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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the claim requires “wherein the mixture is cooled in accordance with step b.” However, there does not appear to be explicit, implicit, or inherent support for specifically a “cooling” or requiring that “the mixture is cooled.” There is no cooling described to reach a maximum temperature or anything regarding a cooling step. As such, this limitation does not appear to have support in the disclosure as originally filed.
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. 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.
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 is cooled 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 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, Applicant argues that Przybylinski does not disclose the feature of dedusting the components before introducing them into the mixer.
However, this argument is not found to be persuasive. The extruder of Przybylinski maps to the claimed mixer. The carpet waste in Przybylinski, par. 0057 is cut into pieces, and the dirt and dust are removed prior to feeding it into the extruder/mixer (par. 0058-0059). This dedusting is performed using a vertical cyclone separator (par. 0058) which relies upon air flow and the relative weights of the dust particles in order to separate them from the desired particles. This clearly is a measure specifically aimed at removing fine particles before the materials are introduced into the mixing device, or extruder.
Applicant argues that “[t]he term ‘dedusting’ or a comparable cleaning of the components is not mentioned” or alternatively, is distinct from the Przybylinski teaching that Examiner applies to the claims. However, this is not required as Applicant argues in order to meet the claim – there is no requirement for the same words to be in the reference. Additionally, the process described by Przybylinski would not be distinct from the claimed “dedusting” which occurs prior to mixing. The focus is on the separation of particulate foreign matter, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as “dust” as it is particulate matter present in the waste carpet. The reference specifically uses a vertical cyclonic separator as to remove unwanted particulate matter from the waste carpet which uses air to separate larger and smaller particles from each other.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes the “dedusting” as “blowing in compressed air” (par. 0026 as published in US 2024/0149537). Przybylinski, par. 0059 explains that after performing a multiple-stage separation of dust or dirt (as in the previous par. 0058), the material would then be fed into an extruder along with other components, where it is then mixed and extruded with the other mixed components. The claim specifically allows for separate introduction of components as well. As such, since Przybylinski does teach that the materials are dedusted before being introduced into the mixing device, it would be considered to meet this claim limitation and the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
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 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