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
Amendments submitted on 3/3/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 9 and 13 have been amended. Claims 16-17 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach that the rinsing air feed comprises a first fan for supplying the rinsing air, which is coupled to a rinsing air line such that the rinsing air can be blown into the rinsing air line: Examiner maintains the position as stated in the office action of 11/6/25 and further elaborates as follows: Siegl et al. teaches that the rinsing air feed 43, 45, 47 comprises a rinsing air line (see e.g. piping between 47 and 13 as shown in figure 1); Siegl et al. also teaches in figure 1 and page 3 of the translation that a vacuum pump 41 (the impeller of the vacuum pump reads on a suction fan or a suction-pressure fan) may be provided in the exhaust air line (see line connecting 13 and 41 as shown in figure 1, which is capable of discharging fluids such as air and/or volatile components of the plastic recycling material 23) of the at least one rinsing chamber 13, and provides a suction force to direct the flow of air through the rinsing chamber 13 and guide it further downstream. Siegl et al. does not teach that a suction fan is provided as part of the rinsing air feed or in the exhaust air line of the at least one cooling chamber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a suction fan or suction-pressure fan (reads on first fan) may be part of the rinsing air feed coupled to the rinsing air line such that the rinsing air can be blown into the rinsing air line, so as to allow for additional suction force to direct the flow of air through the cooling chamber and supply it to the downstream rinsing chamber.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Siegl et al. teaches away from the rinsing air feed comprising a first fan for supplying the rinsing air because Siegl et al. describes the use of a vacuum pump to withdraw air from the vacuum silo, rather than blowing rinsing air into the vacuum silo: Siegl et al. teaches in figure 1 and page 3 of the translation that gas flows through the cooling container 15 and the rinsing chamber 13 in a countercurrent direction (i.e. upwards in figure 1) with the movement being facilitated by vacuum pump 41. The countercurrent flow of the gas in the cooling container 15 allows for heat transfer from the pellets to the gas, cooling the pellets and preheating the gas. The preheated gas continues upwards and is fed into and through the rinsing chamber 13 by the vacuum pump 41, where the high temperature of the gas and the negative pressure improve the removal of odor components from the pellets. Hence, Siegl et al. does not teach away from the use of an additional pump disposed between the cooling container 15 and the rinsing chamber 13. Rather, the presence of an additional vacuum pump disposed between the cooling container 15 and the rinsing chamber 13 would further facilitate the countercurrent flow of the gas, supporting the heat transfer between the gas and the pellets in the cooling container 15 as well as the odor dissolution and removal in the rinsing chamber 13.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, as discussed above, Siegl et al. teaches the use of a vacuum pump in order to facilitate the counter current flow of gas through the cleaning container 15 and the rinsing chamber 13, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that an additional vacuum pump may be included in the system by Siegl et al. to further facilitate said countercurrent gas flow.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the vacuum pump of Siegl et al. does not read on the first fan because the vacuum pump by Siegl et al. is not capable of tempering, for example heating, the rinsing air by means of compression heat, because it does not supply air but rather extracts it: The claims do not require that the first fan temper the rinsing air by means of compression heat.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 1-4, 6-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegl et al. (WO2021198323A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 9-13, Siegl et al. teaches a recovery system for recovering plastic recycling material (see abstract and page 2 of the translation, deodorization of the plastic material reads on recovery of the plastic material), capable of continuous operation (see page 3 of the translation) (reads on claim 2) and comprising: at least one rinsing chamber 13, comprising a rinsing container 13, capable of heating and rinsing the plastic recycling material 23, with a rinsing air feed 43, 45, 47 capable of feeding heated rinsing air into the at least one rinsing chamber 13 (see page 3 of the translation, figure 1); and at least one cooling chamber 15, comprising a cooling container 15 (reads on claim 3), capable of cooling the plastic recycling material 23 with a cooling air feed 27 capable of feeding cooling air into the at least one cooling chamber 15, wherein the at least one cooling chamber 15 is connected downstream (with respect to the flow of plastic recycling material 23) of the at least one rinsing chamber 13 and is fluidly connected to the rinsing air feed 43, 45, 47 via an exhaust air line (see piping connecting 15 and 47 as shown in figure 1) in such a manner that the exhaust air heated by the plastic recycling material 23 in the at least one cooling chamber 15 can be fed into the rinsing air feed 43, 45, 47 of the at least one rinsing chamber 13 (see page 4 of the translation, figure 4). Siegl et al. teaches that the rinsing air feed 43, 45, 47 comprises a rinsing air line (see e.g. piping between 47 and 13 as shown in figure 1) and Siegl et al. also teaches in figure 1 and page 3 of the translation that a vacuum pump 41 (the impeller of the vacuum pump reads