36; page 2, lines 1-25; page 3, lines 1-8; page 3, line 27-page 4, line 3; page 4, lines 13-35; page 5, lines 15-25; claims 9 and 10) and each of Sugayoshi et al. (Abstract; Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 7; paragraphs [0014]-[0016] and [0095] – recycling agricultural-use polyethylene sheets and granulating the material) and Sampson (Figure 3; col. 5, lines 15-35 – recycling LDPE agricultural film wherein dirt is removed and the plastic is ultimately dried to recover the LDPE) teach analogous methods wherein the waste recycled polyethylene film that is recycled/reused is agricultural film/(i.e. agri-plastic waste in the form of plastic sheets) having a composition as claimed.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Polk with the teaching of Wuorela et al. and either one of Sugayoshi et al. of Sampson and to have utilized agri-plastic waste, sourced in the form of plastic sheets and having a composition as claimed and to have formed agglomerated granules from the waste for use as a raw material to be fed to the double-helix/twin screw extruder of Polk, as suggested by Wuorela et al. and either one of Sugayoshi et al. or Sampson, of utilizing materials suitable for use in the method of Polk (i.e. polyethylene) that are homogenous, economically viable, and that reduce waste for disposal. In the combination, each and every limitation of claim 1 is taught and suggested by the prior art.
As to claims 2, 4 and 5, as set forth above, the references suggest utilizing polyethylene for feeding the extruder of Polk and that the polyethylene is sourced from commercially available polyethylene agricultural films similar to those claimed and disclosed (e.g. LDPE based films). The same materials have the same properties. It follows from the suggestion of the prior art that utilizing a particular agricultural film, including a film that yields a melt flow index as claimed, would have been a routine expedient and is understood to be prima facie obvious in view of the teaching and suggestion of the applied references.
As to claim 3, Polk teaches any suitable compressive force can be utilized (col. 16, lines 34-35). One having ordinary skill in the art would have readily optimized the amount of compressive force required to produce the desired panel as a routine expedient in view of the teaching and suggestion of Polk (see MPEP 2144.05 I and II).
As to claims 10 and 11, Polk teaches adding fillers in amounts within or which overlap the claimed amounts (col. 35, line 44-col. 36, line 5).
As to claims 12-15, the teaching of Wuorela et al. teaches and suggests agglomerating as claimed and suggests optimizing the size of the particles and drying to achieve an extremely homogenous product (page 1, lines 5-9 and 31-35; page 2, lines 6-8; page 3, lines 1-30; page 4, lines 1-31). Further, each of Sugayoshi et al. (as cited above and Figure 12) and Sampson (as cited above and Figure 3 (89) and col. 6, line 14 – 3/8” flakes) taken with Wuorela et al. suggest agglomerating as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 16, Polk teaches several locations within the mold as claimed and two mold inlets as claimed being fed from two different locations (Figures 1 and 4-6).
As to claim 17, Polk teaches two mold halves, which are bottom and top molds, configured for holding and shaping as claimed (Figures 6-10). Polk teaches different materials can be utilized and the temperature of each mold is selected based on the material, as desired, to achieve a desired fusing (col. 8, line 43-col. 9, line 4; col. 16, lines 47-65). As such, selecting the temperature difference as claimed is reasonably suggested by the teaching of Polk. Further, determining a suitable temperature for the molds is understood in this context to be a routine expedient.
As to claims 18 and 19, the residence time in the mold and the inlet extruder temperature would have been readily optimized in the method of Polk in order to ensure effective processing in the extruder and shaping and fusing in the mold. These are routine parameters in the art and appropriate times and temperatures would have been readily determined absent a showing of new or unexpected results .
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk (US 8,691,038) in view of Wuorela et al. (WO 90/08020) and either one of Sugayoshi et al. (US 2003/0021991) or Sampson (US 5,236,603), as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0067411; effectively filed August 31, 2022).
As to claims 6-9 the combination teaches the method set forth above. As to claims 6 and 7, Polk does not teach the addition of HDPE from a pipe or tube source as claimed. However, Zhang et al. teach an analogous method wherein a tube of agricultural film containing HDPE is disclosed being recycled (Abstract; paragraphs [0026], [0031] and [0038]). As to claims 8 and 9, Zhang et al. further teach utilizing layers of LDPE and HDPE in the multilayer film and suggest amounts that overlap the claimed ranges (paragraphs [0026], [0031], [0043], [0047]-[0049], [0054], [0064], [0080], [0090], [0096], [0098]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Polk and Zhang et al. and to have further included HDPE from a tube source as claimed and/or to have included a blend of HDPE and LDPE as the agri-plastic waste as claimed in the method of Polk, as suggested by Zhang et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of utilizing forms of polyethylene that are disclosed as being suitable for use in the method of Polk and that promote environmental stewardship and reduce raw material costs.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polk (US 8,691,038) in view of Wuorela et al. (WO 90/08020) and either one of Sugayoshi et al. (US 2003/0021991) or Sampson (US 5,236,603), as applied to claims 1-5 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (US 2003/0113496). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claims 6-9.
As to claims 6-9 the combination teaches the method set forth above. As to claims 6 and 7, Polk does not teach the addition of HDPE from a pipe or tube source as claimed. Further, Polk does not teach blends of LDPE and HDPE as claimed as set forth in claims 8 and 9. However, Harris et al. teach an analogous method wherein a plastic pipe containing HDPE is disclosed being recycled and further teach utilizing materials that read upon the claimed LDPE and HDPE in amounts that overlap the claimed ranges (paragraphs [0001], [0005]-[0009], [0021], [0022], [0033] and [0034])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Polk and Harris et al. and to have further included HDPE from a pipe source as claimed and/or to have included a blend of HDPE and LDPE as the agri-plastic waste as claimed in the method of Polk, as suggested by Harris et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of utilizing forms of polyethylene that are disclosed as being suitable for use in the method of Polk and that promote environmental stewardship and reduce raw material costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742