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 .
Claim Interpretation
Instant specification is utilized to interpret claims 1, 24, 30 and 32.
Regarding claim 1, since the requirement “removable static helical mixer” was not found to be present in one para of the instant specification, various portions of the specification paras [0019] and [0051] and Fig.31 were utilized to interpret the claimed limitation that the removable static mixer(s) can have helical configuration.
Regarding claim 24, the instant specification Fig 14., depicts the spacer tube which is labelled as 214 and further notes that the spacer tube encourages flow of the molten polystyrene (specification para [0133]). Thus, it is interpretated that the spacer tube aids in the flow of molten polystyrene in the reactor portion of the apparatus.
Regarding claims 30 and 32, specification Fig 21 highlights a removable adaptor labelled as 740 (which appears like a cylindrical shaft structure), and notes that it provides cut-outs for static mixer supports (specification, para [0182]), thus a removable adaptor is interpreted to be a shaft which can provide additional mixing.
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 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.
Claims 13-14, 18, 22-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ULLOM (US 2016/0024390) and in view of SIREK (US 2003/0032840).
Ullom discloses a process to depolymerize a hydrocarbonaceous material, such as polystyrene ([0073]), using an extrusion process.
Reference Sirek teaches a method of chemical recycling of polyethylene terephthalate waste by utilizing an extrusion process (reference claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Ullom teaches a continuous process to depolymerize a hydrocarbonaceous material, such as polystyrene ([0073]), by first heating it and melting it in an extruder and then transporting the molten material to a reactor comprising a mixer to depolymerize it with the aid of a catalyst as required. (See abstract, reference claim 1, paras [0002], [0016], [0017], [0036], [0042], [0044] and figure 1).
Ullom does not address the presence of a static mixer but notes that variations and modifications will readily occur to those skilled in the art (para [0102]), thus encouraging a skilled artisan to further optimize the depolymerization or the recycling process.
Analogous reference Sirek teaches the recycling of polyethylene terephthalate where the polymer melt is fed through an extrusion reactor which is composed of a double-screw extruder which is followed by a helical static mixer (paras [0012] and [0020]). Advantageously Sirek provides the motivation to utilize both a rotating extruder and a static mixer as it provides high effectiveness and technological simplicity for purification of the recycled products while involving lower investments (paras [0017] and [0018]).
While Sirek does not discuss that the static mixer is removable, an artisan skilled in the art would configure the static helical mixer to be removable to achieve flexibility for future design changes (depending on the polymer viscosity) and also allowing for routine equipment maintenance and cleaning. Further the case law holds that making a prior art equipment separable (or removable) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 V C. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ullom’s rotating extruder with a removable helical static mixer as taught by Sirek for the same application of achieving effectiveness in purification of the recycled products.
Regarding claim 14, Ullom teaches electrical heaters for the connector ports, which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could also use for maintaining the operating temperature of the extruder, making the claimed requirement obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in order to maintain the polystyrene in a molten state during the extrusion process (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 22, while Ullom is silent on the use of a hopper, Sirek teaches the use of a hopper to introduce the ground input material to the extrusion reactor, thus making the claimed requirement obvious (see Sirek para [0020]).
Regarding claim 23, the instant specification (para [0063]) notes that a heat exchanger offers a cooling step. Ullom discloses a downstream cooling system, which meets the claimed requirement (see Ullom paras [0056] and [0099]).
Regarding claim 24, (see claim interpretation) Ullom discloses a baffle dam with a central opening 305 (para [0051] and fig. 3). Ullom notes that the opening 305 allows for hydrocarbonaceous (polystyrene) to pass between the two chambers and the size of the opening manages the through put rate of the raw materials. The opening labelled 305 in Ullom’s Fig 3 appears to be a channel, and serves the same purpose as the spacer tube to manage the flow of molten polystyrene, thus for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, the requirement of spacer tube is made obvious by Ullom’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 25, Ullom discloses at least two zones for the kiln reactor, such that the molten polymeric material is subjected to defined temperature ranges and residence times, meeting the claimed requirement (see abstract and reference claim 1).
