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 .
Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3,5-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No.18555305.
The referenced claims are directed to a process for separating at least one polyolefin from a product stream comprising a polyolefin comprising a polyolefin and a solvent, including steps of into polyolefin-lean and polyolefin-rich streams and performing vapor-liquid separation to recover polyolefin.
The instant claims are directed to a solvent-based recycling process for polyolefin-containing waste material, comprising contacting the waste polymer material with a solvent to form a slurry, separating undissolved solids from a polymer solution, and performing vapor-liquid separation to recover the polyolefin.
The claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the referenced claims because both sets of claims are directed to substantially the same solvent-based processing of polyolefin materials involving formation of a polymer solution or stream followed by separation into polymer-lean and polymer-rich fractions and recovery of polyolefin via vapor-liquid separation. The differences between the claimed inventions are limited to the context in which the process is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter over the current Prior art of Record
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant(s) claimed invention is directed to:
Claim 1 is directed to a dissolution apparatus for dissolving from a waste polyolefin material (1) a polyolefin (2) in a solvent (3) yielding a polyolefin solution slurry (4) the polyolefin solution slurry (4) comprising a polyolefin solution and undissolved residues, for a continuous polyolefin recycling process, the dissolution apparatus comprising:- at least one feeding device (5) selected from a list consisting of a dry feeding device, a wet feeding device, a melt feeding device, and a solution feeding device,- at least one dissolution device (6),wherein the at least one dissolution device (6) has at least one first inlet for introducing the waste polyolefin material (1) fluidly connected to an outlet of the at least one feeding device (5), and wherein the at least one dissolution device (6) has at least one second inlet for introducing the solvent (3), and wherein the at least one dissolution device (6) has at least one outlet for withdrawing the polyolefin solution slurry (4), and wherein the dissolution device (6) comprises a vessel comprising a stirrer; and wherein the dissolution device (6) is configured to create a mixing pattern in the vessel, wherein the mixing pattern comprises an upward stream along an axis of the stirrer to a top part of the vessel and a respective downward stream along walls of the vessel or the mixing pattern comprises a downward stream along an axis of the stirrer to a bottom part of the vessel and a respective upward stream along walls of the vessel.
The crux of the invention lies in the discovery that controlled mixing pattern within the dissolution vessel enables more effective dissolution of waste polyolefins into a polyolefin solution slurry while maintaining a continuous recycling process while avoiding the problems commonly associated therewith. Such has neither been anticipated by nor made obvious from the prior art. Claim(s) 1-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3222657A1 in view of USP6225360B1 and further in view of DE 19653076A1. However, Applicants argues in response filed 6-30-26 that the claimed invention is distinguished by a specifically configured mixing pattern that enables rapid and thorough solubilization and homogenization of polyolefin and that this mixing pattern is neither disclosed nor inherent in the cited prior art.
Thus, the specific art of record demonstrates other methods used in the art which do not however, result in the same product or contain the advantages as mentioned and neither avoid the problems as mentioned above.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights