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 15 is amended. Claim 31 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of GB1243653.
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) 15, 21-22, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich (US 20220002511) in view of CN 103232722 translation is attached, hereinafter CN’722 and GB 1243653.
Regarding Claim 1 Minnich process for the production of a polymer composite board from plastic waste ([0019]), the process comprising: processing the plastic waste into a melt by a melt-kneading step in an extruder ([0022], [0108][0003], ); introducing the melt into an injector maintaining the melt under pressure (Figure 1A-B, injection system-20, barrel-21, [0146]); injecting the melt while maintaining the melt under pressure from the injector into a cavity of a closed mold in order to form a…. ([0147], [0223]), wherein the melt is formed from a granulated agglomerate and a blowing agent, wherein the granulated agglomerate is produced from unsorted mixed plastic waste ([0019], [0171], [0223]), and wherein the melt is introduced into the closed mold via an injection nozzle along an end/edge side of the cavity (Figure 1A, cavity-39), in which mold the melt foams and cools to form a foamed core layer of the polymer composite ….( [0163], core is made by using a blowing or foaming agent that expands the base material during manufacture, creating a porous, cellular structure). Minnich discloses that the method is used for various polymer composite articles but didn’t disclose that the process is used for production of polymer composite board. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the method it is known that, CN’722 discloses method of waste polymer products to produce the composite board (page-7 translated).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Minnich’s teaching of the method for producing polymer composite articles with that of the teaching of CN’722 for the purpose of making products/boards using polymer waste for different construction and automotive uses which are eco friendly.
Further, re: the amended limitation the prior art did not disclose maintaining the melt under pressure until the melt is injected into the cavity of the closed mold prevents foaming of the melt, such that the melt is prevented from foaming until the melt is in the cavity of the closed mold. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of injecting the thermoplastic resin, together with a blowing agent, into a mould cavity in a melt condition, GB’653 discloses such that the melt under high pressure is inside the mold cavity and is prevented from foaming (page-4)
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Minnich’s teaching of the method for producing polymer composite articles with that of the teaching of GB’653 for the purpose of production of solid surface with less defects.
Regarding Claim 21 Minnich discloses , wherein the melt is injected at a low pressure of 15 to 30 bar ([0160]).
Regarding Claim 22 Minnich discloses , wherein the unsorted mixed plastic waste is melt-kneaded in the extruder at a temperature of 200-degC to 250-deg C (Table 1 )until a melt is formed and the closed mold into which the melt is injected is tempered at a low temperature of less than 60-deg C (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 31 Minnich discloses process for the production of a polymer composite board from plastic waste ([0019]), the process comprising: processing the plastic waste into a melt by a melt-kneading step in an extruder at a temperature of 200° C. to 2500 C (Table 1); injecting the melt under pressure from the injector into a cavity of a closed mold in order ([0147], [0223])…, wherein the melt is formed from a granulated agglomerate and a blowing agent, wherein the granulated agglomerate is produced from unsorted mixed plastic waste ([0019], [0171], [0223]), and wherein the melt is introduced into the closed mold via a wide slot injection nozzle along an entire end/edge side of the cavity, at a pressure of 15 to 20 bar [0160]).
Minnich didn’t particularly disclose the injection time up to 30 sec but stated that this time is a formulation variable which can be adjusted based on the foam structure in the resulting foam parts ([0004]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art so that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05
Minnich discloses that the method is used for various polymer composite articles where but didn’t disclose that the process is used for production of polymer composite board. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the method it is known that, CN’722 discloses method of waste polymer products to produce the composite board (page-7 translated).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Minnich’s teaching of the method for producing polymer composite articles with that of the teaching of CN’772 for the purpose of making products/boards using polymer waste for different construction and automotive uses which are eco friendly.
Further, re: the amended limitation the prior did not disclose that maintaining the melt under pressure until the melt is injected into the cavity of the closed mold prevents foaming of the melt, such that the melt is prevented from foaming until the melt is in the cavity of the closed mold. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, GB’653 discloses such that the melt under high pressure is inside the mold cavity and is prevented from foaming (page-4)
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Minnich’s teaching of the method for producing polymer composite articles with that of the teaching of GB’653 for the purpose of production of solid surface with less defects.
