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 .
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, 18-20, 22, 25-31, 33-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 5,876,644 A) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Nichols discloses a method for recycling polyester (title/abstract) with the steps of:
sorting, washing and comminuting post-consumer PET articles comprised mostly of PET bottles produced by an ISBM process, PET material of which has an intrinsic viscosity between 0.72 and 0.86 dL/g according to ASTM D4603 (3:43+; FIG. 1)
removing impurities, simultaneously with, or after the sorting, washing and comminuting (3:50+),
drying the comminuted PET material melting and optionally decontaminating the PET material in a degassing and/or recycling extruder, and then granulating the PET material (3:66+; FIG. 1), and
Nichols does not appear to expressly disclose thin-wall injection molding or chain breaking additives.
However, Applicant admits that the prior art teaches a method for producing an rPET plastic material for use in a thin-wall injection-molding process, with a ratio of wall thickness (L) to flow path (D) of 1:100-500 for thin-wall injection-molding, the method comprising (¶ 7):
producing a thin-walled injection-molded article from the PET material in an injection-molding process, and
adding a chain breaker to the granulated PET material, and reactively extruding and directly injecting a melt of the PET material into an injection mold (¶ 10),
wherein an intrinsic viscosity of a thin-walled injection-molded article formed from the PET material is lowered to 0.5 to 0.7 dL/g during extrusion and has a ratio of wall thickness (L) of the resulting thin-walled injection-molded article to a flow path (D) of 1 to 100 to 1 to 350 (¶¶ 3-16).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nichols to include the chain breaking and thin-wall injection of the prior art, because such methods are known and conventional in the art and could be performed with expected results.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant admits that a temperature during extrusion, a residence time of the material in the extruder, and an amount of the chain breaker are selected such that the extruded PET material has an intrinsic viscosity (IV) greater than 0.5 dL/g (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant admits that an amount of nonethylene glycol or an amount of water is used as the chain breaker (¶¶ 10, 15).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant admits that the PET material used for the extruding contains 100 to 1,000 ppm water (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant admits adding between 50 and 1,000 ppm of nonethylene glycol to the granulated PET material (¶ 15).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant admits that an admixture of the chain breaker is added to the PET material before or during the melting (¶¶ 10, 15).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant admits that the post-consumer PET material used, before the drying and recycling has a copolymer fraction of not more than about 3% (¶ 3).
Regarding claim 20, Applicant admits a substantially identical process is known in the art and would therefore result in the copolymer fraction in the rPET, in total, to be raised to 2.5 to 8% (¶¶ 3-16).
Regarding claim 22, Applicant admits that the PET material is decontaminated to such an extent before the injection-molding so that it is suitable for applications in the food and/or utensils sector (¶¶ 12+).
Regarding claim 25, Applicant admits that the reactive extrusion reduces a viscosity of the PET material by 0.05 to 0.3 dL/g (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 26, Applicant admits a substantially identical process is known in the art and would therefore result in the treated rPET injection-molded part is reduced by at least 10% compared to an untreated material without an increased copolymer fraction (¶¶ 3-16).
Regarding claim 27, Applicant admits that a temperature during extrusion and a quantity of chain breaker are selected such that an extruded PET material and/or the PETmaterial of an injection-molded article produced has an IV greater than 0.5 dL/g (¶ 10).
Regarding claim 28, Applicant admits that 100-1000 ppm water is added to the granulated PET material (¶ 10), which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 29, Nichols suggests that the melt is passed through a screen filter (4:9-54).
Regarding claim 30, the skilled artisan would recognize that the size of the melt filter would depend on the viscosity and head pressure of the extruder and said artisan would recognize that because the prior art process is substantially the same as the claimed process then hole sizes would be substantially the same (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 31, Applicant admits that the PET material is degassed during the extrusion (¶ 13).
Regarding claim 33, Applicant admits that the extruding is carried out in a vacuum or in a protective gas atmosphere (¶ 12).
Regarding claim 34, Applicant admits that a certain amount of chain breaker is added to the PET material prior to melting (¶¶ 10+).
Regarding claim 35, the skilled artisan would recognize that the residence time would depend on the length of the extruder and the speed of the extrusion of the extruder and said artisan would recognize that because the prior art process is substantially the same as the claimed process then residence time would be substantially the same (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 36, Applicant admits that the post-consumer PET material has a viscosity between about 0.7 and about 0.86 dL/g (¶ 3).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 5,876,644 A) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tammaji et al. (US 9,221,971 B2)
Nichols does not appear to expressly disclose masterbatch.
However, Tammaji discloses a similar method of recycling polyester which includes masterbatch before reactive extrusion (2:54-60).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of the prior art to include the masterbatch suggested by Tammaji, in order to allow for precise does of the reactive additives.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 5,876,644 A) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Denis et al. (US 7,247,698 B2)
Nichols discloses drying at 130-200° C. (4:5).
Nichols does not appear to expressly disclose a specific length of drying.
However, Denis discloses a method processing polyester (title/abstract) which includes drying at 175° C. for 4 hours and 6 hours (5:9-12).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of the prior art to include the drying time suggested by Denis, in order sufficiently remove residual moisture before further processing.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 5,876,644 A) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of in view of Weber et al. (WO 2018/127431 A1, citations based on English equivalent US 11,254,797 B2).
Nichols does not appear to expressly disclose strands that are granulated.
However, Weber discloses a similar process of PET processing (title/abstract) which includes a step of extruding strands from a melt and granulating the strands (3:1+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nichols to include the strands of Weber, because such a process is conventional in the art and could be performed with expected results.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 5,876,644 A) in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of in view of Siegl et al. (WO 2018/162339 A1, citations based on English equivalent (US 11,708,473 B2).
Nichols does not appear to expressly disclose compression or foam molding.
However, Siegl discloses a similar process of PET processing (title/abstract) which includes a forming foamed granulate (7:26+; FIG. 1).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Nichols to include the foam of Siegl, because such a process is conventional in the art and could be performed with expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose the use of a chain breaker that are copolymers of PET, rather the prior art suggests water or monoethylene glycol. Regarding claim 21, the prior art does not disclose the specific conditions of the degassing step.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Nichols teaches away from lowering the viscosity because a solid-phase polycondensation step is disclosed. However, this solid state polymerization is the final step after processing to form higher quality post-consumer flakes and not the further process admitted by Applicant of further processing said flakes with a chain breaker when forming thin-walled injection-molded articles. The higher intrinsic viscosities desired by Nichols is a separate improvement for the feedstock of the injection molding extruder and not concerned with the subsequent chain-breaking and thin wall injection of Applicant’s admitted prior art. This is not the opposite of the claimed invention and does not teach away.
Further, Applicant contends that the admission of prior art is not in fact a process for thin-walled injection by adding a chain breaker to PET. The Examiner disagrees, the cited portion of Applicant’s instant specification that the Examiner considers an admission of prior art is ¶¶ 7-8, 10, 15 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
480
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clearly it is known to lower the IV of recycled PET by the addition of certain chain-breakers and achieve viscosities of 0.5-0.7 dL/g for thin-wall injection molding applications. Applicant’s arguments to the contrary do not diminish the teachings of the instant specification.
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p 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, 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742