on a suction fan or a suction-pressure fan) may be provided in the exhaust air line (see line connecting 13 and 41 as shown in figure 1, which is capable of discharging fluids such as air and/or volatile components of the plastic recycling material 23) of the at least one rinsing chamber 13, and provides a suction force to direct the flow of air through the rinsing chamber 13 and guide it further downstream (reads on claim 13). Siegl et al. does not teach that a suction fan is provided as part of the rinsing air feed in the exhaust air line of the at least one cooling chamber or a second fan provided with the cooling air feed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a suction fan or suction-pressure fan (reads on first fan) may be part of the rinsing air feed coupled to the rinsing air line such that the rinsing air can be blown into the rinsing air line, so as to allow for additional suction force to direct the flow of air through the cooling chamber and supply it to the downstream rinsing chamber. Hence, it is readily apparent that the first fan may be disposed either upstream or downstream of the heating apparatus 45, such that the exhaust air line of the at least one cooling chamber 15 opens into the rinsing air line on the inlet side of the first fan or between the first fan and the heating apparatus 45 (reads on claim 11). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a second fan may be included with the cooling air feed so as to facilitate the flow of gas from the cooling air feed to the cooling chamber (reads on claim 9).
Regarding claim 4, Siegl et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3. Siegl et al. also teaches in figure 1 and page 3 of the translation that a first dosing device 51 is effective between the at least one rinsing container 13 and the at least one cooling container 15 and capable of continuously feeding the plastic recycling material 23 rinsed in the at least one rinsing container 13 into the at least one cooling container 15.
Regarding claim 6, Siegl et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3. Siegl et al. also teaches in figure 1 and page 4 of the translation a second dosing device 53 is provided, which is connected downstream of the at least one cooling container 15 and is capable of continuously discharging (see continuously open position of valve 53) the plastic recycling material 23 cooled in the at least one cooling container 15.
Regarding claim 8, Siegl et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Siegl et al. also teaches that the rinsing air feed comprises a rinsing air line (see e.g. piping between 47 and 13 as shown in figure 1) which is operatively coupled to a heating apparatus 45 capable of tempering rinsing air (see figure 1 and page 3 of the translation).
Regarding claim 15, Siegl et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Siegl et al. does not explicitly teach a plurality of rinsing chambers and/or cooling chambers in parallel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the number of rinsing chambers and cooling chambers, may be increased and attached in parallel so as to increase the odor removing and pellet processing capacity of the system. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegl et al. (WO2021198323A1) as applied to claims 4 and 6, and further in view of Friedlaender et al. (US20130143974).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Siegl et al. teaches the limitations of claims 4 and 6. Siegl et al. does not teach that the first and second dosing devices are controlled based on a fill level of the at least one rinsing/cooling container and/or based on an amount of plastic recycling material present in the at least one rinsing/cooling container. Friedlaender et al. teaches a system for processing plastic materials (see abstract) and that a dosing device 4 may be controlled based on a fill level of an upstream processing container 3 so as to allow for the maintenance of optimal fill levels for continuous operation (see paragraph [0047], figure 1). Since both Siegl et al. and Friedlaender et al. teach plastic processing systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that first and second dosing devices in the system by Siegl et al. may be controlled based on a fill level of the at least one rinsing/cooling container and/or based on an amount of plastic recycling material present in the at least one rinsing/cooling container so as to maintain optimal fill levels for continuous operation, as shown to be known and conventional by Friedlaender et al.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegl et al. (WO2021198323A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Parker et al. (US20220297352).
Regarding claim 14, Siegl et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Siegl et al. does not teach that the rinsing air feed is coupled to a steam feed for feeding steam or a water injection for injecting water into the rinsing air. Parker et al. teaches a system for recovering and processing plastics (see abstract) and that steam may be fed into a vessel or line in order to control the temperature of a stream or vessel by providing a portion of the required energy to achieve the desired temperature (see paragraph [0147]). Since both Siegl et al. and Parker et al. teach systems for recovering plastics it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that steam may be fed into the rinsing air feed so as to provide a portion of the required energy needed to achieve the desired temperature control of the rinsing air and rinsing container, as shown to be known and conventional by Parker et al.
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 TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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 BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights