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 .
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are pending and under examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Przybylinski et al. (US 2008/0213562), hereinafter Przybylinski.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Przybylinski discloses a method for producing a shaped body which would be suitable for use as a railroad tie (Fig. 1), comprising the following steps: (a) introducing plastic waste (carpet waste) (par. 0006, 0041) and thermoplastic waste material comprising ‘natural fiber components or thermoplastic plastic and natural fibers’ (par. 0022) into a mixing device (extrusion system 100) (par. 0026-0027); (b) mixing the introduced materials in such a way that the materials are comminuted and at least partially melt so that the material is moldable (in the extruder) (par. 0032-0033 explain that the extruder kneads, conveys, and mixes the material and melts the material, par. 0045); and (c) transferring the at least partially melted base material into a mold for shaping and pressing the base material into an outer geometry of the shaped body (par. 0073 explains that the extruded board can be “molded and/or embossed” using standard equipment).
Additionally or alternatively, the extruder itself can be considered a “mold” as the “die” at the end of the extruder is downstream from where the material is introduced, meaning the “transferring” condition is met as the material moves from an upstream/mixing end of the extruder to a downstream/molding end of the extruder at the die (emphasis added). Either reading of the reference would seem to anticipate this claim language as currently drafted.
Przybylinski further discloses that the components are dedusted or fed to a dirt or containment separator (par. 0057-0058) where the separation of dirt is read as “dedusting” before being introduced into the mixing device. The separator is a vertical cyclone separator (par. 0052, 0058) which functions by air forcing smaller particles further upwards than larger particles, thus, removing dust from the material.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “dust” as “the particles into which something disintegrates” or “fine particles of matter (as of earth).” Accordingly, the “separation of dirt” would seem to clearly read upon the claimed “dedusting” as it removes the particles of dirt from the carpet waste prior to placing the carpet waste (including the thermoplastic and fibers) into the mixer or extruder. There is a removal of fine particles of matter, or dust. This is “dedusting” as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. There is nothing more required by this limitation (see “response to arguments” section below for more regarding this limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the carpet is shredded prior to being introduced into the mixing device (par. 0052).
Regarding claim 3, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses no use of metal or pulp within the carpet waste, thus meaning this is inherently present above in the conditions presented by Przybylinski.
Regarding claim 5, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the thermoplastic material used is a mixture of polymers (par. 0055 describes polyamide/nylon, polyester, and polypropylene).
Regarding claim 6, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there are particles of about 1 inch (2.54 cm) produced (par. 0052).
Regarding claim 7, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the temperature of the extruder is about 170-180 C, or down to 155 C (par. 0049) and to this temperature.
Regarding claim 8, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the use of chemical additives (calcium carbonate) (par. 0007 explains that calcium carbonate is part of the waste material that would be added in step b to be mixed).
Regarding claim 9, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the use of 31.3% HDPE (thermoplastic material) (par. 0068).
Regarding claim 10, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there is 40.9% natural fiber (par. 0068), which falls between 10-50%.
Regarding claim 11, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the natural fibers include flax or hemp (par. 0022).
Regarding claim 12, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the particle size of the fibers is smaller than those that can fit in a screen of 3-4 mm (par. 0054).
Regarding claim 13, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the plastic waste comprises carpet waste which includes mixed plastics (par. 0055).
Regarding claim 15, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the thermoplastic material is a mixture of polyolefins (par. 0050 explains that the waste may include a blend of polyolefin material, including polyethylene, par. 0081).
Regarding claim 16, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the use of at least polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester (par. 0050, 0055, 0081).
Regarding claim 17, Przybylinski discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses heating to a temperature of 150 C (Table A-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Przybylinski does not teach certain aspects of the claimed invention as referred to below.
In response, Examiner first notes that a vertical cyclonic separator (par. 0052, 0058) functions in the same manner as in the claimed invention by blowing in compressed air as to form a cyclone that causes lighter particles to be forced further upwards than heavier particles which remain below the lighter particles. It is also noted that “before or after eliminating metals and cellular materials” is not considered limiting as “eliminating metals and cellular materials” is not a claimed step in claim 1.
The carpet waste of Przybylinski (see p. 9, Remarks) is made up of “plastic waste, thermoplastic, and natural fibers” – and this step of separating the dirt from the carpet waste clearly occurs before being introduced into the extruder or mixing device. There is no difference in when this step is conducted, it matches up with the claimed invention as being before the material is put into the mixing device. There is no evidence that Przybylinski wants (see p. 10, remarks) the carpet waste to be contaminated – and both the claim and the prior art mix the materials (after removing contaminants) and so this would not seem to distinguish over the prior art. As such, the technical effect also would be the same.
In response to applicant's argument that a certain technical effect is achieved, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant also argues that Przybylinski does not disclose “transferring the at least partially melted base material into a mold” but Przybylinski does teach this step (see p. 8, Remarks). The extruder itself functions by mixing and transferring the mixed material to a die which presses the material into a shape of the profile or “an outer geometry of the shaped body.” Furthermore, as is the case in a semi-finished material (which could be at least partially “melted”), the material may be somewhat pliable when “at least partially melted.” Applicant’s argument points out a nominal difference here, but it is not a conceptual difference between the prior art and what is exactly claimed due to the broad language used in the claim. As such, the rejections are maintained as updated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights