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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 8/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Cioffi describes removal of impurities from polypropylene prior to compounding. This is not found persuasive because the claims are open to the inclusion of such materials as impurities within the protocol of Cioffi. The Examiner maintains the subject matter of claim 8 would have been obvious in view of Cioffi for reasons set forth below. Alternatively, the subject matter is anticipated by Hara or obviated by Cioffi in view of Hara for reasons set forth below; the discussion of which is incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, it is evident that all shared technical features fail to make a contribution over the prior art nonetheless. Therefore, there is lack of unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/21/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Foreign Cite No. 1 of the IDS received 1/3/2024 has been lined through and not considered as a copy of the cited document with a publication date of 6/5/2016 has not been received. Rather, it appears the included document is IN20161015805 with a publication date of 11/10/2017, which was considered in the IDS of 10/30/2023.
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 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), as being anticipated by Hara (WO 2021/166914 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2022/0017726 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document.
With respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection, Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, Hara teaches composite materials (Abstract) and describes examples formed from used coffee capsules comprising polypropylene and residues of PET (other polymer) and aluminum foil and maleated polypropylene coupling agent (¶ 196-197; Table 1), the polypropylene forming the matrix of the composite (¶ 44). The composites contain spent coffee residues (Table 1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Example 3 has a polypropylene:maleated polypropylene ratio of 46.8:2.5 (18.72:1), which is within the range of 50:4.5 (11.11:1) and 95:0.5 (190:1). Example 3 also has 49.5 wt% of coffee residue (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hara teaches embodiments further including paper (Table 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (WO 2021/166914 A1) in view of Lee (KR10-1490625 B1) as evidenced by SpecialChem (Polypropylene: How to select the right grade?). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2022/0017726 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Hara teaches composite materials (Abstract) and describes examples formed from used coffee capsules comprising polypropylene and residues of PET (other polymer) and aluminum foil and maleated polypropylene coupling agent (¶ 196-197; Table 1), the polypropylene forming the matrix of the composite (¶ 44). The composites contain spent coffee residues (Table 1).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Hara differs from the subject matter claimed in that additional polypropylene polymer is not described. Lee also pertains to coffee/polypropylene composite materials (¶ 1). Lee teaches it was known blends of recycle polypropylene and virgin polypropylene can be used, whereby relatively higher quantities of recycled polypropylene gives a decrease in mechanical properties (¶ 20; Tables 1 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include virgin polypropylene resins within the composites of Hara, thereby affording improved mechanical properties where so desired. Lee teaches it was known polypropylene homopolymers and copolymers can be used (¶ 18). As evidenced by SpecialChem, commercially available polypropylene (co)polymers exhibit maximum tensile strengths of roughly 20-40 MPa (Page 6).
Hara teaches 10-80 wt% of polyolefin matrix resin (¶ 56) and Lee teaches 50-130 pbw of waste polypropylene per 100 pbw virgin polypropylene (¶ 20), the latter being equivalent to 43.5-67 wt% virgin polypropylene per virgin+recycle polypropylene. Thus, the combination of references is suggestive of overlapping virgin resin quantities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Lee suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Lee. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 297, 126647).
Regarding Claims 8, 11, and 12, Cioffi teaches recycled polymeric materials comprising a matrix of polypropylene from spent coffee capsules coupled with at least one coupling agent and a dispersed phase comprising spent coffee particles (Section 2.2; Table 1). Cioffi teaches when manufacturing the composites, residues such as aluminum foil or laminated sheets are separated prior (Page 2, Right Column.
Cioffi differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the presence of trace impurities of aluminum foil, paper, or other polymers not removed prior to composite formation. In this regard, it has been held the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render a product nonobvious. Factors to be considered in determining whether an old product of differing purity is obvious over the prior art include whether the claimed chemical compound or composition has the same utility as closely related materials in the prior art, and whether the prior art suggests the particular form or structure of the claimed material or suitable methods of obtaining that form or structure. In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04(VII). In this regard, Cioffi essentially describes the same utility (polypropylene material from waste coffee capsules), the same particular form or structure (polypropylene/coupling agent matrix; ground coffee dispersed phase), and same method of obtaining the form or structure (shredding spent coffee capsules, mix with coffee grounds/coupling agent). In view of such and in light of the cited case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art recycled polymeric materials can be successfully derived from the protocols of Cioffi despite slight differences in purity, such as those compositions that include trace amounts of the listed materials.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Cioffi describes examples with roughly 67 wt% polypropylene, 30 wt% ground coffee, and 3 wt% coupling agent (Table 1), equivalent to a polypropylene:coupling agent ratio of 22.3:1. The ratio is within the range of 50:4.5 (11.11:1) and 95:0.5 (190:1).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 297, 126647) in view of Lee (KR10-1490625 B1) as evidenced by SpecialChem (Polypropylene: How to select the right grade?). As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Cioffi within ¶ Error! Reference source not found.-25 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Cioffi differs from the subject matter claimed in that additional polypropylene polymer is not described. Lee also pertains to coffee/polypropylene composite materials (¶ 1). Lee teaches it was known blends of recycle polypropylene and virgin polypropylene can be used, whereby relatively higher quantities of recycled polypropylene gives a decrease in mechanical properties (¶ 20; Tables 1 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include virgin polypropylene resins within the composites of Cioffi, thereby affording improved mechanical properties where so desired. Lee teaches it was known polypropylene homopolymers and copolymers can be used (¶ 18). As evidenced by SpecialChem, commercially available polypropylene (co)polymers exhibit maximum tensile strengths of roughly 20-40 MPa (Page 6).
Cioffi teaches 67-80 wt% of polyolefin matrix resin (Table 1) and Lee teaches 50-130 pbw of waste polypropylene per 100 pbw virgin polypropylene (¶ 20), the latter being equivalent to 43.5-67 wt% virgin polypropylene per virgin+recycle polypropylene. Thus, the combination of references is suggestive of overlapping virgin resin quantities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Lee suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Lee. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 297, 126647) in view of Hara (WO 2021/166914 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2022/0017726 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document.
Regarding Claims 8, 11, and 12, Cioffi teaches recycled polymeric materials comprising a matrix of polypropylene from spent coffee capsules coupled with at least one coupling agent and a dispersed phase comprising spent coffee particles (Section 2.2; Table 1). Cioffi teaches when manufacturing the composites, residues such as aluminum foil or laminated sheets are separated prior (Page 2, Right Column.
Cioffi differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the presence of trace impurities of aluminum foil, paper, or other polymers not removed prior to composite formation. In this regard, Hara also pertains to the use of waste coffee capsules in the manufacture of polypropylene composites (Abstract; Examples). Hara teaches other waste materials such as aluminum, paper, and PET typically present in waste capsules or other recycled materials can be ground and included within the capsules (Examples). Hara notes the inclusion of such can impart beneficial characteristics such as thermal conductivity or light shielding (¶ 115, 120-121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include residues such as aluminum, paper, or PET from coffee capsules into the composites of Cioffi because doing so can improve characteristics such as thermal conductivity or light shielding and also eliminate costs associated with material separation.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Cioffi describes examples with roughly 67 wt% polypropylene, 30 wt% ground coffee, and 3 wt% coupling agent (Table 1), equivalent to a polypropylene:coupling agent ratio of 22.3:1. The ratio is within the range of 50:4.5 (11.11:1) and 95:0.5 (190:1).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cioffi (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 297, 126647) in view of Hara (WO 2021/166914 A1) and Lee (KR10-1490625 B1) as evidenced by SpecialChem (Polypropylene: How to select the right grade?). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2022/0017726 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Cioffi and Hara within ¶ 32-34 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Cioffi differs from the subject matter claimed in that additional polypropylene polymer is not described. Lee also pertains to coffee/polypropylene composite materials (¶ 1). Lee teaches it was known blends of recycle polypropylene and virgin polypropylene can be used, whereby relatively higher quantities of recycled polypropylene gives a decrease in mechanical properties (¶ 20; Tables 1 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include virgin polypropylene resins within the composites of Cioffi, thereby affording improved mechanical properties where so desired. Lee teaches it was known polypropylene homopolymers and copolymers can be used (¶ 18). As evidenced by SpecialChem, commercially available polypropylene (co)polymers exhibit maximum tensile strengths of roughly 20-40 MPa (Page 6).
Cioffi teaches 67-80 wt% of polyolefin matrix resin (Table 1) and Lee teaches 50-130 pbw of waste polypropylene per 100 pbw virgin polypropylene (¶ 20), the latter being equivalent to 43.5-67 wt% virgin polypropylene per virgin+recycle polypropylene. Thus, the combination of references is suggestive of overlapping virgin resin quantities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Lee suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Lee. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights