Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 1/16/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 4 and 7-15 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 has overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final office action of 7/16/2025. This rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant has not addressed the specification and claim objection previously set forth in the non-final office action of 7/16/2025. These objections are reiterated in this office action (see below).
Applicant arguments are not persuasive and addressed below:
Applicant states that Clark fails to teach at least a chipper that is located after re-crystallization. Rather, Clark teaches a grinder that is used to grind the raw plastic prior to re-crystallization. Clark is silent as to any reduction of particle size after re-crystallization, It is submitted that a grinder is very different means of reducing the size of material. In particular, it is well known that chippers use sharp knives to create consistent chips, whereas, in contrast, grinders use blunt objects or abrasives to crush or reduce the material.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the same filed of endeavor, and as evidenced by SOHN (US-2026/0022224) {[0007], [0039]}, MA (US-2024/0058994) {[0044]}, and GAUDL (US-2019/0127549) {[0028]}, a grinder will chip the material.
Applicant needs to positively recite the shape and size of the chipped materials to indicate the difference between chips and granules (emphasis added by the Examiner).
Applicant states that the Examiner has also asserted that locating the grinder of Clark after the recrystallization as required by independent claim 1 as presently amended is a "mere duplication of parts". Applicant respectfully submits that this in an incorrect application of the doctrine enunciated in MPEP 2144.04(Vl)(B) as this newly located Chipper as proposed by the Examiner does not duplicate a part (by creating more than one of it), but rather moves the location of that part and is therefore a rearrangement of parts. The Examiner's proposed modification does not merely duplicate a part
performing the same function in the same place in the process. Rather, it reorders the process steps and changes the material state being acted upon.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Indeed, the Examiner used the rationale of duplication of parts {MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)} and not rearrangement of parts {MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)} (emphasis added by the Examiner). As discussed above, the grinder of CLARK reads on the chipper of the instant invention, therefore, duplicating it meets the limitation in dispute.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 3, line 18 replace “a chipper 24 to dry” with “a chipper 24 to chip”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: replace “including removal device” with “including a removal device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLARK (US-2015/0076744), hereinafter CLARK. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, CLARK discloses A system for preparing recyclable plastic for extrusion {[title], [abstract] note the purpose of preparing the recycled plastic or PET is for extrusion} comprising:
a vessel operable to receive a quantity of a raw plastic containing a liquid at or above 212 degrees Fahrenheit to re-crystalize the raw plastic to a re-crystalized plastic (claim 1), wherein the liquid comprises water (claim 5) {[0054] note crystallizer housing is the vessel and since PET is a recycle of a virgin PET that was crystallized before, the vessel does the recrystallization, [0059] note the temperature range of 100 to 180 degree Celsius that meets the limitation of equal or greater than 212 degrees Fahrenheit, [0026] note wet flakes indicating that raw plastic contains water or a liquid, [0067] note infrared heating of both PET and water, indicating that recycling PET or raw plastic contains water or a liquid}.
Regarding the next limitation of claim 1 “a chipper to chip the re-crystalized plastic to a desired chip size after removal from the vessel after a predetermined period of time”, CLARK discloses a grinder or chipper (see the evidences provided above under the argument section) before re-crystallization process {[0004] note step A before step D}. Therefore, CLARK is silent on the limitation above that recites a chipper after the vessel. The Examiner notes that the re-crystallization in CLARK is inherently performed at a predetermined time.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the chipper or grinder of CLARK and have placed the duplicated chipper after the re-crystallization vessel, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of device or system involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)}.
One would have been motivated to do so to further prepare pieces of recrystallized PET that is in appropriate size for the downstream extruder of CLARK. Note that CLARK indicates that the crystallizer may only partially reduce the size {[0068]} and therefore, further reduction in size to a desired size may be needed that can be achieved with the duplicated chipper placed after the recrystallization.
Regarding the last limitation of claim 1 “and a dryer to remove the liquid from the chipped re-crystalized plastic” and claim 6 limitation of “wherein the dryer may comprise a centrifuge” CLARK discloses a centrifugal dryer that is located before crystallization and the duplicated chipper {[0022]}. Therefore, CLARK is silent on the limitations above that recite a centrifuge dryer downstream of the duplicated chipper.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the centrifugal dryer of CLARK and have placed the duplicated dryer after the re-crystallization vessel/duplicated chipper, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of device or system involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)}.
One would have been motivated to do so to further prepare completely dry pieces of recrystallized PET that is appropriate for the downstream extruder of CLARK. Note that CLARK indicates that the crystallizer may only partially dry the PET flakes {[0065]} and therefore, further drying may be needed that can be achieved with the duplicated dryer before the extrusion process.
Regarding claim 2 limitation of “further including a removal device for removing the plastic from the vessel after a predetermined time selected to re-crystalize the plastic” and claim 3 limitation of “wherein the removal device comprises a conveyor”, CLARK discloses a screw conveyor for introducing the plastic into the crystallizer {[0056]}. Therefore, CLARK is silent on a conveyor removal device to take the crystallized plastic out of the crystallizer. Note that crystallization is performed at a predetermined time period.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the screw conveyor of CLARK and have placed the duplicated screw conveyor downstream of the re-crystallization vessel as a removal device, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of device or system involves only routine skill in the art {see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)}.
One would have been motivated to do so to further streamline the process and have been able to easily remove the plastic in the same way that it was introduced into the vessel.
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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748