Minnich discloses processing the plastic waste into a melt by a melt-kneading step in an extruder ([0022], [0108][0003]); in which mold the melt foams and cools to form a foamed core layer of the polymer composi and CN’722 discloses method of waste polymer products to produce the solid composite board (page-7 translated) but did not disclose that has a degree of foaming of 60% to 80% with cell dimensions ([0135]) having a diameter of 0.5 to 2 mm. However, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art so that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) SEE 2144.05
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich (US 20220002511) in view of CN 103232722 translation is attached, hereinafter CN’722 as applied in Claim 16 further in view of DE 102018207937 translation attached hereinafter DE’937.
Regarding Claim 16 Minnich process for the production of a polymer composite board from plastic waste ([0019]), the process comprising: processing the plastic waste into a melt by a melt-kneading step in an extruder ([0022], [0108][0003], ); introducing the melt into an injector (Figure 1A-B, injection system-20, barrel-21, [0146]) but didn’t disclose that prior to injecting the melt, a prefabricated upper cover layer and a prefabricated lower cover layer is placed in the cavity of the mold. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, DE’ 937 discloses that prior to injecting the melt, a prefabricated upper cover layer and a prefabricated lower cover layer is placed in the cavity of the mold (Figure 11, [0129, [0130], [0153], cover layers-142, on top and bottom mould , cavity-112, plastic material-116 is conveyed between the cover layers).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Minnich’s teaching of the method for producing polymer composite articles with that of the teaching of DE’937 teaching of cover layers on top and bottom mould for the purpose of creates a single, integrated component in one molding cycle and finishes in one part can enhance the product's visual appeal.
Regarding Claim 17, DE’997 discloses wherein the mold has an upper mold shell and a lower mold shell which together form the cavity (Figure 11, [0105], cavity-112, mold halves-106), and the upper cover layer is sucked onto the inner wall of the upper mold shell by means of a partial vacuum and the lower cover layer is sucked onto the inner wall of the lower mold shell by means of a partial vacuum (Figure 11, [0129], [0130], vacuum suction element-148 create low pressure for gripping).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich (US 20220002511) in view of CN 103232722 translation is attached, hereinafter CN’722 as applied in Claim 15 further in view of DE 19800166 translation attached hereinafter DE’166.
Regarding Claim 18 Minnich process for the production of a polymer composite board from plastic waste ([0019]), the process comprising: processing the plastic waste into a melt by a melt-kneading step in an extruder ([0022], [0108][0003], ); introducing the melt into an injector (Figure 1A-B, injection system-20, barrel-21, [0146]) but didn’t disclose that wherein the injection nozzle is a wide slot nozzle, and the melt is injected via the wide slot nozzle, which extends over the entire end/edge side of the cavity, into the cavity of the mold. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, DE’166 discloses an output with wide slot nozzle (Figure 1, [0043], [0048], [0049] nozzle-8, contains the foam particles-9 in a cavity). Combining the cavity of Minnich with that of the DE’166 wide nozzle, the limitation can be melt where the nozzle which extends over the entire end/edge side of the cavity, into the cavity of the mold.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the nozzle taught by Minnich with the wide nozzle taught by DE’166 for the rapid filling of the polymer melt from the extruder which are useful when producing large parts.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnich (US 20220002511) in view of CN 103232722 translation is attached, hereinafter CN’722 and DE 19800166 translation attached hereinafter DE’166. as applied in Claim 18 further in view of Yuwaki (US 20200164575)
Regarding Claim 19, Minnich/CN’722 and DE’166 disclose wherein the wide slot nozzle (Figure 1, [0043], [0048], [0049] nozzle-8, cavity contains the foam particles-9, DE’166) but didn’t disclose that has a row of nozzle openings which are evenly spaced with respect to each other, through which the melt is injected into the cavity of the mold. In the related field of art, Yuwaki discloses two nozzles 65, 66 which are evenly spaced with each other (Figure 2, [0022] injection unit-200).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the wide nozzle taught by Minnich/ DE’166 with that of the plurality of openings taught by Yuwaki for the purpose of multi color or multi material injecting material at the same time.
Regarding Claim 20, Yuwaki discloses wherein the wide slot nozzle has a closing device which comprises a shaft with through openings for the respective nozzle openings (Figure 2, [0037], valve-70, shaft/channel -63,64).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights