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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed by Applicant on 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. By way of this amendment, claims 1 and 3 have been amended, claims 6-7 have been canceled, and claim 9 has been added by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 8-9 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Yao does not disclose nor suggest that a vaporizer including a screw conveyor is used to thermally decompose an oligomer contained in a depolymerized product to vaporize a monomer, but Yao is used as a secondary reference in combination with Jenczewski and Sifniades.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenczewski et al. (US-5656757-A), hereinafter “Jenczewski”, in view of Sifniades et al. (US-5457197-A), hereinafter “Sifniades” and Yao et al. (US-11220586-B2), hereinafter “Yao”.
Regarding Claim 1, Jenczewski discloses a resin composition recycler for recycling a resin composition including a resin and an additive (process for recovering a monomer from a multi-component polymeric waste material… carpet material that includes nylon 6 and a significant amount of non-nylon components; see Col. 2 Lines 5-7 and Lines 23-24; based on the instant claims and specification, the “recycler” is actually a combination of equipment such as a reactor, separator, vaporizer, etc., and is analogous to a process), the resin composition recycler comprising: a reactor (reactor or a series of reactors; see Col. 3 Line 64) that hydrolyzes the resin included in the resin composition to obtain a depolymerized product (mixture is subjected to heat and pressure to form a liquid aqueous solution which includes as a major constituent a mixture of depolymerization products of the hydrolysable polymeric component; see Col. 4 Lines 10-13); and a vaporizer (thin film evaporator 21; see Col. 8 Line 28), that thermally decomposes an oligomer contained in the depolymerized product (separation of caprolactam from oligomers. The caprolactam is vaporized; see Col. 7 Lines 28-29) to vaporize a monomer (thin film evaporator to recover crude caprolactam; see Col. 7 Lines 14-15), wherein the reactor comprises: a first introducer that introduces the resin composition (the carpet strips are fed via extruder or pump 3; see Col. 7 Line 62); a second introducer that introduces water (water is charged to the reactor at 7; see Col. 7 Lines 63-64); and a mixer (stirred tank reactor; see Col. 8 Line 3) that mixes the resin composition with the water (water is added to the reactor to form a mixture of water and the multi-component polymeric waste material; see Col. 4 Lines 8-9).
Jenczewski does not explicitly teach the reactor being an extrusion reactor. However, Sifniades discloses the reactor being an extrusion reactor (extruder may be used… as the reactor for the first stage; see Col. 5 Lines 29-30) comprising a screw (screw extruder; see Col. 11 Line 7) for mixing the resin composition with the water (carpet material and water into a first reactor, preferably an extruder… subjecting the resulting mixture; see Col. 3 Lines 33-35).
Jenczewski and Sifniades are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of recovery of resin compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jenczewski by incorporating the teachings of Sifniades and using an extruder reactor. Doing so would enable the greatest economy in water consumption to effect a continuous countercurrent operation; see Sifniades Col. 5 Lines 43-44).
Jenczewski does not explicitly teach a screw conveyor in the vaporizer. However, Yao discloses a vaporizer comprising a conveyor that conveys the depolymerized product (evaporator with internals… to convey solids out of the equipment like a screw conveyor; see Col. 33 Lines 37-39).
Jenczewski and Yao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of resin composition recovery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jenczewski by incorporating the teachings of Yao and including a conveyor with the vaporizer. Doing so would prevent solid buildup and enable conveyance of solids out of the equipment (see Yao Col. 33 Lines 37-39).
Regarding Claim 2, Jenczewski, Sifniades, and Yao together disclose the resin composition recycler according to claim 1. Jenczewski further discloses the reactor and the vaporizer being coupled via a pressure control valve (the reaction products from the reactor are discharged through a pressure reducing valve; see Col. 9 Lines 7-8). Jenczewski does not explicitly teach a “back-pressure valve”, however it is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that a pressure reducing valve and a back-pressure valve both have the same structure of a pressure control valve. The manner of operating a pressure control valve is what differentiates a pressure reducing valve from a back-pressure valve, but the structure of these two valves are not necessarily different. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, the pressure reducing valve disclosed by Jenczewski is analogous to the claimed back-pressure valve.
Regarding Claim 3, Jenczewski, Sifniades, and Yao together disclose the resin composition recycler according to claim 2. Jenczewski further discloses the vaporizer and back-pressure valve being coupled via a gas-liquid separator (“through a pressure reducing valve into a vessel… the vessel is a… flash tank”; see Col. 9 Lines 8-9; and “The bottoms 20 of flasher 19… in stream 20 can be collected in thin film evaporator 21; see Col. 8 Lines 25-28 and Fig. 1) that separates the oligomer and a monomer contained in the depolymerized product (stream 17 is charged to flasher 19, wherein crude caprolactam 22 can optionally be purified in downstream operations; see Col. 8 Lines 23-25 and Fig. 1; and “The caprolactam exiting this flasher… the bottoms from the flash tank, composed primarily of oligomers”; see Col. 7 Lines 34-37).
Regarding Claim 4, Jenczewski, Sifniades, and Yao together disclose the resin composition recycler according to claim 3. Jenczewski further discloses a condenser (partial condenser; see Col. 7 Line 35) that condenses the monomer vaporized by the vaporizer and the monomer separated by the gas-liquid separator (caprolactam exiting this flasher… can be charged to a partial condenser… to condense the caprolactam; see Col. 7 Lines 34-36). Fig. 1 shows stream 22 as the crude caprolactam exiting the flasher, stream 22’ as additional caprolactam leaving the evaporator, and stream 22’ being combined with stream 22 and then being purified in downstream operations (see Col. 8 Lines 24-28 and Fig. 1). It is understood that the downstream operations include a condenser, as Jenczewski specified in Col. 7 Lines 34-36, as pointed out above.
Regarding Claim 5, Jenczewski, Sifniades, and Yao together disclose the resin composition recycler according to claim 1. Jenczewski further discloses a depressurizer that depressurizes an interior of the vaporizer (using a rotary vacuum evaporator; see Col. 10 Line 9). It is well understood in the art that a rotary vacuum evaporator comprises a vacuum pump that reduces the pressure inside the evaporator.
Regarding Claim 8, Jenczewski, Sifniades, and Yao together disclose the resin composition recycler according to claim 1.
Jenczewski does not explicitly teach a fiber-reinforced resin. However, Yao discloses the resin composition being a fiber-reinforced resin (“adding plastic waste to a reaction vessel”; see Col. 6 Lines 36-37; and “the plastic waste further includes at least one non-plastic waste”; see Col. 7 Lines 1-2; and “non-plastic materials include non-plastic organic materials”; see Col. 20 Lines 46-47; and “the non-plastic organic material… is… plant fibers”; see Col. 21 Lines 1-5).
Further, using a fiber-reinforced resin as the resin composition to be recycled in the system is a functional limitation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of using a fiber-reinforced resin does not further define the actual structure of the recycler, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the recycler. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9, Jenczewski, Sifniades, and Yao together disclose the resin composition recycler according to claim 1. The remaining limitations of claim 9 do not exceed those of claims 1-4. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1-4 as the rejection of claim 9 follows the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774