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 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 5, 7, 13 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the sorting of the first articles is optical sorting…”. This is confusing because there are two sorting steps in claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. One is referred to as “pre-sorting” and applies to the articles, and one is “sorting” and applies to flakes of the articles. Since claim 5 refers to “sorting” the “articles” it is not clear to which of the sortings in claim 1 claim 5 is referring.
Claim 7 recites “from an external recycling method (n)” in the final lines. This is confusing because there is already a step (n) described in claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends. The step (n) in claim 1 does not appear to be an external recycling method, so the reference to (n) in claim 7 is confusing.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second washing step" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 describes a second washing step but claim 13 depends on claim 10 and claim 9 and claim 1. While claim 1 describes a pre-washing (b) and washing step (d), it appears that claim 13’s “second washing step” is different from these and antecedent basis is lacking.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second washing step" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 describes a second washing step but claim 13 depends on claim 11 and claim 1. While claim 1 describes a pre-washing (b) and washing step (d), it appears that claim 14’s “second washing step” is different from these and antecedent basis is lacking.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “the first articles are separated from the second articles in step (f)” but this phrasing is already present in claim 1 in step (f). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 states that the first articles are ground into flakes before being fed to the improving step (j), but in claim 1 step (j) the improving step is done on “the flakes of the first articles” i.e. they are already described as ground (claim 1 step c). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in step (f) line 2 “form” should be “from”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For the term “key-locker” in claim 2, in the specification “Field of invention”, “key-locker” is defined as: a technology for coloring plastics, wherein the colored plastic can be decolored with a key reagent or a “key” owing to the properties of the coloring agent.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190193303 by Heyde et al.
Heyde describes recycling polyolefins.
Regarding claim 1, Heyde describes a method for recycling polyolefin (paragraph 9) including mixed colors (reads on first and second articles) comprising:
(a) pre-sorting the articles – roughly sorted by color and/or polymer (paragraph 26)
(b) pre-washing the mixed color polyolefin waste (paragraph, 21 wet comminuting)
(c) comminuting the first and second articles (paragraph 21 wet comminuting)
(d) washing the comminuted polyolefin (paragraph 10-12, 20, 21 step i and ii)
(e) drying the washed comminuted polyolefin, i.e. dewatering (paragraph 30, after step ii)
(f) further sorting to concentrate flakes into single-color fractions, concentrating the single color fractions (paragraph 13 step iii; paragraph 32-38)
(g) extruding the polyolefin into granules in between steps iii and iv (paragraph 56)
(i) and (j) decontaminating the polyolefin (removing pollutants step iv) (paragraph 46, optionally before extrusion/granulation paragraph 59; also the extrusion step removes pollutants (paragraph 57) reading on instant step (i))
(m) although Heyde is silent as to a specific temporary storage after decontaminating and before extrusion, Heyde does not describe multiple extruders yet does describe separating by color prior to extrusion (paragraph 46, 58), therefore one of ordinary skill would have to hold a specific sorted flake color (“temporarily store”) while a different color is extruded. See also paragraph 67, which states the method can be carried out batchwise or partially batchwise to individual batches of polyolefin wastes. Storing the flakes after step (iv) and before granulation is one of a short list of options for batchwise operation of Heyde’s invention.
(n) feeding the flakes which have been decontaminated (removing pollutants step iv) (paragraph 46) optionally before extrusion/granulation paragraph 59, to extrusion/granulation paragraph 59. The extruder also removes pollutants, i.e. depletes contamination reading on step (j).
Regarding the choice of the specific options claimed, these are obvious to one of ordinary skill because Heyde describes them as possibilities, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 3, Heyde describes initial rough sorting, i.e. separation (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 4, Heyde describes sorting to concentrate flakes into single-color fractions, concentrating the single color fractions (paragraph 13 step iii; paragraph 32-38)
Regarding claim 5, Heyde describes further sorting to concentrate flakes into single-color fractions, concentrating the single color fractions (paragraph 13 step iii; paragraph 32-38).
Regarding claim 6, Heyde’s description of separating by color prior to extrusion (paragraph 46, 58), and lack of multiple extruders indicates that some flakes of separated color – reading on “exclusively first”- would be held while others are sent thru the extruder. Thus idea of a “store” of flakes of an exclusive color flows naturally from Heyde’s disclosure and is obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 11, Heyde describes comminuting the first and second articles (paragraph 21 wet comminuting).
Regarding claim 14, Heyde describes a first wash which is cold washing (paragraph 20) and a second wash which is carried out at 60-90C and at a 1-3 wt% NaOH concentration (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 17, Heyde describes cold washing (paragraph 20), meeting the “intensive” washing claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8-10, 12, 15, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest art is US 20190193303 by Heyde et al, used in rejection of other claims above. For claim 2, Heyde is silent as to a “key” reagent to decolor the articles. For claim 8, Heyde is silent as to a bypass for the articles. For claim 9, Heyde’s step (i) does not specifically require decoloring, nor is decoloring mentioned in Heyde.
Other close yet inapplicable art is “Food grade decontamination trials of household PP waste” by Kosior et al, which is cited in the international search mailed July 19, 2022. Applicant has narrowed claim 1 such that in item (j) flakes of the first articles – not the first articles themselves- must be depleted of contaminants/color prior to extrusion. Kosior does not describe such an action on the flakes. Decolorization of polyolefin flakes, such as in EP 3362507 by Wauters et al, describes dissolving the flakes in order to remove color; i.e. the flakes are destroyed. Flake destruction is not compatible as instant step (j) because the flakes must later be extruded in claim step (g).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights