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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated August 21, 2025 was submitted on November 20, 2025. Claims 1, 4 and 10 were amended. Claims 12-16 were added. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 10 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 10 and 11 (¶¶ 8-10 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-11 (¶¶ 14-32 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0351663 A1) in view of Massura et al. (International Patent Publication No. WO 03/104315 A1), Stephan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,223,904 B1, cited in IDS submitted March 20, 2024), Imai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0062844 A1, cited in previous Office Action) and Li (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 204471653 U, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Lovis discloses a process for the continuous processing of flakes formed by at least two layers of different plastic materials attached to each other by gluing or by a hot- rolling process (Abstract of Lovis, method for recycling multilayer material comprising at least one polymer layer; [0023] of Lovis, multilayer material can be a laminate comprising two polymer layers; layers of laminate would necessarily be bonded or “glued” together), the process comprising the steps of: a) feeding said flakes to a delamination reactor (10) (FIG. 3, [0028] of Lovis, shred recycled material fed to a vat #310) containing a first aqueous solution of chemicals kept at an adjustable temperature (FIG. 3, [0028] of Lovis, vat #310 contains a separation fluid #330; [0038] of Lovis, separating fluid comprises a mixture of water and other chemicals; [0033] of Lovis, temperature of vat can be varied); b) keeping said flakes in said first aqueous solution under stirring for an adjustable time, in such a way as to separate from each other the layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials, by keeping them in said first aqueous solution ([0033] of Lovis, mixture of laminates and separation fluid stirred for a pre-defined treatment time leading to separation of the multilayer laminates); c) drawing in a controlled manner the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials, together with part of said first aqueous solution, from said delamination reactor (10) ([0034] of Lovis, mixture of separation fluid and separated materials removed from vat #310); d) feeding the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials separated from each other to an intensive washing equipment (20) ([0035] of Lovis, resulting solid material washed in washer #360); f) drawing the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials in a controlled manner from said intensive washing equipment (20) ([0035] of Lovis, material washed in washer sorted in wet sorting step in wet sorter #370), together with part of said second aqueous solution ([0035] of Lovis, material wet sorter #370 would necessarily include water from washing process).
Lovis does not specifically disclose that the at least two different layers of plastic material in the flakes are directly attached to each other. Massura, however, discloses a multilayered film separation process wherein polymeric films joined to each other are separated by introducing the films into heated organic solvent, acid or water baths thereby allowing the recovery of each film (Abstract of Massura). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate polymeric films joined to each other in the method of Lovis since Massura establishes that it was known to separate such films in a solvent delamination process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lovis also does not specifically disclose that the washing equipment (i.e., washer) contains a second aqueous solution of chemicals kept at an adjustable temperature or e) keeping said layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials in said second aqueous solution under stirring for an adjustable time, in such a way as to exert a frictional action between the layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials and wash said layers of flakes. Moreover, Lovis discloses washing the separated materials in water ([0036] of Lovis) but does not disclose using an aqueous solution of chemicals for washing, that the temperature of the washer is adjustable or stirring for an adjustable time during washing. Stephan discloses a process for the continuous recovery of raw materials comprising a plastic substrate and a coating (1:8-17 of Stephan) wherein the shredded recycled material is fed to a flow mixer (i.e., a delamination reactor) to separate or delaminate the layers (4:27-39 of Stephan) are then fed to a second flow mixer in a mixture of organic solvent and water for further purification (5:9-15 of Stephan). According to Stephan, the flow mixer includes blades for mixing the shreds and delamination compositions and the temperature of the flow mixer and the residence time in the flow mixer can be adjusted (4:27-40 of Stephan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the separated or delaminated material in the method of Lovis to a flow mixer containing an aqueous solution under stirring. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to further purify the separated material as taught by Stephan (5:15-19 of Stephan).
Lovis also does not specifically disclose feeding the flakes with constant flow rate to the delamination reactor. Stephan, however, discloses feeding the film shreds into the flow mixer at a constant rate (7:57-58 of Stephan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the flakes at a constant flow rate to the delamination reactor in the modified method since Stephan establishes that it was known to do so in plastic recycling processes. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lovis also does not specifically disclose continuously controlling:- the concentration of said flakes in said delamination reactor (10), by regulating the quantity of flakes drawn from said delamination reactor (10); - the temperature of said first aqueous solution in said delamination reactor (10); - the residence time of said flakes in said delamination reactor (10);- the concentration of said layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials in said intensive washing equipment (20), by regulating the quantity of mixture of said layers of flakes drawn from said intensive washing equipment (20);- the temperature of said second aqueous solution in said intensive washing equipment (20); and - the residence time of said layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials in said intensive washing equipment (20). Moreover, while Lovis discloses regulating the residence time in the flow mixer and the temperature of the mixer during the delamination process ([0033] of Lovis) and Stephan suggests adjusting the time and temperature of the washer (4:35-40 of Stephan), neither Lovis nor Stephan disclose controlling the concentration of flakes in the delamination reactor or washing equipment. Imai, however, discloses controlling the ratio of water to crushed resin recycling pieces in a cleaning device including a rotary body ([0057] of Imai). According to Imai, the ratio of solids to water in the cleaning device influences the removal of foreign material such as coating from the resin material ([0057] of Imai). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the concentration of flakes in the delamination reactor and washing device in the modified process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the removal of foreign material from the resin as taught by Imai ([0057] of Imai).
Lovis also does not specifically disclose that an extraction means (25) carries out said further drawing and controls said residence time of said mixture of flakes inside said intensive washing equipment (20). Moreover, Lovis discloses removing the recycled materials from the washer ([0035] of Lovis, washed material conveyed to wet sorter) but does not disclose the means for doing so. Li, however, discloses a plastic recycling process wherein screw conveyors are used to convey plastic waste solutions between processing stations, including between a washing station and downstream processing stations (Abstract of Li). According to Li, the conveyor speed can be adjusted to control the residence time of the plastic pieces in the cleaning apparatus ([0028] of Li), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a screw conveyor to control residence time of the mixture of flakes in the washing equipment in the modified method since Li establishes that it was known to use a screw conveyor to transport plastic waste material solutions from a cleaning station to downstream operations and to control residence time in the cleaning in a plastics recycling process ([0028] of Li). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Lovis discloses that the concentration of chemicals of said first aqueous solution in said delamination reactor (10) is controlled ([0039] of Lovis, pH value of separation fluid adjusted) and Stephan suggests that the concentration of chemicals of said second aqueous solution in said intensive washing equipment (20) is controlled (4:59-67 of Stephan, composition of solution returned to flow mixer monitored and controlled to restore desired composition).
Regarding claim 3, Lovis does not disclose that the intensity of stirring of said flakes in said first aqueous solution contained in said delamination reactor (10) is regulated. Imai, however, discloses that the speed of the rotary body in the cleaning device can be varied to optimize the cleaning process ([0058] of Imai). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to regulate the intensity of stirring in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the cleaning process as taught by Imai ([0058] of Imai).
Regarding claim 4, Lovis discloses that said step c) of drawing the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials from said delamination reactor (10) provides for separating the part of said first aqueous solution drawn with the mixture of said layers of flakes ([0034] of Lovis, mixture of separation fluid and separated materials removed from vat #310 sieved in sieve #350 to remove the solid materials) and Li suggests using a screw conveyor to draw the mixture from the delamination reactor (Abstract of Li; see analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Lovis discloses that the part of said first aqueous solution drawn with the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials is filtered and reintroduced into said delamination reactor (10) (FIG. 3, [0034] of Lovis, separation fluid separated from solid materials recycled by filtration and placed back into fluid dispenser #340).
Regarding claim 6, Stephan suggests that said step f) of drawing the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials from said intensive washing equipment (20) provides for separating the part of said second aqueous solution drawn with the mixture of said layers of flakes (FIG. 1, 5:15-19 of Stephan, film shreds and organic solvent and water from second flow mixer #6 enter second transport sieve #7).
Regarding claim 7, Stephan suggests that the part of said second aqueous solution drawn with the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials is filtered and reintroduced into said intensive washing equipment (20) (FIG. 1, 5:19-26 of Stephan, solvent mixture from second settling tank #8 recycled by pump #21 back to second flow mixer #6).
Regarding claim 8, Lovis discloses that said first aqueous solution comprises soda and detergents ([0038] of Lovis, separating fluid comprises sodium hydroxide or caustic soda).
Regarding claim 9, Lovis discloses that a first of said at least two different plastic materials consists of polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, and wherein a second of said at least two different plastic materials consists of single- or multi-layer polyethylene, or PE ([0025] of Lovis, polymer layer #20 made of polyethylene and polymer layer #40 made of polyethylene.
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses that the extraction means (25) comprises a further screw conveyor (Abstract of Li).
Regarding claim 16, Lovis does not specifically disclose that a further extraction means (13) carries out said drawing and controls residence time of said layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials in said delamination reactor (10). Moreover, Lovis discloses removing the recycled materials from the delamination reactor ([0033] of Lovis) but does not disclose the means for doing so. Li, however, discloses a plastic recycling process wherein screw conveyors are used to convey plastic waste solutions between processing stations, including between a cooking box and a washing station (Abstract of Li). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a screw conveyor in the modified method since Li establishes that it was known to use screw conveyors to transport plastic waste material solutions between processing stations in a plastics recycling process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovis in view of Massura, Stephan, Imai and Li as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hoffman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0155979 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lovis does not specifically disclose that the extraction means (25) comprises a pump. Moreover, Lovis discloses removing the recycled materials from the vat after a predetermined time ([0033] of Lovis) but does not disclose the means for doing so. Hofmann, however, discloses a plastic recycling process wherein a pump is used to convey plastic waste solutions between processing stations (Abstract, [0035] of Hofmann). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump to remove recycled materials from the vat in the modified method since Hoffman establishes that it was known to use pumps to transport plastic waste material solutions between processing stations in a plastics recycling process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Massura, Kulesa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0186573 A1, cited in previous Office Action), Imai and Li.
Regarding claim 10, Stephan discloses a plant for the continuous processing of flakes (1:8-17 of Stephan, apparatus for carrying out continuous process for recovering raw materials from finely chopped wastes) formed by at least two layers of different plastic materials attached to each other by gluing or by a hot-rolling process (7:23-37 of Stephan, chopped wastes include a PET substrate coated with a polyurethane composition; urethane composition would necessarily be adhered or “glued” to the substrate), the plant comprising:- at least one delamination reactor (10) containing a first aqueous solution of chemicals and equipped with at least one stirrer for separating from each other the layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials (FIG. 1, 3:52-55 of Stephan, first flow mixer #3 for delamination; 3:55-57 of Stephan, delamination solvent metered into flow mixer #3; 3:61-65 of Stephan, delamination composition comprises organic surfactants and solvents and water; 4:28-30 of Stephan, flow mixer #3 contains blades for mixing shreds and delamination compositions);- first extraction means (13) for drawing the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials, together with part of said first aqueous solution, from said delamination reactor (10) and for regulating residence time of the flakes in the at least one delamination reactor (10) (FIG. 1, 4:41-51 of Stephan, inlet of transport sieve #4; inlet geometry would necessarily affect flow rate and therefore residence time of the flakes in the reactor); - at least one intensive washing equipment (20) containing a second aqueous solution of chemicals and equipped with at least one stirrer for exerting a frictional action between the layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials, and washing said layers of flakes (FIG. 1, 5:9-11 of Stephan, film shreds in a mixture of organic solvent and water fed to second flow mixer #6);- at least one second conveyor (15) for feeding the mixture of layers of flakes of said at least two different plastic materials separated from each other to said intensive washing equipment (20) (FIG. 1 of Stephan, outlet of transport sieve #4), by separating them from said first aqueous solution coming from said delamination reactor (10) (4:41-43 of Stephan, transport sieve #4 separates solids from solvent); and- second extraction means (25) for extracting, from said intensive washing equipment (20) for washing said layers of flakes, said at least two different plastic materials (FIG. 1 of Stephan, second transport sieve #7 which separates solids from solvent).
Stephan does not specifically disclose that the at least two different layers of plastic material in the flakes are directly attached to each other. Massura, however, discloses a multilayered film separation process wherein polymeric films joined directly to each other are separated by introducing the films into heated organic solvent, acid or water baths thereby allowing the recovery of each film (Abstract of Massura). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate polymeric films joined to each other in the method of Lovis since Massura establishes that it was known to separate such films in a solvent delamination process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Stephan also does not disclose at least one first screw conveyor (5) for feeding said flakes to said delamination reactor by separating them from the water coming from the treatment stations placed upstream of the plant. Moreover, Stephan discloses that the shreds are transported by discharge apparatus (FIG. 1 of Stephan) and that a feed screw #42 can be used to feed film shreds to the inlet of the flow mixer (FIG. 2, 6:15-20 of Stephan) but does not specifically disclose separating the flakes from water coming from treatment stations placed upstream of the plant. Kulesa, however, discloses a scrap film recycling process wherein waste material is shredded (FIG. 2 of Kulesa, shredder #18) and conveyed via a friction washer #28 including a paddle screw enclosed in a screen to dewater and clean the shredded material for further processing (FIG. 2, [0044] of Kulesa, friction washer #28). According to Kulesa, the friction washing step can be used to clean the shredded film of contaminants ([0045] of Kulesa). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed the flakes to the delamination reactor in the apparatus of Stephan using a friction washer including a paddle screw enclosed in a screen. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to clean the shredded film of contaminants as taught by Kulesa ([0045] of Kulesa).
Stephan does not specifically disclose that the first and second transport sieves include a pump or a screw conveyor (see claim interpretation section above) or that the second conveyor is a screw conveyor. Kulesa, however, discloses that it was known to use a screw conveyor as a transport sieve in a shredded plastic waste recycling system (FIG. 2, [0044]-[0045] of Kulesa, friction washer #28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a friction washer as a transport sieve in the modified apparatus since Kulesa establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Stephan also does not specifically disclose at least one control unit for continuously regulating at least the following parameters:- the concentration of said flakes in said delamination reactor (10), by regulating the quantity of flakes drawn from said delamination reactor (10); - the temperature of said first aqueous solution in said delamination reactor (10);- the residence time of said flakes in said delamination reactor (10); - the concentration of said layers of flakes in said intensive washing equipment (20), by regulating the quantity of mixture of layers of flakes drawn from said intensive washing equipment (20);- the temperature of said second aqueous solution in said intensive washing equipment (20); and- the residence time of said layers of flakes in said intensive washing equipment (20). Moreover, while Stephan suggests adjusting the time and temperature of the flow mixer and washer (4:35-40 of Stephan), Stephan does not specifically disclose controlling the concentration of flakes in the delamination reactor or washing equipment. Imai, however, discloses controlling the ratio of water to crushed resin recycling pieces in a cleaning device including a rotary body ([0057] of Imai). According to Imai, the ratio of solids to water in the cleaning device influences the removal of foreign material such as coating from the resin material ([0057] of Imai). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the concentration of flakes in the delamination reactor and washing device in the modified process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the removal of foreign material from the resin as taught by Imai ([0057] of Imai).
Stephan also does not specifically disclose that the first extraction means and the second extraction means are for regulating/controlling residence time of the flakes in the at least one delamination reactor or the intensive washing equipment. Li, however, discloses a plastic recycling process wherein screw conveyors are used to convey plastic waste solutions between processing stations, including between a washing station and downstream processing stations (Abstract of Li). According to Li, the conveyor speed can be adjusted to control the residence time of the plastic pieces in the cleaning apparatus ([0028] of Li), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the extraction means in the modified apparatus to control residence time of the mixture of flakes in the washing equipment since Li establishes that it was known to do so at the time the invention was made ([0028] of Li). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Stephan discloses that the following are installed: at least one filtering device (40) for filtering the part of said first aqueous solution drawn with the mixture of said layers of flakes and reintroducing it into said delamination reactor (10) (FIG. 1, 4:41-58 of Stephan, filter #32 and pump #28 which reintroduces filtered solution into flow reactor #3); and at least one filtering device (50) for filtering said second aqueous solution drawn with the mixture of said layers of flakes and reintroducing it into said intensive washing equipment (20) (FIG. 1, 4:41-58 of Stephan, filter #32 and pump #21 which reintroduces solution into second flow mixer #6) and Kulesa suggests at least one filtering device (30) for filtering the water coming from the stations for the treatment of plastic materials, which are placed upstream of the plant and reintroducing it into said treatment stations (FIG. 6, [0061] of Kulesa, water treatment apparatus including filter #500 used to recycle and filter the water for continued use).
Regarding claim 15, Kulesa suggests that the second extraction means (25) comprises a further screw conveyor (FIG. 2, [0044]-[0045] of Kulesa, friction washer #28).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Massura, Kulesa, Imai and Li as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Hoffman.
Regarding claim 14, Stephan does not specifically disclose that the second extraction means (25) comprises a pump. Hofmann, however, discloses a plastic recycling process wherein a pump is used to convey plastic waste solutions between processing stations (Abstract, [0035] of Hofmann). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pump to remove recycled materials from the vat in the modified appartus since Hoffman establishes that it was known to use pumps to transport plastic waste material solutions between processing stations in a plastics recycling process. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that none of the references cited in the previous Office Action teach or reasonably suggest a process for separating two pieces of plastic directly attached to one another as recited in claims 1 and 10 (pp. 9-10 and 14-15 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Massura reference to address this limitation.
The applicant also asserts that none of the references cited in the previous Office Action teach or reasonably suggest drawing the mixture of flakes from the intensive washing equipment using an extraction means which controls the residence time of the mixture of flakes inside the intensive washing apparatus as recited in claims 1 and 10 (pp. 11-12 and 13-17 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Li reference to address this limitation. Regarding the arguments directed to the “drawing” limitation, it is noted that “drawing” is being broadly defined as extracting or removing the mixture from the delamination reactor or washing equipment. The cited references, including Stephan and Li, clearly suggest removing the material from the various processing stations to control residence time.
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 CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746