Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 11/6/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claim 10 is amended. Claims 1-9, 15-21, and 23-24 are cancelled. Claims 10-14, 22, and 25-26 remain pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that amendments of the limitations of previous claims 23-24 (now cancelled) into the independent claim 10 overcome the teachings of the primary art of COLLIN in view of the secondary art of SUGAYOSHI, have been fully considered and found not to be persuasive.
Applicant states that SUGAYOSHI discloses a pelletizing ring die through which molten plastic is extruded to form pellets; its dimensional relationships (die-hole diameter and ring thickness) serve an entirely different function, which is controlling pellet density and strength -not regulating internal heat conduction or flow within a rotating frictional heater. The claimed range thus provides a specific balance between shear heating, pressure, and flow uniformity, which neither COLLINS nor SUGAYOSHI recognized or suggested.
The Examiner notes that rationale different from applicant’s is permissible; the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem; it is not necessary that the prior arts suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant {see MPEP 2144 (IV)}. The rationale of SUGAYOSHI for determining its dimensional relationship to obtain pellets with certain density and strength, albeit different from applicant’s, is proper for combination into the invention of COLLINS, since COLLINS purpose is also to make pellets for further processing {[0002]}.
Applicant’s argument that SUGAYOSHI is non-analogous art because it addresses pelletizing of waste plastics under compressive forces in an extrusion context, not shear-friction heating, is in error. SUGAYOSHI clearly teaches frictional heating and melting in its disclosure {[0004], [0084], [0087], [0091], [0107], [0192], [0197], [0202], [0224], [0230], [0239]}.
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 10-14, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLLINS (US-2016/0101541), hereinafter COLLINS, in view of SUGAYOSHI (US-2003/0021991), hereinafter SUGAYOSHI. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 10, 22, and 25 COLLINS discloses A plastics processing apparatus {[abstract], [FIG. 1] 100} including:
a frictional heater having a rotor {[0013]} including:
a substantially cylindrical member disposed about a central axis, the substantially cylindrical member defining an outer periphery configured, in use, to bear against plastic {[0021], [0027]},
the substantially cylindrical member further defining a hollow interior; and a plurality of molten plastic conduits extending between said outer periphery and said hollow interior {[0028] note since molten plastic enters the cylinder, the cylinder is hollow};
wherein the hollow interior is in fluid communication with an outlet {[0029] note the output is the outlet};
wherein the cylindrical member defines an inner face substantially enclosing the hollow interior, the inner face being concentric with the outer periphery, wherein each of the molten plastic conduits has a circular cross-sectional shape (part of claim 25) {[FIG. 1] note 145 as discussed under claim 10 is a hollow cylinder with an inner face enclosing the hollow portion and a concentric outer periphery, note conduits 140 are circular}
wherein the rotor is rotatably disposed therein such that an axis of rotation of the rotor is co-extensive with said central axis {[FIG. 1] note that 130 is both the central and rotation axis};
at least one pusher configured, in use, for the pushing of plastic into frictional engagement with said outer periphery {[0034]};
and a drive operably coupled to the rotor {[0016]}.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 10 reciting “wherein the outer periphery has a diameter of between approximately 0.2 m and approximately 2 m inclusive”, and claim 22 limitation of “wherein the outer periphery has a diameter of between approximately 0.3 m and approximately 1.5 m inclusive”, COLLINS is silent on the size of the cylinder and the diameter of its outer periphery. However, the Examiners submits that the size of this frictional heater rotor is determined by the amount of plastics throughput that is handled. Larger diameter cylinders can handle higher weight of plastic per time. Therefore, the size of the cylinder depends on the design of the process and the amount of desired plastic to be treated per unit time. As such, the size or diameter of the cylinder is a result-effective variable that depends on the throughput or vice versa.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of throughput on cylinder size) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the cylinder diameter which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the size necessary to achieve the desired throughput. For certain capacities this diameter maybe within 0.2 m to 2 m or 0.3 m to 1.5 m.
Modified COLLINS, however, is silent on the remainder limitations of claim 10 “and wherein a thickness between the outer periphery and the inner face is between approximately 3 mm and approximately 20 mm inclusive; wherein each of the molten plastic conduits has a cross-sectional area of between approximately 12 mm2 and approximately 180 mm2 inclusive” and the remainder limitations of claim 25 “wherein each of the molten plastic conduits having a diameter of between approximately 4 mm and approximately 15 mm inclusive”.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to waste plastic processing, SUGAYOSHI teaches that the thickness of the ring (the thickness of the cylinder) determines the strength of pelletized plastic and the bore or diameter of the cavity or conduit determines size of granulation {[0083]}. Therefore, SUGAYOSHI recognizes the thickness and diameter as result-effective variables. The Examiner notes that COLLINS objective is also to produce pellet for further processing {[0002]}.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thickness of the cylinder and diameter of the conduits which are result-effective variables through routine experimentation to have produced optimum pellets using device of COLLINS. For certain plastic wastes, the thickness maybe within 3 mm and approximately 20 mm, the cross sectional area of the conduits within 12 mm2 and approximately 180 mm2, and the diameter of the conduits within approximately 4 mm and approximately 15 mm.
Regarding claims 11-12 limitations of “wherein the drive is configured, in use, to rotate the rotor such that the outer periphery has a velocity of between approximately 0.5 m/s and approximately 5.0 m/s inclusive (claim 11), wherein the drive is configured, in use, to rotate the rotor such that the outer periphery has a velocity of between approximately 1.0 m/s and approximately 3.0 m/s inclusive (claim 12)”, modified COLLINS is explicitly silent on the velocity. However, COLLINS teaches that rotation is conducted at sufficient speed so that intimate mixing and melting of plastic occurs {[claims 51/52]}. Therefore, COLLINS recognizes the rotation speed or velocity as a result-effective variable.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the rotation speed which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have obtained optimum mixing and melting. For certain types of plastic such velocity maybe within 0.5 m/s to 5.0 m/s or 1.0 m/s to 3.0 m/s.
Additionally, the Examiners notes that claims 11-12 are apparatus claims. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim {[see MPEP 2114 (II)}.
Regarding claim 13, COLLINS discloses wherein the drive is configured, in use, to rotate the rotor at a rate of between approximately 20 rpm and approximately 200 rpm inclusive {[0073]}.
Regarding claim 14, COLLINS discloses wherein the pusher is configured, in use, to push plastic into frictional engagement with said outer periphery at a pressure of between approximately 100 KPa and approximately 1000 KPa inclusive {[0086] note that 30-40 psi is 207-276 Kpa}.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLLINS and SUGAYOSHI as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of SCHEERES (GB-2255977-A), hereinafter SCHEERES.
Regarding claim 26, combination of COLLINS and SUGAYOSHI discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on disposing a heater adjacent to the outlet.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to handling plastic waste, SCHEERES discloses wherein a heating element is disposed adjacent the outlet {[abstract], [FIG. 6] note heater 56 is near the exit or outlet}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the heater of SCHEERES in the apparatus of combination of COLLINS and SUGAYOSHI and have placed it adjacent the outlet of the device of this combination. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the advantage of inclusion of this heater is to maintain the fluidity of the molten plastic so that it can exit the device.
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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748