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 Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 2/12/2026, the rejections under 112(b) to claims 7-10 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claim overcome the rejection in view of Guatney modified by Ko and Valerio. Applicant argues that Ko is not analogous art to the claimed invention. Applicant notes Ko is directed to recycling PET from single-polymer waste streams through pulverization, washing, and flake processing to create resin composition for injection molding. Applicant also notes that the present application is directed toward automotive shredder residue (ASR) which is mixed polymers in a single stream. Applicant argues that a person of skill in ASR would not look to PET recycling. Examiner disagrees. Both the claimed invention and Ko are seeking to create a material from recycled plastic materials. They both use a number of similar process as noted by Applicant including pulverizing, washing, and processing. Ko is directly analogous to the claimed invention because Ko is in the same field of endeavor, plastic recycling, and processing the recycled plastics into a usable material, as the claimed invention. Ko is also reasonably pertinent to at least one of the problems addressed by the instant application, creating marketable recycled products from waste streams. Applicant also notes several differences between Ko and the instant application. Examiner notes that a reference may be different than the instant application and still be analogous art.
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Ko with the primary reference. Applicant argues that an ASR recycler, due to the nature of the mixed polymer stream, cannot specify the particular mix of the polymers. Examiner disagrees. The rejection does not suggest that the entire polymer composition of Guatney should be replaced with the specific composition of virgin PBT, recycled PET, and glass fiber as described in Ko, but rather that it is known that recycled polymers should be supplemented with virgin plastics in specified ratios in order to achieve beneficial properties like lubrication. Therefore, it is obvious that the recycled polymers in Guatney can be supplemented with virgin plastic for the above mentioned benefits. An ASR recycler is capable of adding a virgin polymer to the polymer composition. Applicant also argues that the cited reasoning for combining Ko with the primary reference is “borrowed directly from Ko’s own objectives” and “constituted impermissible hindsight.” This is not what impermissible hindsight is. MPEP §2145(X)(A) says, “judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” The motivation to combine stated in the rejection is directly from the Ko reference which is prior art and is therefore was knowledge available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. A person of skill in the art would look to the teachings of Ko and recognize that the addition of a virgin polymer in a recycled polymer stream promotes beneficial properties to the polymer composite.
With respect to claim 6, Applicant argues that the citation of Valerio describing a specific gravity of 1.0 does not beet the claimed “from about 0.90 to about 1.0” because Valerio only discloses 1.0 and does not disclose the entire range. Applicant cites In re Peterson. Examiner disagrees. As per 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.” The range of 1.0 as disclosed in Valerio overlaps the range of “from about 0.90 to about 1.0” and therefore meets the claimed range. In re Peterson does not support Applicant’s position that a single data point cannot render a claimed range obvious. Examiner believes Applicant is referring to In re Peterson with respect to the discussion of unexpected results over a claimed range when the evidence of non-obvious is not commensurate with the scope of the range in the claims, see MPEP §716.02(d). This is not applicable to the claims in the instant application at present. See the discussion of In re Peterson in MPEP §2144.05 (I).
With respect to claim 8, Applicant argues that the specific gravity of 1.4 in Valerio is not close enough to the claimed “about 1.3” and that the office action does not further establish obviousness with respect to the specific gravity claimed. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes the claim says “about 1.3.” 1.4 is “about” 1.3. Using “about” in the claims, while not necessarily indefinite, opens the broadest reasonable interpretation to include values of specific gravity slightly above 1.3 and slightly below 1.3. Applicant’s further assertion that the 0.1 g/cc difference in specific gravity between the claimed 1.3 and the cited 1.4 is critical because certain polymers have densities in this exact range. First, its clear from the claims that this 1.3 value is not critical because the claim says “about 1.3.” Second, Valerio recognizes that polymers such as PVC, have a density at about 1.3 and recognize this could be a valuable material in some processes, see Valerio [0044]. The office action recognizes this and further cites that it is obvious to also use a specific gravity of 1.3 in order to collect polymers such as PVC as described in Valerio. Again, Examiner notes that the entire and exact claimed range does not need to be described in the art in order for the claims to be met, see MPEP §2144.05 (I).
With respect to claim 7, Applicant argues that the polymer of Ko which is 30% glass fiber additives does not meet the claimed “about 20%.” Applicant further argues that 30% is 50% more than 20%. Once again, Examiner notes the use of “about” in the claims do not limit the claims to exactly 20%. Of the entire composition, there is only a 10% difference between the values claimed and the reference, “about 20%” to 30%. Applicant further argues that the glass fiber content would affect the mechanical properties but this is also recognized in Ko. Applicant notes that Ko is formulating the polymer for use in motor insulators not ASR-derived materials but it is not clear how this is relevant to the amount of glass fiber. Ko recognizes the additives in an amount that seems to meet or be reasonably close to “about 20%.” Applicant also argues that Ko only describes one data point in the claimed MFI range not the entire range. Again, this is not persuasive as per MPEP §2144.05 (I) because a smaller range can teach a larger claimed range. Applicant also argues that there is no teaching that this MFI could be achieved from ASR materials. Examiner disagrees. ASR is made of polymers. Polymers have MFI. It is well within the ambit of a person of skill in the art to achieve a MFI by including other virgin polymers or additives as described in Ko.
Claims 5 and 9-10 also remain rejected for the reasons described above.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 in line 3 reads “to increase the a specific gravity.” Examiner suggests “the a” is a typographical error and should read “the specific gravity”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guatney (“TREATMENT OF AUTO SHREDDER RESIDUE,” see NPL copy provided with the IDS dated 2/14/2024) modified by Valerio (US 2008/0257794) and Ko (US 2024/0317991.)
Regarding claim 1, Guatney meets the claimed, A method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material comprising Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR), the method comprising the steps of: providing reclaimed polymer material selected and sorted from a source of automotive shredder residue (ASR); (Guatney page 3 discloses providing automotive scrap) grinding the reclaimed polymer material selected and sorted from the automotive shredder residue (ASR) via a grinding process to form a polymeric regrind material having a predetermined maximum size (Guatney page 3 and Figure 1 describe an initial step of shredding automotive scrap to smaller pieces.)
Guatney describes separation based on density but does not explicitly describe a liquid solution and does not meet the claimed, depositing the polymeric regrind material into a liquid solution having a liquid solution specific gravity of from about 0.90 to 1.30 and performing a liquid density separation; extracting a plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material with a specific gravity of less than the liquid solution specific gravity from a surface of the liquid solution; conditioning the plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material extracted from the surface of the liquid solution, wherein conditioning the plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material is defined as at least one of washing, rinsing, and drying the plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material, and supplying the plastics compound to an extrusion machine to produce the moldable polymer material comprising Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR).
Analogous in the field of ASR recycling, Valerio meets the claimed, depositing the polymeric regrind material into a liquid solution having a liquid solution specific gravity of from about 0.90 to 1.30 and performing a liquid density separation; extracting a plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material with a specific gravity of less than the liquid solution specific gravity from a surface of the liquid solution; (Valerio [0039] describes separating ASR by density via adding the residue to liquid tanks at 1.0 g/cc (specific gravity of 1.0) and collecting the floating material) conditioning the plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material extracted from the surface of the liquid solution, wherein conditioning the plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material is defined as at least one of washing, rinsing, and drying the plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material (Valerio [0058] describes washing, rinsing, and drying extracted plastic material) and supplying the plastics compound to an extrusion machine to produce the moldable polymer material comprising Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR) (Valerio [0060] describes extruding and pelletizing the recovered plastic prior to reselling.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the steps of separating the ASR by density as described in Guatney with the specific gravity of the liquid tank and the washing steps as described in Valerio in order to effectively separate materials by density see [0039] and to wash the plastics to they can be cleaned for use in another form, see Valerio [0058]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of recycling as described in Guatney with the step of extruding and pelletizing the recycled polymer as disclosed in Valerio in order to resell the plastic, see Valerio [0060].
