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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 04/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 12-15, 17 and 19-20 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 111978668, ‘668 hereafter, citation please see original document in Chinese) in view of Whitaker et al (US 2020/0338789, of record, ‘789 hereafter).
Regarding claims 12-15 and 17, ‘668 discloses a process of preparing a composite comprising a step of subjecting particulate heterogenous intake material to at least one extrusion process within an extruder, at a temperature maintained within a range of 155°C and 185°C ([0028], [0063]), to thereby obtain the composite material ([0022]-0024]); wherein the particulate heterogenous intake material comprises at least 40 wt% of non-plastic organic matter containing cellulose with respect to total weight of the particulate heterogenous intake material (Example 2, waste paper comprising cellulose around 60 wt%); and around 35 wt% plastic matter with respect to total weight of the composite material, which comprises a plurality of synthetic thermoplastic polymers, including more than two polyolefins including polypropylene and polyethylene ([0055]) and more than two non-polyolefins such as PVC and copolymer of polar monomer ([0055], [0058]). and [0058]); and 5 wt% inorganic matter with respect to total weight of the composite material (Example 2). The amount of aryl-containing synthetic polymers in the heterogenous intake material is less than 5% with respect to total weight of the composite material (Small amount polystyrene around 0.8 wt% [0058], and the amount of polyethylene terephthalate is 0 wt%). ‘668 does not expressly set forth the process contains a separation step to remove halogenated polymer or/and aryl synthetic polymers from particle heterogenous intake material based on near Infra-Red absorbance, to obtain a sorted heterogenous intake material. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘789 discloses a process of making recyclable material which comprises a step of sorting and rejecting halogenated polymer PVC based on near Infra-Red in order to remove PVC to make PVC free recycled material ([0024]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a sorting step as taught by ‘789, in order to remove PVC to reach the content of PVC as low as needed to satisfying present claim 13. ‘789 also discloses that the process may comprise two or more particulating and sieving steps to meet a specific application ([0020]-[0032]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified ‘668 teaches all the limitations of claim 12, ‘668 also discloses that the composite material from extruder can be further processed into needed shape ([0025]), and ‘789 teaches a product formed from a material particle depends on particle size and the particles with smaller size provide advantage of making thinner and stiffer product ([0032]), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply a size reduction step to render the composite having desired small size for making thinner and stiffer product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 103 rejection over cited references is improper because the references do not realize that "removing...one or both of halogenated polymers and aryl-synthetic polymers...from a particulate heterogenous intake material" results in a composite material with a surprisingly improved combination of properties, including mechanical strength and impact resistance. However, the examiner’s position is that the step of removing halogenated polymers and aryl-synthetic polymers from an particulate heterogenous material is a known technique in the art which can be applied to reduce unnecessary component such as halogenated polymers and aryl-synthetic polymers in a composite material, which would predictably result in the composite material having better mechanical strength and impact resistance (See MPEP 2143 (D)). In addition, the method as presently claimed does not require the composite material as made having the specific mechanical properties as argued.
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights