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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113039053A see pages 3-5 and abstract; in view of CN103360734A see pages 1-6 and abstract.
Applicants claim 1 is directed to the pyrolysis method for recovering differing material components of tire material using thermal decomposition, wherein the tire material is delivered to a pyrolytic chamber (1), and exposed to a controlled atmosphere and heated to a decomposition temperature of the differing material components in the pyrolytic chamber (1) by microwave radiation, characterized in that a variable power microwave radiation at frequencies between 300 MHz and 2500 MHz is applied to sequentially vary a temperature in the pyrolytic chamber (1) in a temperature range including predefined temperatures of the differing material components to sequentially increase the decomposition temperature in the pyrolytic chamber, resulting in a sequential decomposition of differing material components and separately collecting the differing recovered material components through several successive exit ports provided at points of increasing product temperature along a length of the pyrolytic chamber.
CN113039053A discloses a method for recycling and processing plastic materials including recycled PET materials comprising melting the recycled materials, first filtrating under pressure, vacuum degassing , conveying the melt to a reactor and further degassing, increasing the intrinsic viscosity, performing a third filtration, mixing additives in mixer and pelletizing or extruding the product materials. See page 3 lines 16-35, page 4 lines 25-40 and page 5 lines 3-35.
CN113039053A does not discloses that the additives introduced into the recycled polyester melt composes impact modifiers, compatibilizers, antioxidants and lubricants for producing an impact resistant polyester composition. See page 3 lines 27,32, page 5 lines 25, 26 and claim 7.
CN103360734A discloses PET compositions comprising a compatibilizer, a toughening agent or impact modifier, an antitoxin and a lubricant. The additives are mixed with Pet and extruded to produce a copolyester composition with improved mechanical properties. See abstract, lines 9-15, page 2 lines 35-51, page 3 lines 3-6, page 6 lines 1-6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recycled PET process of CN113039053A by using the compatibilizers, impact modifiers antioxidants and lubricants in view of the teachings of CN103360734A in order to improve compatibility, impact resistance and mechanical performance.. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ the additives as disclosed since, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove and collect a surface coating of the recycled release film before the recycled release film is crushed, compacted and dried in order to reduce contamination, improve filtration and quality of the resulting recycled polyester material.
With regard to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the drying temperature to 70°C to 120°C since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular temperature range and other parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the melting, extruding and degassing process temperature to 240oC to 290oC since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular temperature range and other parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the melting and kneading process temperature to 240°C to 280°C since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular temperature range and other parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 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 and extrude at the temperature of 250°C to 275°C since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular temperature range and other parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the extruded strands at a temperature to 40°C to 80°C since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular temperature range and other parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyolefin elastomer as the impact modifier since CN103360734A discloses elastomeric toughening agent for improving the impact resistance of PET compositions. See page 2 lines 42-45 and page 6 lines 11-14.
With regard to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dispersed particle size of the polyolefin elastomer that provides the desired balance of impact resistance and mechanical properties because the size and distribution affected the characteristics of the polymer composition.
With regard to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ ethylene methyl acrylate glycidyl methacrylate copolymer, polyolefin elastomer graft glycidyl methacrylate, polyethylene graft glycidyl methacrylate, or combinations as compatibilizers because CN103360734A discloses the use of compatibilizers to improve compatibility and dispersion with the polyester compositions. See page 2 lines 39-40 and page 6 lines 7-9.
With regard to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ hindered phenolic antioxidants, phenolic antioxidants, mixed antioxidants, phosphite antioxidants, complex antioxidants or combinations thereof since CN103360734A teaches antioxidants for protecting polyester compositions from thermal and oxidative degradation during processing. See page 2 lines 47-49 and page 6 lines 15-18.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ stearates, polyethylene wax, siloxane modifier, or a fluorine- based resin since CN103360734A page 2 lines 50-51 and page 6 lines 19-21.
With regard to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed amounts of recycled PET resin, wherein based on a total weight of the impact-resistant polyester composition, a content of the recycled PET resin is 70 wt% to 92 wt%, a content of the impact modifiers is 5 wt% to 15 wt%, a content of the compatibilizer is 2 wt% to 15 wt%, a content of the antioxidant is 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%, and a content of the lubricant is 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% since CN103360734A discloses the same components in similar concentrations for polyester compositions and recognizes that the amount of these ingredients may be adjusted to obtain the desired balance of toughness, compatibility, stability and processing characteristics. See page 2 lines 30-38 and page 6 lines 1-6.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
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