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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed August 24, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 9, 11 and 14 have been canceled. Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-8 and 10 are under examination.
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.
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scavello et al. (US 2023/0265258; effectively filed June 18, 2020) in view of Leistritz (“Devolatilization vis Twin Screw Extrusion: Theory, Tips and Test Results”, IDS document).
Regarding claim 1, Scavello et al. teach a method for processing plastics material, comprising the following steps supplying the plastics material into a screw-conveyor machine (paragraphs [0177], [0196], [0271] [0284]-[0299]; Figure 1 (2)) supplying an additive/inerting agent for converting organic chlorides into inorganic chlorides into the screw-conveyor machine (paragraphs [0168]-[0171], [0276]; Table 2; e.g. sodium carbonate or stearate or hydroxide or oxide; Figure 1 (3)); plasticizing the supplied plastics material with the screw-conveyor machine to form a plastics melt (paragraphs [0162], [0163]); and mixing the plastics melt with the supplied additive with the screw-conveyor machine to form a mixture, wherein at least some of the organic chlorides contained in the plastics melt are converted into inorganic chlorides by the additive (paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0014], [0017], [0079]-[0088], [0108], [0112], [0126], [0141]-[0153], [0272] – PVC; Table 2; paragraphs [00300]), wherein: the additive and the plastics material are supplied into the screw-conveyor machine separately from one another (paragraph [0198]); a degassing of the plastics melt or of the formed mixture takes place in the screw-conveyor machine by at least one degassing device arranged on the screw-conveyor machine (paragraphs [0218], [0221], [0294]), wherein the multi- shaft screw-conveyor is a twin-shaft conveyor having a length-to-diameter ratio greater than 48 (paragraphs [0285]-[0287]; L/D = 76).
Scavello et al. teach degassing the plastic with a device arranged on the extruder (paragraphs [0218], [0221], and [0294]), but do not disclose the degassing is performed by a degassing device arranged on the extruder and including a melt retaining unit, a separator, a condenser, and a suction pump. However, Leistritz discloses an analogous method and twin-screw extruder degassing process wherein the degassing is performed by a degassing device arranged on the extruder and including a melt retaining unit (e.g. vent stack as described by Leistritz and/or drool tray/unit), a separator (e.g. knock out pot), a condenser, and a suction/vacuum pump (pages 6-7; Figures 9, 10 and 11).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Scavello et al. and Leistritz. and to have utilized the degassing configuration/unit/equipment of Leistritz et al. as the degassing configuration/unit/equipment of Scavello et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively devolatilizing the desired material (i.e. desired to be devolatilized because it is not desired to be in the product), in an art recognized suitable and effective manner. Scavello et al. disclose a general degassing step and Leistritz provide further specificity as to conventional and well-known components that are effective for devolatilizing in the art. For example, it is noted that the equipment as configured (e.g. the separator/knock out pot and condenser) generally prevents materials from getting into the vacuum pump and facilitates the ability to maintain effective vacuum/degassing of the material in the extruder in a manner known in the vacuum system/extrusion degassing art.
As to claims 2-5, Scavello et al. teach the same claimed additive/inerting agent (paragraphs [0168]-[0171]; e.g. sodium carbonate or stearate or hydroxide or oxide) and the same claimed and disclosed additives/agents function in the same claimed and disclosed manner.
As to claim 6, Scavello et al. teach a temperature within or which overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0087] and [0162]).
As to claim 7, the additive/inerting agent is fed to an opening of the extruder (paragraphs [0198]).
As to claim 10, Scavello et al. discharge the material as a melt and supply it to a reactor as claimed (paragraphs [0231]-[0238], [0241], [0246]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scavello et al. (US 2023/0265258; effectively filed June 18, 2020) in view of Leistritz (“Devolatilization vis Twin Screw Extrusion: Theory, Tips and Test Results”, IDS document), as applied to claims 1-7 and 10 above, and further in view of any one of Ullom (US 2016/0024390), Humphreys et al. (US 2020/0071619), Kim et al. (US 2013/0285271), Horizoe et al. (US 6,011,187) or Keizo et al. (JP 2000290424).
As to claim 8, Scavello et al. teach the additive can be supplied separately (paragraph [0198]; Figure 1 (2) and (3)), but do not teach downstream as claimed.
However, each of Ullom (Figure 2 (203); paragraphs [0042]-[0047] and [0069]), Humphreys et al. (claims 2, 4, 5 and 7; paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0147], [0148] – adding the base/additive to the melt stream in the context of claims 5 and 7 suggests adding it to the melted material in the extruder or downstream of the extruder), Kim et al. (paragraphs [0036] and [0039] taken with [0069], [0070] and [0087] suggests the materials may be added separately), Horizoe et al. (Figure 8 (7) (7’) (10) (11); col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 23; col. 5, lines 1-50; col. 6, lines 10-63; col. 16, line 17-col. 17, line 5; adding the additive/sand/zeolite/mordenite downstream of the plastic feed) or Keizo et al. (paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0033] and [0034] and Figure 3 (1) (2) (4) teach providing the additives downstream of the plastic feed; also see paragraphs [0003], [0009]-[0012], [0020] and [0028] for context).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Scavello et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have supplied the additive and the plastics material separately into the screw-conveyor machine/extruder of Scavello et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of adding the materials to the extruder in art recognized suitable and equivalent alternative manners and/or, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of further facilitating the effective dehalogenation/chloride conversion and/or pyrolysis of the plastics materials.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehra et al. (US 4,826,897) in view of Leistritz (“Devolatilization vis Twin Screw Extrusion: Theory, Tips and Test Results”, IDS document) and Ullom (US 2016/0024390).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mehra et al. teach a method for processing plastics material, comprising the following steps supplying the plastics material into a screw-conveyor machine (Abstract; col. 3, lines 3-26) supplying an additive/inerting agent for converting organic chlorides into inorganic chlorides into the screw-conveyor machine (col. 3, lines 28-45; e.g. calcium carbonate or stearate); plasticizing the supplied plastics material with the screw-conveyor machine to form a plastics melt (col. 3, lines 3-14; Example 3); and mixing the plastics melt with the supplied additive with the screw-conveyor machine to form a mixture, wherein at least some of the organic chlorides contained in the plastics melt are converted into inorganic chlorides by the additive (col 1, lines 6-col. 2, line 34; Examples 1-3); a degassing of the plastics melt or of the formed mixture takes place in the screw-conveyor machine by at least one degassing device arranged on the screw-conveyor machine (Examples 1 and 3).