Regarding claim 26, Ullom teaches mixing and material advancement via baffles, meeting the claimed requirement (paras [0050] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 27, Ullom highlights that the desired pressure control can be achieved by the use of pressure control devices common in the industry, and additionally provides various pressure ranges in various zones of the process, thus for one of ordinary skill in the art before of the effective filing date of the invention, the requirement of a pressure transducer is rendered obvious (paras [0052] and [0071]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 29, Ullom teaches an annular baffle dam which separates two adjoining chambers of the kiln reactor, which meets the claimed requirement (paras [0018] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 30, (see claim interpretation) Ullom teaches the reactor to include an optional counter-rotating shaft (which corresponds to the removable adaptor) which has the ability to turn mixing blades, thus for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, the claimed requirement is made obvious (see para [0050], the shaft is labelled as 310 in Fig 3).
Claims 19-21 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ULLOM in view of SIREK, as applied to claims 13 and 18 above, and further in view of KUMAR (US 2012/0016169).
As discussed, when addressing claim 13 and 18, Ullom and Sirek teach a process for depolymerization polystyrene in the presence of a catalyst.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Ullom teaches that a catalyst is used to offer advantages of polymer breakdown at lower temperatures and higher rate with added control on product quality (paras [0005] and [0044]), and further notes that the catalyst can be selected to be oxides of transition metals, metalloids or non-metals but is silent on specific examples of catalysts. Since Ullom is not especially forthcoming as to what oxide catalysts may be embraced within the breadth of his disclosure, a skilled artisan would take guidance from analogous prior art such as Kumar who also teaches a process to depolymerize waste polymers comprising polystyrene through catalytic depolymerization (abstract, [0019], [0038], claim 8). Kumar teaches the catalyst [Fe-Cu-Mo-P]/Al2O3 which is supported on alumina ([0020], claims 9 and 19) and further provides the motivation to utilize the specific catalyst because it remains active for over a year of use in the process, thereby making the process economical (para [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added Kumar’s [Fe-Cu-Mo-P]/Al2O3 catalyst in Ullom and Sirek’s process for the same application of accelerating the reaction in an economical fashion.
Regarding claim 20, Ullom and Sirek do not address the placement of the catalyst in a container. However, Kumar (Figure 8, and para [0050]) highlights a catalytic bucket (which corresponds to the required container) which carries the catalyst. While Kumar does not recognize that the bucket is permeable, a skilled artisan would design the bucket to be permeable such that the molten polystyrene is able to make contact with the catalyst in order to accelerate the depolymerization, thus making the claimed requirement obvious.
Regarding claim 31, polystyrene depolymerization system in the presence of [Fe-Cu-Mo-P]/Al2O3 catalyst, is made obvious by the combination of Ullom, Sirek and Kumar (as required by claim 19). As discussed, when addressing claim 29, Ullom teaches an annular baffle dam which separates two adjoining chambers of the kiln reactor (paras [0018] and [0050]), thus for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, the claimed requirement of an annular insert would be obvious.
Regarding claim 32, polystyrene depolymerization system in the presence of [Fe-Cu-Mo-P]/Al2O3 catalyst, is made obvious by the combination of Ullom, Sirek and Kumar (as required by claim 19). Ullom teaches the reactor to include an optional counter-rotating shaft (which corresponds to the removable adaptor) which has the ability to turn mixing blades, thus for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, the claimed requirement would be obvious (see Ullom’s para [0050], the shaft is labelled as 310 in Fig 3). Also see claim interpretation above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered, please see the response below.
Applicant’s arguments that Ullom does not teach or suggest a removable static helical mixer, are persuasive. Therefore, the anticipation rejection of the amended claims 13, 18, 23, 25-26 and 29 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, it is determined that primary reference Ullom continues to provide the support for maintaining the rejection of the amended claims, which are now rejected under a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) and in view of Sirek (US 2003/0032840).
Applicant has discussed reference Gregory in detail in the remarks provided on pages 8 and 9. These arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on reference Gregory as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
The non-statutory double patenting rejections over US Patent No. 10,457,886 and US Patent No. 11,076, 676 are also withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment of claim 13.
The amended claims 13-14, 18, 22-27 and 29-30 are rejected over the combination of Ullom (US 2016/0024390) and in view of Sirek (US 2003/0032840). Additionally, the amended claims 19-21 and 31-32 are rejected over the combination of Ullom, Sirek and Kumar (US 2012/0016169). Claims 15-17 were withdrawn from the consideration, since they were not elected.
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 Surbhi M Du whose telephone number is (571)272-9960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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 (Riviere) 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.
/HEIDI R KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765
/S.M.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 1765