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 .
Notice of Rejoinder
Claims 1-15 are allowable after overcoming the following rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The restriction requirement between claims 1-15 and 16-17, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 09/16/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement, mailed on 09/16/2025 is hereby withdrawn. Claim 16 directed to “method for the production of granulate” and claim 17 directed to “a hollow body produced from a PET granulate” are no longer withdrawn from consideration and are rejoined with claims 1-15 because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, a step “(c)” between “(b)” and “(d)” are missed.
Claim 8 recites phrases of “(Bruceton staircase drop test according to procedure B from ASTM D2463)” and “(measured according to ASTM D4603)” within parentheses. It is clear that the phrases within the parentheses are part of the claim. However, the parentheses need to be replaced with commas for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 9, in 2nd line, recites “to the method of Claim 8” wherein prior to “the method of claim 8”, “to” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 9 recites phrase of “(measured according to ASTM D4603)” within parentheses. It is clear that the phrases within the parentheses are part of the claim. However, the parentheses need to be replaced with commas for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 10, in 2nd line, recites “that the method of Claim 8” wherein prior to “the method of claim 8”, “that” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 10 recites phrase of “(measured according to ASTM D4603)” within parentheses. It is clear that the phrases within the parentheses are part of the claim. However, the parentheses need to be replaced with commas for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 11, in 2nd line, recites “that the The method of Claim 10” wherein prior to “The method of claim 10”, “that the” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 11 recites phrase of “(measured according to ASTM D4603)” within parentheses. It is clear that the phrases within the parentheses are part of the claim. However, the parentheses need to be replaced with commas for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 12, in 2nd line, recites “that the The method of Claim 8” wherein prior to “The method of claim 8”, “that the” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 13, in 2nd line, recites “that the The method of Claim 12” wherein prior to “The method of claim 12”, “that the” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 13, in 1st - 2nd lines, recites “that the The method of Claim 12” wherein prior to “The method of claim 12”, “that the” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 14, in 1st line, recites “that the The method of Claim 13” wherein prior to “The method of Claim 13”, “that the” is redundant and needs to be removed.
Claim 16, in 9th line, recites “(measured according to ASTM D4603)” within parentheses. It is clear that the phrases within the parentheses are part of the claim. However, the parentheses need to be replaced with commas for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 16, in 11th line, recites “the mixing” which is clear that it refers back to “the admixing”. However, it needs to be modified to “the admixing” for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Claim 17 recites phrases of “(Bruceton staircase drop test according to procedure B from ASTM D2463)” and “(measured according to ASTM D4603)” within parentheses. It is clear that the phrases within the parentheses are part of the claim. However, the parentheses need to be replaced with commas for the purpose of claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation of “the production of extrusion-blow-molded” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to define “a production of extrusion-blow-molded”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “sorting by type… PET articles”, in 4th line, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of the phrase “type… PET articles” is not defined by claim, the specification does not define a standard for ascertaining the requisite scope of claimed “type” and if claimed “type” refers to “size”, “shape”, “material”, etc. of “PET articles”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the solidified melt flows” in 15th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to recite “solidified melt flows”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “the solidified melt flows” in 13th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 8 fails to recite “solidified melt flows”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of “sorting by type… PET articles”, in 2nd line, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of the phrase “type… PET articles” is not defined by claim, the specification does not define a standard for ascertaining the requisite scope of claimed “type” and if claimed “type” refers to “size”, “shape”, “material”, etc. of “PET articles”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of “the plurality of melt strands” in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 13 fails to define “a plurality of melt strands”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation of “the blowing process” in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 15 fails to define “a blowing process”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “the production of granulate” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 16 fails to define “a production of granulate”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “the production of parisons” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 16 fails to define “production of parisons”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “sorting by type… PET articles”, in 12th line, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of the phrase “type… PET articles” is not defined by claim, the specification does not define a standard for ascertaining the requisite scope of claimed “type” and if claimed “type” refers to “size”, “shape”, “material”, etc. of “PET articles”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “the post-consumer collection of plastic packaging” in 12th -13th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Even though prior to the citation, claim 16 recites “a post consumer collection of hollow bodies”, Claim 16 fails to define “a post-consumer collection of plastic packaging”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “sorting by type… PET articles”, in 4th line, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The scope of the phrase “type… PET articles” is not defined by claim, the specification does not define a standard for ascertaining the requisite scope of claimed “type” and if claimed “type” refers to “size”, “shape”, “material”, etc. of “PET articles”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “the solidified melt flows” in 13th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 17 fails to recite “solidified melt flows”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “forming a hollow body from the crystallized pellets” in 20th line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because prior to the cited limitation, claim 17 already recites “a hollow body produced…” in 1st line and it is not clear if the cited “a hollow body” in 20th line refers to previously cited limitation in 1st line of claim 17 or refers to a new limitation. Clarification is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Neither references of the record nor any other prior art, taken alone or in combination, Inter Alia, teach or fairly suggest a method of producing a plastic granulate suitable for the production of extrusion-blow-molded hollow bodies, as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 16, or a hollow body produced from a PET granulate, as claimed in claim 17.
The closest prior art of Christel et al. (EP 3 650 186) discloses a method for producing plastics pellets which are suitable for the production of extrusion blow molded hollow bodies, the method comprising the following steps:
(a) sorting by type, washing and comminuting PET articles originating from post-consumer collection of plastics packaging (conventional method step when using recyclates, therefore at least implicitly disclosed in [0046]),
(b) removing contaminants such as metal or paper before, at the same time as or after method step a) (conventional method step when using recyclates, therefore likewise at least implicitly disclosed in [0046])
(d) drying the PET material obtained from the preceding steps (implicitly disclosed in [0046]; see above)
(e) melting the dried PET material ([0049]: “…To produce pellets […] from the polycondensate strands, the pelletization techniques known in the prior art, such as strand pelletization, water ring pelletization, underwater pelletization or hot-face pelletization can be used…”),
(f) pressing the PET material through a melt filter (at least implicitly disclosed in [0046], conventional in the use of recyclates for removing impurities from the melt),
(g) dividing the PET material into individual melt flows (see [0049]: “…nozzle plate…”),
(h) cooling and solidifying the melt flows in a water bath, separating the solidified melt flows into pellets ([0049]: “…strand pelletization…”), wherein the pellets thus obtained have an intrinsic viscosity of 0.5 to 0.75 dl/g ([0079]: “…in the case of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) the pellets have an iV value of 0.4 to 0.8 dl/g, in particular 0.5 to 0.67 dl/g, prior to entry into the subsequent unit…”),
(i) crystallizing the pellets (see [0115] to [0122]), and
(j) drying and condensing the crystallized pellets in a solid state polycondensation reactor ([0126]: “…the polycondensate pellets obtained after crystallization can undergo a further thermal treatment step, which is preferably selected from the group consisting of a devolatilization step, preferably dealdehydization step, and solid-state post-condensation (SSP)…”),
However, neither Christel et al. (EP ‘186) nor any other prior art, taken alone or in combination, disclose premixing the PET material from various types of the sorted PET articles so that a Trouton ratio of the mixed PET material at a shear rate of 50 to 200 s-1 is less than 4 and the pellets contained in the solid-phase polycondensation reactor are processed there until they attain an intrinsic viscosity of 1.0 to 1.7 dl/g, as claimed in claims 1, 8, 17. Further, neither Christel et al. (EP ‘186) nor any other prior art disclose admixing of hollow bodies that are formed from PET pellets having an intrinsic viscosity of 1.0 to 1.7 dl/g, as claimed in claim 16.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
03/27/2026