Neither Guatney nor Valerio describe blending the polymer with other polymers or additives and do not meet the claimed, blending the polymer regrind material with a primary polymer resin to form a polymeric blend, wherein the polymer regrind material makes up at least 5% by weight of the polymeric blend; compounding the polymeric blend with at least one additive thereby creating a plastics compound;
Ko also describes a method of recovering recycled plastics and meets the claimed, blending the polymer regrind material with a primary polymer resin to form a polymeric blend, wherein the polymer regrind material makes up at least 5% by weight of the polymeric blend; compounding the polymeric blend with at least one additive thereby creating a plastics compound; (Ko Example 1 in Table 1 and the accompanying description in [0176]-[0190] describes melt-kneading a pelletizing a polymer composition which includes both recycled PET resin at 20.8% and virgin PBT along with glass fiber and other additives.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the recycled polymers obtained in Guatney with the additional step of adding another polymer as described in Ko in order to improve characteristics such as hydrolysis resistance and injection deviation, see Ko [0132] and additives in order to provide for lubrication, anti-wear, coupling, etc., see Ko [0137].
Regarding claim 4, Guatney does not disclose pelletizing. Valerio meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 1, further comprising the steps of pelletizing the extruded moldable polymer material comprising Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR) into a plurality of polymer pellets having predetermined pellet shape (Valerio [0060] describes pelletizing the recovered plastic prior to reselling.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of recycling as described in Guatney with the step of pelletizing the recycled polymer as disclosed in Valerio in order to resell the plastic, see Valerio [0060].
Regarding claim 6, Valerio further meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 1, wherein the liquid solution has a first solution specific gravity of from about 0.90 to about 1.0, such that the respective pieces of polymer regrind material with a specific gravity lower than that of the first solution specific gravity float to a surface of the liquid solution (Valerio [0039] describes a specific gravity of 1.0 and collecting the floating materials.)
Regarding claim 7, Ko further meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 6 wherein the plastics compound is a first-grade plastics compound, (Ko Example 1 uses PET which is grade 1) and wherein: the polymeric blend is about 20% filled, such that the at least one additive comprises up to about 20% by weight of the polymeric blend; and the first-grade plastics compound has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of from about 10 to about 25 g/10 min (Ko Table 1 Example 1 shows 30% glass fiber additives and a MFI of 21 g/10 min.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the recycling method of Guatney with the particular polymer blend, additive composition, and MFI as disclosed in Ko in order to achieve desired properties such as heat resistance and specific gravity, see Ko [0195].
Regarding claim 8, Guatney does not describe the specific density. Valerio further meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 6 wherein performing a liquid density separation further comprises the steps of: altering the liquid solution to increase the a specific gravity of the liquid solution (Valerio [0039] describes using water and other materials to increase the density of the float tank medium) from the first solution specific gravity to a second solution specific gravity of from about 1.0 to about 1.30, (Valerio [0042] describes performing a second float/sink density separation using an increased density of 1.4-1.5 g/cc, this is reasonably close to the claimed range and a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that mostly the same materials would float in the 1.4 density compared to the 1.3 density, see MPEP §2144.05(I). Additionally, it would be obvious to modify the density of the tank medium in order to separate out a specific material, such as PVC at 1.3 g/cc, see Valerio [0044].) such that the respective pieces of polymer regrind material with a specific gravity greater than that of the first solution specific gravity and less than that of the second solution specific gravity float to the surface of the liquid solution; and extracting the respective pieces of polymer regrind material with a specific gravity of greater than that of the first solution specific gravity and less than that of the second solution specific gravity from the surface of the altered liquid solution (Valerio [0042] describes additional floating and extracting of the second materials.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to further combine the density sorting method described in Guatney with the additional step of sorting via a liquid density tank as described in Valerio in order to separate off additional heavier materials, see Valerio [0042].
Regarding claim 11, Guatney meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 1 wherein providing polymer material selected and sorted from an automotive shredder residue (ASR) further comprises: feeding a raw material onto an infeed conveyor; (Guatney page 3 discloses a conveying) shredding raw materials via a hammermill thereby producing a shredded material; (Guatney page 3 and Figure 1 describe a hammermill shredding step) separating the shredded material into a ferrous material and a non-ferrous material via a plurality of magnets; (Guatney page 3 and Figure 1 describe using electromagnets to separate ferrous material from nonferrous materials) separating the non-ferrous material by density; (Guatney page 3 second paragraph describes separation based on density) separating the non-ferrous material into non-ferrous metals and non-metallic automotive shredder residue (ASR); (Guatney page 3 and Figure 1 describes an eddy current separator to separate nonferrous metals from nonmetals) and sorting and selecting a group of polymer materials from the non-metallic automotive shredder residue (ASR) (Guatney page 3 second and third paragraphs describe further separation of the nonmetal ASR.)