Mehra et al. teach degassing the plastic with a device arranged on the extruder (Examples 3), but do not disclose the degassing is performed by a degassing device arranged on the extruder and including a melt retaining unit, a separator, a condenser, and a suction pump. However, Leistritz discloses an analogous method and twin screw extruder degassing process wherein the degassing is performed by a degassing device arranged on the extruder and including a melt retaining unit (e.g. vent stack and drool unit), a separator (e.g. knock out pot), a condenser, and a suction/vacuum pump (pages 6-7; Figures 9, 10 and 11).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combine the teaching of Mehra et al. and Leistritz et al. and to have utilized the degassing configuration/unit/equipment of Leistritz et al. as the degassing configuration/unit/equipment of Mehra et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively devolatilizing the desired material (i.e. desired to be devolatilized because it is not desired to be in the product), in an art recognized suitable and effective manner. Mehra et al. disclose a general degassing step and Leistritz provide further specificity as to conventional and well-known components that are effective for devolatilizing in the art. For example, it is noted that the equipment as configured (e.g. the separator/knock out pot and condenser) generally prevents materials from getting into the vacuum pump and facilitates the ability to maintain effective vacuum/degassing of the material in the extruder in a manner known in the vacuum system/extrusion degassing art.
Mehra et al. do not explicitly teach the additive and the plastics material are supplied into the screw-conveyor machine separately from one another or the multi-shaft screw-conveyor is a twin-shaft conveyor having a length-to-diameter ratio greater than 48. However, Ullom teaches an analogous method wherein the additive is fed separately as claimed and the extruder has an L/D that overlaps the claimed range (Figure 2 (203); paragraphs [0042]-[0047] and [0069]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mehra et al. and Ullom and to have added the added separately as claimed and to have utilized an extruder with an L/D of greater than 48 as claimed in the method of Mehra et al., as suggested by Ullom, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of facilitating the reduction of chlorine/dehalogenation of the plastic material in the extruder in an art recognized suitable manner.
As to claims 2-5, Mehra et al. utilize the same claimed additive in the same claimed manner (col. 3, lines 28-45; e.g. calcium carbonate or stearate; Example 3). As such, the same claimed effects and physical properties are realized.
As to claim 6, Mehra et al. teach temperatures within or which overlap the claimed range (col. 3, lines 8-15; Examples 1 and 3).
As to claim 7, Mehra et al. add the material via a supply opening (Example 3).
As to claim 10, Mehra et al. teach and suggest discharging the materials as a melt (col. 3, lines 9-14; Examples 1 and 3 – extruded through a die then pelletized).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehra et al. (US 4,826,897) in view of Leistritz (“Devolatilization vis Twin Screw Extrusion: Theory, Tips and Test Results”, IDS document) and Ullom (US 2016/0024390), as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of any one of Ullom (US 2016/0024390), Humphreys et al. (US 2020/0071619), Kim et al. (US 2013/0285271), Horizoe et al. (US 6,011,187) or Keizo et al. (JP 2000290424). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 8, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Mehra et al. do not teach downstream as claimed. However, each of Humphreys et al. (claims 2, 4, 5 and 7; paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0147], [0148] – adding the base/additive to the melt stream in the context of claims 5 and 7 suggests adding it to the melted material in the extruder or downstream of the extruder), Kim et al. (paragraphs [0036] and [0039] taken with [0069], [0070] and [0087] suggests the materials may be added separately), Horizoe et al. (Figure 8 (7) (7’) (10) (11); col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 23; col. 5, lines 1-50; col. 6, lines 10-63; col. 16, line 17-col. 17, line 5; adding the additive/sand/zeolite/mordenite downstream of the plastic feed) or Keizo et al. (paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0033] and [0034] and Figure 3 (1) (2) (4) teach providing the additives downstream of the plastic feed; also see paragraphs [0003], [0009]-[0012], [0020] and [0028] for context).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Mehra et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have supplied the additive and the plastics material separately into the screw-conveyor machine/extruder of Mehra et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of adding the materials to the extruder in art recognized suitable and equivalent alternative manners and/or, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of further facilitating the effective dehalogenation/chloride conversion and/or pyrolysis of the plastics materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 24, 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose analogous devices for processing plastic materials with degassing devices and an L/D greater than 48 as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
