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
The previous rejections under 112(b) have been withdrawn in response to the amendments however the amendments necessitated new objections and rejections under 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Miyazaki does not disclose compacting the flakes because [0011] discloses pulverizing rather than compacting. Examiner disagrees. Miyazaki discloses “crushing” in [0011] and throughout the description. “Crushing” at face value is a synonym of “compacting” but Miyazaki [0011] seems to use “crushing” to refer to pulverizing. Regardless, pulverizing the recycled material into small pieces as described still meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “compacting” in light of the specification because pulverizing the foam generally reduces the overall volume of the foam while not reducing the mass. Thereby, the pulverizing reduces the volume and increases the apparent density and meets the claimed “compacting.”
Applicant also argues that Miyazaki does not disclose using decomposition gases generated by melting a pressurizing the flakes as required by amended claim 1 because Miyazaki includes an additional foaming agent. Examiner disagrees. Miyazaki [0002] and [0004] describes that an inert fluid used in the original molding process remains in the foamed molded article. Those articles are then subsequently used as the starting recycled material. During heating, the inert fluid is discharged which also promotes discharge of air, moisture, and other low-boiling point components. This in turn prevents bubbles in the mold and prevents mold adhesion. Applicant also notes the present invention does not need or use additional materials. Examiner notes that the claim specifies an additional gas is not supplied which is also true of Miyazaki. While Miyazaki discloses other materials, none of them are gases when they are supplied. Claims dependent on claim 1, including those rejected under 103, also remain rejected.
Applicant argues regarding claim 3 that Miyazaki does not disclose the temperature at which the decomposition gases are generated. Examiner agrees that Miyazaki does not explicitly disclose a temperature, however the specific plastics described in Miyazaki do decompose at a temperature higher than 60°C. Additionally, the injection molding process in Miyazaki [0025] discloses the cylinder temperature is 320’C.
With respect to claim 5, Applicant argues that Miyazaki is silent as to metal fillers. Examiner notes the claim as amended only recites fillers and does not require metal fillers.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 7 that Miyazaki discloses adding other ingredients simultaneously with the recycled material, not the recycled materials all being added simultaneously. Examiner disagrees. Miyazaki [0017] describes adding the recycled material simultaneously with other ingredients. If all ingredients are being added simultaneously, all the sources of recycled material are also being added simultaneously.
Applicant argues claims 13 and 14 do not disclose partial degassing of the extruded material. Examiner disagrees. Degassing necessarily occurs when the final molded product is exposed to the atmosphere, for example, when it is removed from the mold.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 is amended and appears to be missing either “and” or “or” at the end of the list in the claim. Examiner additionally notes that in Markush groupings, the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including"), see MPEP §2173.05(h)(I).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the various sources.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 previously recites “at least two sources.” It is not clear if “the various sources” refers to “at least two sources” or another group of sources. This is interpreted to mean any plurality of sources.
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 1-5, 7, 10, 12-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (JP2003062854A, see translation previously provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki A method for recycling waste in the form of flakes containing plastics-based materials, (Miyazaki [0011] describes crushed recycled materials, [0007] describes plastic materials) the method comprising the following steps: taking up the flakes; compacting the flakes (Miyazaki [0011] describes crushing the materials, crushing meaning pulverizing into smaller pieces thereby compacting the material) and feeding the compacted flakes into a plasticizing tool; (Miyazaki [0018] describes adding the materials to the injection molding machine) melting and mixing said flakes in the plasticizing tool to form extruded material; (Miyazaki [0018]-[0019] and [0021] describe the melting and kneading) injecting the extruded material under high pressure into a mold to form a part, the high pressure being at least 50 bar; (Miyazaki [0019] describes the pressure is 100-300 kg/cm2 which is ~98-294 bar) using decomposition gases generated by the melting and pressurizing the flakes the plasticizing tool to lubricate the extruded material as the extruded material is injected into the mold and to compensate for shrinkage of the injected extruded material during cooling, (Miyazaki[0004] describes inert fluid remaining in the recycled foam is discharged when reheated and [0002] describes this helps release other air or low boiling point components (gases) from the material which decreases mold adhesion (lubrication) and avoids bubbles forming in the mold which would in turn compensate for shrinkage) without supplying additional gas; cooling the mold; (Miyazaki [0021] describes supercritical fluid rather than a gas) and removing the part from the cooled mold (Miyazaki [0020] describes obtaining the final molded article, the article is necessarily solidified and from a cooled mold.)
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flakes come from at least two sources of recycled materials (Miyazaki [0007] describes multiple sources or types of materials.)
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein a first source generates decomposition gases at a temperature higher than 60°C (Miyazaki [0007] describes a number of materials which begin decomposition at temperatures higher than 60°C including PET.)
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the first source comprises plastic resin-based materials (Miyazaki [0007] describes many resin based thermoplastics including polypropylene, polycarbonate, etc.)
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the second source contains fillers (Miyazaki [0013] describes fillers verbatim but [0017] also describes other components which could be considered fillers including fine powders like talc.)
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the flakes from the various sources are fed simultaneously to an inlet of the plasticizing tool (Miyazaki [0018] describes adding the components simultaneously to the injection molding machine.)
Regarding claim 10, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the apparent density of the flakes is between 0.1 and 2 g/cm3. (This claim is being interpreted to refer to 0.1-2 grams per cubic centimeter. Miyazaki [0007] describes the recycled materials many of which are within the claimed range including PET which is 1.38 g/cm3, polypropylene which is about 0.9 g/cm3, etc.)
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the extruded material is injected into a mold at a pressure of the order of 50 bar to 2000 bar (Miyazaki [0019] describes 100-300 kg/cm2 which is ~98-294 bar).
Regarding claim 13, The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein a partial degassing of the extruded material is carried out (Miyazaki injects the extruded material into the mold, the material would eventually be at least partially degassed when removed from the mold.)
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein a degassing of the part is carried out after its removal from the mold (Miyazaki injects the extruded material into the mold, the material would eventually be at least partially degassed when removed from the mold.)
Regarding claim 21, Miyazaki meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the fillers are one of aluminum fibers, aluminum particles, metals, fibers, inks, adhesives, varnishes, mineral fillers, oils, packaged product waste, and washing waste (Miyazaki [0017] describes mineral fillers such as talc.)
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki modified by Pelz (DE4105285A1, see English translation previously provided.)
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki does not describe any of the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the second source comprises toothpaste tubes and/or champagne bottle caps and/or motor vehicle bumpers and/or dashboards.
Analogous in the field of recycling plastic waste, Pelz meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the second source comprises one or more of toothpaste tubes, champagne bottle caps, motor vehicle bumpers, dashboards (Pelz [0007]-[0011] describes a process of recycling old plastic materials, including dashboards, via crushing them, melting them, and reshaping them into other parts.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the materials described in Miyazaki with the dashboard described in Pelz in order to avoid waste, see Pelz [0002]-[0003].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki modified by Raithel (US 2020/0262111.)
Regarding claim 11, Miyazaki does not explicitly describe the injection speed and does not meet the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the extruded material is injected into a mold at a flow rate of 0.1 m3/h to 10 m3/h.
Analogous in the field of injection molding, Raithel meets the claimed, The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the extruded material is injected into a mold at a flow rate of 0.1 m3/h to 10 m3/h (Raithel [0171] describes an injection speed in a range of 90 to 250 cubic centimeters per second which is ~0.3 – 0.9 cubic meters per hour.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of molding escribed in Miyazaki with the injection speed described in Raithel in order to optimize the density and surface quality of the molded part, see Raithel [0020].
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