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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending, claim 6 having been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001-350411A to Morimatsu et al. (see machine translation) in view of WO2021/230032A1 to Sente et al. (see machine translation) and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0324171 to Broyles et al.
As to claim 1, Morimatsu discloses a method of recycling plastic film, the method comprising: exposing pieces of plastic film to an aqueous deinking solution comprising a surfactant and a base to produce pieces of deinked plastic film (see Morimatsu paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0033]); recovering the pieces of deinked plastic film from the deinking solution (see Morimatsu paragraph [0038]); and sorting the deinked plastic film into a plurality of product classes (see Morimatsu paragraph [0038]). Morimatsu further discloses that the plastic film can be made from various polyester films, including films with two or more layers (read as the pieces of plastic film can comprise inked pieces of plastic film comprising a first base material and inked pieces of plastic film comprising a second based material, and wherein the pieces of deinked plastic film comprise deinked pieces of plastic film comprising the first base material and deinked pieces of plastic film comprising the second base material) (see Morimatsu paragraph [0012]).
Morimatsu further discloses separating and recovering different polymers (see Morimatsu paragraph [0038]) as well as that the label can be on various types of plastic films, including polyester films such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, etc., styrene-based films, olefin-based films, etc., and that the films may be a single layer or a laminate of two or more layers (see Morimatsu paragraph [0012]). Therefore, Morimatsu can be considered as disclosing that the pieces of plastic film can comprise the first polymer and other pieces of plastic film that can comprise a second polymer wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are different. To the extent it could be argued that Morimatsu does not disclose the separation and recovery of different base materials of the plastic film according to the polymer of the plastic film, both Sente and Broyles disclose that it is known in the art to sort by polymer type after cleaning to recycle the plastics (see Sente paragraphs [0078], [0083]-[0092], [0100]-[0105], [0109]-[0112]; see Broyles paragraphs [0004] and [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to sort the deinked plastic films into a plurality of product classes including according to the polymer of the plastic film as disclosed by Sente and/or Broyles in order to recycle and reuse the recovered plastics.
As to claim 2, while the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles does not explicitly disclose the size of the plastic film, Morimatsu discloses that the size of the film can be set appropriately within a range that does not impair treatment efficiency and that it may be the same size as when attached to the adherend (see Morimatsu paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the size within the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) where changes in size/proportion are prima facie obvious).
As to claim 3, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that step a) can comprise immersing the pieces of plastic film in a volume of the aqueous deinking solution to form a mixture of aqueous deinking solution and pieces of plastic film (see Morimatsu paragraphs [0031]-[0033], [0037]).
As to claim 5, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that step a) can be performed within a short period of time, including within 20 minutes, which would include 10 minutes or less since 20 minutes is the upper limit of the disclosed treatment time (see Morimatsu paragraphs [0035]-[0036]; see MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie vase of obviousness exists).
As to claim 10, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that the surfactant can be present in the deinking solution in an amount from about 0.01-5% by weight, and preferably about 0.1-1.0% by weight (see Morimatsu paragraph [0034]).
As to claims 11-13, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that the base can be NaOH and present in the deinking solution in an amount from 0.1-10% by weight (see Morimatsu paragraphs [0031]-[0032]).
As to claims 14-16, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that the surfactant can be a combination of surfactants that include sodium dodecyl sulfate (read as sodium lauryl sulfate) at 0.01-5% by weight (see Morimatsu paragraph [0034]).
As to claim 17, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that the plastic film can be PP or PE (see Morimatsu paragraph [0012]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001-350411A to Morimatsu et al. (see machine translation) in view of WO2021/230032A1 to Sente et al. (see machine translation) and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0324171 to Broyles et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,616,595 to Fullana Font et al. (“Fullana”).
Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 4, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles does not explicitly disclose mechanically agitating the mixture of deinking solution and pieces of plastic film to produce the pieces of deinked plastic film. Fullana discloses a similar method of recycling plastic film wherein the cleaning solution and plastic film are agitated during the deinking step (see Fullana col. 4, lines 31-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mechanically agitate the deinking solution and pieces of plastic film as disclosed by Fullana in order to improve the deinking efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001-350411A to Morimatsu et al. (see machine translation) in view of WO2021/230032A1 to Sente et al. (see machine translation) and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0324171 to Broyles et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,845,869 to Graf von Deym et al. (“Graf”).
Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles does not explicitly disclose that the sorting of deinked plastic film comprises sorting the deinked plastic film according to the level of deinking that has occurred in step a. Graf discloses a similar plastics recycling method wherein the plastics are sorted according to color (see Graf col. 11, line 11 – col. 12, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to separate the treated plastics according to color, which inherently also would sort by the level of deinking since the more ink that is removed, the more of the plastic color would be shown, as disclosed by Graf.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-350411A to Morimatsu et al. (see machine translation) in view of WO2021/230032A1 to Sente et al. (see machine translation) and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0324171 to Broyles et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2020-094324A to Tanaka et al. (see machine translation).
Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 8 and 9, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles does not explicitly disclose that the surfactant in the deinking solution is a trialkyl hydroxyalkyl ammonium salt according to formula (II). Tanaka discloses the use of a trialkyl hydroxyalkyl ammonium surfactant to remove ink from cellulose fibers, which are considered a plastic substrate (see Tanaka claim 1, paragraph [0069], Examples 1, 2, 4, 5, 12-17, 19, 31, 41-44 and 50; compounds E1, E2, E4 and E5, tables 1, 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a trialkyl hydroxyalkyl ammonium surfactant as disclosed by Tanaka since said surfactant is a known deinking surfactant.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020-350411A to Morimatsu et al. (see machine translation) in view of WO2021/230032A1 to Sente et al. (see machine translation) and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0324171 to Broyles et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,540,244 to Brooks et al.
Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 18-20, the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles discloses that the deinked plastic film is recovered and reused by pelletizing, etc. (see Morimatsu paragraph [0038]; see also Sente paragraphs [0078], [0083]-[0092], [0100]-[0105], [0109]-[0112]; see Broyles paragraphs [0004] and [0006]). While the combination of Morimatsu, Sente and/or Broyles does not explicitly disclose that the recovered plastic is extruded, it is understood in the art that to pelletize the recovered plastic film, the plastic film pieces would be melted and extruded to form said pellets. Furthermore, Brooks discloses a similar recycling method wherein the recovered plastic is melt-extruded through a die to form plastic pellets (see Brooks col. 8, lines 14-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use melt extrusion to form the pellets as is known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument since Sente and/or Broyles are now relied upon for the newly added claim recitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights