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
This is a first action on the merits for this Track One application filed on 10/15/20
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected a method of processing solid waste plastic, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/26/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 06/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the method claims directly correspond to, and cannot be practiced without, the system of Group I; and that the method claims are therefore inextricably tied to the system claims, and any prior art search directed to the continuous liquefaction and filtration system of Group I would necessarily encompass the method steps of Group II. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus as claimed can be used to perform process other than liquefaction and filtration of solid waste plastic as required by the method claims. For example, the claimed apparatus can be used to heat liquid foods or thick liquids. And the search for an apparatus for heating food requires a complete and a different search than method for melting and filtering plastic solid waste material. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai et al. (US 5,597,451).
Regarding claim 17, Nagai et al. discloses a continuous liquefaction and filtration system for processing solid waste plastic (col.2, lines 30-44), comprising:
A first device (Fig.5:1, 15, 9, 16, 17, 9, 14, and 23) configured to melt and filter (col.5, lines 27-45) solid waste plastic material to form molten plastic;
The first device includes a tube (Fig.1:15) and an agitator (Fig.1:14), the tube filled with a heating element disposed therein;
A second device (Fig.5:30, 34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a) in communication with the first device, and configured to receive the molten plastic;
A feeding system (Fig.5:8, 7, and 5) in communication with the first device, and configured to feed waste plastic material to the first device; and
A plurality of extractors (Fig.5:15, 17, 16, 23, 34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a), the plurality of extractors including a first extractor (Fig.5:15, 17, 16, 23) and a second extractor (Fig.5:34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a), the first extractor disposed on the first device (Fig.5:1, 15, 9, 16, 17, and 23) and configured to remove molten plastic from the first device and the second extractor disposed on the second device (Fig.5:30, 34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a) and is capable of being configured to remove molten plastic from the second device.
Regarding claim 18, the agitator (Fig.1:14) in Nagai et al. system is capable of being configured to operate as a heat transfer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (US 5,597,451) in view of Smith (US 7,893,307 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai et al. discloses a continuous liquefaction and filtration system for processing solid waste plastic (col.2, lines 30-44), comprising:
A first device (Fig.5:1, 15, 9, 16, 17, 15, 9, 14, and 23) configured to melt and filter (col.5, lines 27-45) solid waste plastic material to form molten plastic;
The first device includes a tube (Fig.1:15) filed with a heating element disposed therein (Fig.1:21);
A second device (Fig.5:30, 34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a) in communication with the first device, and configured to receive the molten plastic;
A feeding system (Fig.5:8, 7, and 5) in communication with the first device, and configured to feed waste plastic material to the first device; and
A plurality of extractors (Fig.5:15, 17, 16, 23, 34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a), the plurality of extractors including a first extractor (Fig.5:15, 17, 16, 23) and a second extractor (Fig.5:34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a), the first extractor disposed on the first device (Fig.5:1, 15, 9, 16, 17, and 23) and configured to remove molten plastic from the first device and the second extractor disposed on the second device (Fig.5:30, 34, 33, 35, 32, and 32a) and is capable of being configured to remove molten plastic from the second device.
Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose that the feeding system includes a compression system.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the feeding system (Fig.1:112) includes a compression system (Fig.1:118) in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition (col.10, lines 4-33). 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 to add Smith compression system to Nagai et al. feeding system in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition.
Regarding claim 2, Nagai et al. discloses that the feeding system has a pre-chamber (Fig.5:8), a chamber (Fig.5:5) disposed in series on a top of the first device, and the pre-chamber and the chamber are selectively separated by a door (Fig.5:7).
Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose that the feeding system includes a compression system.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the feeding system (Fig.1:112) includes a compression system (Fig.1:118) in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition (col.10, lines 4-33). 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 to add Smith compression system to Nagai et al. feeding system in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition.
Regarding claim 3, Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose that the feeding system includes a compression system.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the feeding system (Fig.1:112) includes a compression system (Fig.1:118) in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition (col.10, lines 4-33). 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 to add Smith compression system to Nagai et al. feeding system in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition.
Regarding claim 4, Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose the use of molten salt.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the system (Fig.1:112) uses molten salt since it is known to be used as a high temperature liquid (col.18, lines 10-13). 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 to add Smith molten salt to Nagai et al. system since molten salt is known to act as a high temperature liquid.
Regarding claim 5, Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose that the tube is coiled and configured to filter waste plastic material.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the system (Fig.1:112) includes a coiled tube (Fig.2:124 and col.18, lines 7-31) in order to ensure that all of the feed in uniformaly heated. As to the limitation that the coiled tube is configured to filter waste plastic material, Smith coiled tube (Fig.2:124) is capable of filtering waste plastic material. 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 to add Smith coiled tube to Nagai et al. system in order to ensure that all of the feed in uniformaly heated.
Regarding claim 6, Nagai et al. discloses that the first device (Fig.5:1, 15, 9, 16, 17, 9, 14, and 23) has a bottom zone (unlabeled bottom part of 5 as shown in Fig.1) disposed on a bottom portion of the first device (Fig.5:1) and is capable of being configured to receive solids filtered by the tube.
Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose the use of at least one temperature sensor.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the system (Fig.1:112) includes a measurement of the temperature (col.12, lines 50-54; construed as a temperature sensor) in order to obtain suitable heat transfer rates (col.12, lines 56-58). 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 to add Smith temperature sensor to Nagai et al. system in order to obtain suitable heat transfer rates.
Regarding claim 7, Nagai et al. discloses that the system further comprises a solids extraction system (Fig.5:9, 23, and 30) in selective communication with the bottom zone (unlabeled bottom of 1 as shown in Fig.5).
Regarding claim 8, Nagai et al. discloses that the solids extraction system (Fig.5:9, 23, and 30) has a feeding zone (unlabeled top portion of 1 as shown in Fig.5) and a cooling zone (Fig.5:30) disposed in series.
Nagai et al. appears silent to disclose that the feeding system includes a compression system.
Smith discloses a system for converting plastics into fuel (Col.1, lines 16-25 and Fig.1:100) where the feeding system (Fig.1:112) includes a compression system (Fig.1:118) in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition (col.10, lines 4-33). 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 to add Smith compression system to Nagai et al. system in order to obtain comminuted feed by applying shear forces to the feed composition.
Regarding claim 9, Nagai et al. discloses that the tube (Fig.5:15) is disposed along an entire length of a process zone of the first device (Fig.5:1, 15, 9, 16, 17, 9, 14, and 23).
Regarding claim 10, Nagai et al. discloses that the first device includes an agitator (Fig.1:14).
Regarding claim 11, Nagai et al. discloses a vacuum unit (Fig.1:20) in communication with the first device and the second device, the vacuum unit configured to control a pressure level within the continuous liquefaction and filtration system.
Regarding claim 12, Nagai et al. discloses that the vacuum unit has a filter, an atmosphere controller, a vacuum pump (Fig.1:20), and a bubbler, each in communication with the first device.
Regarding claim 14, Nagai et al. discloses that the feeding system has a pre-chamber (Fig.5:8), a chamber (Fig.5:5) disposed in series on a top of the first device, and the pre-chamber and the chamber are selectively separated by a door (Fig.5:7) and a second door (Fig.5:17) is disposed between the chamber (Fig.5:5) and a process zone (Fig.5:23).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (US 5,597,451) in view of Smith (US 7,893,307 B2) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Tharpe, Jr. (US 9,464,234 B1).
The combined Nagai et al. reference appears silent to disclose using an automatic extraction wire system that is disposed in the pre-chamber.
Tharpe, Jr. discloses an apparatus and a method using pyrolysis reactions for the production of energy products using biomass (col.1, lines 18-22) that includes a cyclone separator (Fig.1:80; considered as the automatic extraction wire system) in order to separate solids from exhaust (col.11, lines 43-45). 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 to add Tharpe, Jr. cyclone separator/clean-in-place step to the combined Nagai et al. system in order to separate solids from exhaust.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (US 5,597,451) in view of Smith (US 7,893,307 B2) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Oeck (US 4,412,889).
Regarding claims 15-16, the combined Nagai et al. system appears silent to disclose the use of doors that are actuated by corresponding valves.
Oeck discloses a pyrolysis reaction apparatus (Fig.1; col.1, lines 5-16) where the apparatus uses first and second doors that are hydraulically operated (Fig.1:52 and 54; col.5, lines 9-13) in order to close such conduits in the event of an input feeding problem and to enable emptying the accumulator (col.5, lines 9-13). 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 to add Oeck blade gates to the combined Nagai et al. system in order to close such conduits in the event of an input feeding problem and to enable emptying the accumulator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached on (571)272-1267. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights