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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 18th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 10-12, 16-17 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161).
Regarding claim 1, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0007 line 1-Paragraph 0008 line 3) comprising:
a. obtaining the first plastic (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3), wherein said first plastic has a concentration of surface contaminants (Paragraph 0002 lines 4-11);
b. obtaining a purification fluid (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3) having particles suspended within the purification fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 1-4);
c. utilizing mutual convection between the first plastic and the purification fluid having suspended particles within to enhance mechanical abrasion of the first plastic (Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9);
d. resulting in a purer plastic (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3 “cleaned polymeric substrate”) having a reduced concentration of surface contaminants from the first plastic (Paragraph 0008 line 1-Paragraph 0009 line 3).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the invention may be applied to any scrap material in which a metal is provided on a polymeric substrate (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-4).
Huang (US 5019161) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Col. 1 lines 7-10) wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins (Col. 3 lines 13-15).
Huang (US 5019161) explains that the plastic material can be plated with a copper inner layer, and at least one outer layer formed of nickel or chromium (Col. 3 lines 25-31), and examples of suitable plastics are ABS, PVC, or PE (Col. 3 lines 13-15). Huang (US 5019161) states that plated plastics are used for radio parts, automobiles and other vehicles, and decorative wares (Col. 1 lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins as taught by Huang (US 5019161) in order to separate a metal outer layer from a polyolefin material.
Regarding claim 2, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said first plastic comprises a reclaimed plastic (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said first plastic is comprised of a surface printed film or sheet (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 6, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said purification fluid comprises water (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3) and/or an organic solvent.
Regarding claim 8, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said mutual convection is either a mechanical stirring device inside a stationary tank or a rotating drum (Paragraph 0036 lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 10, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said particles have a mass average equivalent sphere diameter from about 200 microns to about 25 mm (Paragraph 0024 lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 13, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said particles comprise polymers (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-3, 14-19) having a Moh's hardness greater than the Moh's hardness of the first plastic (Paragraph 0030 lines 4).
Regarding claim 14, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 13, wherein said polymers comprise a form of the first plastic (Paragraph 0031 lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 15, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said particles comprise a recycled material (Paragraph 0031 lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 16, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks explicitly teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the volume ratio of said particles to said purification fluid is from about 0.01 to about 10.0.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the weight ratio of water to flake may be 1:3, and the weight ratio of the impact bead to the flake may be 1:30 (Paragraph 0033 lines 8-10, Paragraph 0034 lines 11-14). The density of water is known to be 1g/cm3, and the density of polycarbonate is approximately 1.2g/cm3. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) additionally states that the density of the impact beads is not too dissimilar from that of the polymeric substrate (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4). Considering the weight ratios and the density of the impact beads being similar to 1.2g/cm3, the volume ratio of the impact beads to the water would be around 0.08.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) explains that the water functions as a lubricant and heat transfer medium as well as aiding transport of the milled products (Paragraph 0034 lines 2-4), and the weight ratio of the bead impact material to flake may be chosen depending on the desired process time which in turn may be influenced by things such as electricity costs (Paragraph 0033 lines 3-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein the volume ratio of said particles to said purification fluid is from about 0.01 to about 10.0 in order to provide enough purification fluid that functions as a lubricant and heat transfer medium as well as aids in the transport of the plastic, and in order to provide enough particles for a desired process time.
Regarding claim 17, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks explicitly teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the volume ratio of said particles to said first plastic is about 0.01 to about 100.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the weight ratio of water to flake may be 1:3, and the weight ratio of the impact bead to the flake may be 1:30 (Paragraph 0033 lines 8-10, Paragraph 0034 lines 11-14). The density of polycarbonate is approximately 1.2g/cm3. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) additionally states that the density of the impact beads is not too dissimilar from that of the polymeric substrate (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4). Considering the weight ratio provided and the density of the impact beads being similar to 1.2g/cm3, the volume ratio of impact beads to flakes may be around 30.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) explains that the water functions as a lubricant and heat transfer medium as well as aiding transport of the milled products (Paragraph 0034 lines 2-4), and the quantity of bead impact material may vary based on the amount of flake material present since this will affect the rate of attrition as well as the rate of wear of the material and/or apparatus that may ensue, therefore the weight ratio of the bead impact material to flake may be chosen depending on the desired process time which in turn may be influenced by things such as electricity costs (Paragraph 0033 lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein the volume ratio of said particles to said first plastic is about 0.01 to about 100 in order to provide enough particles for a desired rate of attrition balanced with the rate of wear of the material and/or apparatus.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161) and further in view of Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004).
Regarding claim 4, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic of at least 10% relative to the same standard.
Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0016 lines 1-11), wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic relative to the same standard (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5).
Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) explains that the device includes at least one detector and a computing unit configured to perform an automatic quality check of the quantity of color components remaining in the plastic particles after treatment (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5). Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) further explains that depending on the result of the automatic quality check, the plastic particles can be fed into a subsequent processing process, cleaned again, or sorted out, and only the plastic particles whose quality corresponds to a specific standard can be fed into a subsequent processing process (Paragraph 0052 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic relative to the same standard as taught by Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) in order to ensure that the plastic particles are sufficiently cleaned of colored impurities.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic of at least 10% relative to the same standard in order to provide a sufficient separation of the colored contaminants from the plastic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0007 line 1-Paragraph 0008 line 3), comprising:
a. obtaining the first plastic (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3), wherein said first plastic comprises a reclaimed film (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-9), and has a concentration of surface contaminants (Paragraph 0002 lines 4-11);
b. obtaining a purification fluid (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3), wherein said purification fluid comprises water (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3) and/or organic solvent, and has inorganic particles suspended within the purification fluid (Paragraph 0012 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0031 lines 1-3);
c. mutually convecting the first plastic, the purification fluid, and the particles, causing mechanical abrasion of the first plastic (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9);
d. resulting in a purer plastic (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3 “cleaned polymeric substrate”) having a reduced concentration of surface contaminants from the first plastic (Paragraph 0008 line 1-Paragraph 0009 line 3).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the invention may be applied to any scrap material in which a metal is provided on a polymeric substrate (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-4).
Huang (US 5019161) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Col. 1 lines 7-10) wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins (Col. 3 lines 13-15).
Huang (US 5019161) explains that the plastic material can be plated with a copper inner layer, and at least one outer layer formed of nickel or chromium (Col. 3 lines 25-31), and examples of suitable plastics are ABS, PVC, or PE (Col. 3 lines 13-15). Huang (US 5019161) states that plated plastics are used for radio parts, automobiles and other vehicles, and decorative wares (Col. 1 lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein said first plastic is predominately comprised of one or more polyolefins as taught by Huang (US 5019161) in order to separate a metal outer layer from a polyolefin material.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic of at least 10% relative to the same standard
Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0016 lines 1-11), wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic relative to the same standard (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5).
Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) explains that the device includes at least one detector and a computing unit configured to perform an automatic quality check of the quantity of color components remaining in the plastic particles after treatment (Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5). Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) further explains that depending on the result of the automatic quality check, the plastic particles can be fed into a subsequent processing process, cleaned again, or sorted out, and only the plastic particles whose quality corresponds to a specific standard can be fed into a subsequent processing process (Paragraph 0052 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic relative to the same standard as taught by Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) in order to ensure that the plastic particles are sufficiently cleaned of colored impurities.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein there is an improvement in dE between a homogenized sample of the first plastic and a homogenized sample of the purer plastic of at least 10% relative to the same standard in order to provide a sufficient separation of the colored contaminants from the plastic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching wherein the volume ratio of the inorganic particles to the first plastic is from about 0.01 to about 100; and wherein the volume ratio of the inorganic particles to the purification fluid is from about 0.1 to about 100.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the weight ratio of water to flake may be 1:3, and the weight ratio of the impact bead to the flake may be 1:30 (Paragraph 0033 lines 8-10, Paragraph 0034 lines 11-14). The density of water is known to be 1g/cm3, and the density of polycarbonate is approximately 1.2g/cm3. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) additionally states that the density of the impact beads is not too dissimilar from that of the polymeric substrate (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4). Considering the weight ratios and the density of the impact beads being similar to 1.2g/cm3, the volume ratio of the impact beads to the water would be around 0.08, and the volume ratio of impact beads to flakes may be around 30.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) explains that the water functions as a lubricant and heat transfer medium as well as aiding transport of the milled products (Paragraph 0034 lines 2-4), and the quantity of bead impact material may vary based on the amount of flake material present since this will affect the rate of attrition as well as the rate of wear of the material and/or apparatus that may ensue, therefore the weight ratio of the bead impact material to flake may be chosen depending on the desired process time which in turn may be influenced by things such as electricity costs (Paragraph 0033 lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein the volume ratio of the inorganic particles to the first plastic is from about 0.01 to about 100; and wherein the volume ratio of the inorganic particles to the purification fluid is from about 0.1 to about 100 in order to provide enough purification fluid that functions as a lubricant and heat transfer medium as well as aids in the transport of the plastic and in order to provide enough particles for a desired rate of attrition balanced with the rate of wear of the material and/or apparatus.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 5, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein there is a reduction in gloss between the first plastic and the purer plastic (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-9, Paragraph 0042 lines 1-9).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching that there is a reduction in gloss between the first plastic and the purer plastic of at least 25%.
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches that in the case of CDs and DVDs, the scrap material may comprise aluminum, gold, adhesives, lacquers and printing inks (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-9), and explains that the outer layer (acrylate/lacquer layer) and the metal backing layer may be stripped from the polycarbonate layer during the process (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-9), therefore removing the glossy elements (aluminum, gold, lacquers) from the polymeric material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include a reduction in gloss between the first plastic and the purer plastic of at least 25% in order to provide a sufficient separation of the contaminants from the plastic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said particles comprise ceramic (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-3).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks explicitly teaching ceramic having a Moh's hardness greater than about 8.0. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the bead impact material should have a suitable surface hardness to serve the intended function of removing the metal and any additional layers overlying the metal (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include ceramic having a Moh's hardness greater than about 8.0 in order to provide a suitable surface hardness for removing the contaminants from the first plastic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161) and further in view of Maris et al. (WO 2006100381). English translations of Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 7, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising separating the purer plastic from the purification fluid (Paragraph 0009 line 1-Paragraph 0010 line 2), and then using at least 50% of the purified purification fluid to repeat steps (c) and (d) (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-7).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching purifying the purification fluid.
Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-4), comprising separating the purer plastic from the purification fluid (Paragraph 0082 lines 1-11), purifying the purification fluid (Paragraph 0082 lines 13-15).
Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) explains that the liquid medium is recycled and treated to comply with exiting environmental constraints, particularly when the liquid medium is water than can be returned to the natural environment (Paragraph 0082 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include purifying the purification fluid as taught by Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) in order to comply with existing environmental constraints, such that the purification fluid does not damage the environment.
Regarding claim 18, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, further comprising separating the particles from the purer plastic and the purification fluid and then using at least 50% of the separated particles to repeat steps (c) and (d).
Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-4), further comprising separating the particles from the purer plastic and the purification fluid (Paragraph 0082 lines 1-6) and then using at least 50% of the separated particles to repeat steps (c) and (d) (Paragraph 0082 lines 12-18).
Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) explains that the abrasive grains may be recycled and reintroduced into the abrasive medium (Paragraph 0082 lines 12-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include separating the particles from the purer plastic and the purification fluid and then using at least 50% of the separated particles to repeat steps (c) and (d) as taught by Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) in order to recycle and re-use the separated particles, therefore reducing the amount of waste produced by the process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161) and further in view of Scarola et al. (US 5443652).
Regarding claim 9, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein said mutual convection comprises multiple convection stages.
Scarola et al. (US 5443652) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Col. 1 lines 10-12), wherein said mutual convection comprises multiple convection stages (Col. 8 lines 3-12, 34-47).
Scarola et al. (US 5443652) explains that the plastic flakes are cleaned as they pass counter-currently upwards through the water filtering down through the conduit (Col. 8 lines 46-48), and in order to move the plastic flakes upward through the conduit in a uniform manner, it is preferable to have portions of the conduit be continuous where a change in direction is necessary (Col. 8 lines 60-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein said mutual convection comprises multiple convection stages as taught by Scarola et al. (US 5443652) in order to clean the plastic from contaminants as the plastic particles travel through multiple stages of a conduit.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161), Lohr et al. (US 5578135) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 11, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said particles comprise metal (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-3).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching wherein said particles comprise stainless-steel having a Rockwell C hardness of at least about 50. Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) states that the bead impact material should have a suitable surface hardness to serve the intended function of removing the metal and any additional layers overlying the metal (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-4).
Lohr et al. (US 5578135) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Col. 1 lines 6-13), wherein said particles comprise stainless-steel (Col. 5 lines 26-30).
Lohr et al. (US 5578135) explains that it has been proved advantageous to add abrasive particles to the mass of parts, these particles being produced from a material which is resistant to alkali and glycol in particular from stainless steel (Col. 5 lines 26-30), as these materials may be used to chemically strip the plastic (Col. 8 lines 50-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein said particles comprise stainless-steel as taught by Lohr et al. (US 5578135) in order to provide abrasive particles which are resistant to alkali and glycol which may be used to chemically strip the plastic.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include wherein said particles comprise stainless-steel having a Rockwell C hardness of at least about 50 in order to provide a suitable surface hardness for removing the contaminants from the first plastic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) in view of Huang (US 5019161), Friedlaender et al. (WO 2022101004) and further in view of Maris et al. (WO 2006100381).
Regarding claim 20, Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising using at least 50% of the purification fluid to repeat steps (c) and (d) (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-7).
Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) lacks teaching separating the inorganic particles from the purer plastic and the purification fluid and then using at least 50% of the separated inorganic particles to repeat steps (c) and (d)
Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) teaches a purification method for producing a purer plastic from a first plastic (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-4), comprising separating the inorganic particles from the purer plastic and the purification fluid (Paragraph 0082 lines 1-6) and then using at least 50% of the separated inorganic particles to repeat steps (c) and (d) (Paragraph 0082 lines 12-18).
Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) explains that the abrasive grains may be recycled and reintroduced into the abrasive medium (Paragraph 0082 lines 12-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hall et al. (US 2003/0131688) to include separating the inorganic particles from the purer plastic and the purification fluid and then using at least 50% of the separated inorganic particles to repeat steps (c) and (d) as taught by Maris et al. (WO 2006100381) in order to recycle and re-use the separated particles, therefore reducing the amount of waste produced by the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the term “about” does not render the claims indefinite, the Examiner would like to clarify that the specification does not provide any indication as to what range is covered by the term “about.” For example, in the limitation “about 200 microns”, it is unclear if 100 microns, 180 microns, or 199 microns would be considered about 200 microns. In the limitation “Rockwell C hardness of at least about 50”, it is unclear if 35, 40, or 49 are considered at least about 50. Therefore, the term “about” renders the claims indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang (US 5019161).
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 Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653