Regarding claim 12, Guatney does not describe air sortation for separating the non-ferrous materials specifically and does not meet the claimed, method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 11 wherein separating the non-ferrous material by density further includes: feeding the non-ferrous material through an air sortation system to separate the non-ferrous metals and non-metallic automotive shredder residue (ASR).
Analogous in the field of ASR sortation, Valerio meets the claimed, method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 11 wherein separating the non-ferrous material by density further includes: feeding the non-ferrous material through an air sortation system to separate the non-ferrous metals and non-metallic automotive shredder residue (ASR) (Valerio [0055]-[0057] describes separating nonferrous plastics by density using air separation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the density separation described in Guatney with the air separation step disclosed in Valerio because it is a known and successful method for separating heavier materials from lighter materials, see Valerio [0057].
Regarding claim 13, Guatney meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 12 wherein separating the non-ferrous material into non-ferrous metals and non-metal automotive shredder residue (ASR) further includes the step of: delivering the non-ferrous material to an eddy current separator such that the non-ferrous metals are separated from the non-metal automotive shredder residue (ASR) (Guatney page 3 and Figure 1 describe an eddy separator.)
Regarding claim 14, Guatney meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 13 wherein separating the non-ferrous material into non-ferrous metals and non-metal automotive shredder residue (ASR) further includes the step of: delivering the non-metal automotive shredder residue (ASR) to an induction sorting machine, wherein the induction sorting machine removes remaining non-ferrous metals from the non-metal automotive shredder residue (Guatney Figure 1 shows an inductive separation system which further removes non-ferrous metal products from the remaining ASR.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guatney as modified by Valerio and Ko as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mei (US 2021/0148633.)
Regarding claim 5, none of Guatney, Valerio, or Ko describe drying and deodorizing the pellets and do not meet the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 4, further comprising the steps of: drying the plurality of polymer pellets; and deodorizing the plurality of polymer pellets.
Analogous in the field of polymer pelletizing, Mei meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 4, further comprising the steps of: drying the plurality of polymer pellets; and deodorizing the plurality of polymer pellets (Mei [0084] describes drying and [0088] describes degassing which removes odors, see [0050].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of pelletizing the polymers as described in modified Guatney with the drying and degassing method described in Mei in order to remove diluents and other compounds that may affect the quality of the polymer, see Mei [0049]-[0050].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guatney as modified by Valerio and Ko as applied to claim 8 and in further view of Gutwillig (US 2007/0092674.)
Regarding claim 9, Ko does not disclose a second grade compound and does not meet the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 8 wherein: the plastics compound is a second-grade plastics compound; the polymeric blend is about 7% filled, such that the at least one additive comprises about 7% by weight of the polymeric blend; and the second-grade plastics compound has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of from about 5 to about 30 g/10min.
Analogous in the filed ore recycling polymers, Gutwillig meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 8 wherein: the plastics compound is a second-grade plastics compound; (Gutwillig [0024] discloses a polymer blend made from recycled polymers including a blend of virgin high-density polyethylene (HDPE), a second grade plastic, and regrind material) the polymeric blend is about 7% filled, such that the at least one additive comprises about 7% by weight of the polymeric blend; (Gutwillig [0026]-[0027] describes additives including Maleic Anhydride and coloring comprising 6% which is reasonably close to the claimed “about 7%” and meets the claim) and the second-grade plastics compound has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of from about 5 to about 30 g/10min (Gutwillig [0025] describes MFI of 4.5-10 g/10 min.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the polymers described in Ko for the HDPE and additives as disclosed in Gutwillig to provide the desired characteristics as described in Gutwillig [0025].
Regarding claim 10, Valerio meets the claimed, The method of manufacturing a moldable polymer material of claim 9, further comprising the step of extracting a plurality of pieces of polymer regrind material with a specific gravity of greater than the liquid solution from the bottom surface of a float tank (Valerio [0043] describes collecting the sink material.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Guatney with the step of collecting the sinking material in the density separation step as described in Valerio in order to collect heavier objects and recover valuable materials, see Guatney [0043].
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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights