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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to an amendment filed August 26th, 2026. By the amendment claims 16-29 are pending with claims 16, 20-21, 23-24, and 26-28 being amended and claim 29 being added. The applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections as outlined in the pervious Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams (US 7168849).
With regards to claim 16, Adams discloses An arrangement for the self-sufficient regulation of liquid levels in a plastics recycling process (Fig. 3), comprising: a compensation container (mixer 10) and a stirring container (tank 49) which has a stirring device (impellers 52, 54 on shaft 50) which rotates about a an axis (B), wherein the compensation container and the stirring container are filled with a process water, so that the compensation container has a first liquid level and the stirring container has a second liquid level (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one compensation container is fluidically connected to the stirring container via a pipeline (46), one end of the pipeline being connected to the compensation container below the first liquid level and the other end of the pipeline being connected to the stirring container below the second level so that the process water can flow freely between the compensation container and the stirring container Fig. 3), as a result of which the first and the second liquid level of the at least one compensation container and of the at least one stirring container level off to the same height (happens automatically due to hydrostatic pressure).
With regards to claim 17, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. Adams further discloses wherein the process water contains ground material of a plastics waste mixture having an inhomogeneous bulk density. Material worked upon does not limit an apparatus (MPEP 2115).
With regards to claim 18, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. Adams further discloses wherein the compensation container and the stirring container each have at least one vent opening above the respective liquid level (Fig. 3 shows open tops of each).
With regards to claim 19, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. Adams further discloses wherein the compensation container further has an inlet (28) via which process water flows into the compensation container, and the stirring container further has an outlet (shown in Fig. 4 not labeled but near arrow 48) via which process water flows out of the stirring container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams.
With regards to claim 20, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 16 as outlined
above. Adams does not directly disclose a further stirring container fluidically connected to the compensation container, stirring container and further stirring containers each have a liquid level which is equal to the first and the second liquid level.
However, Adams discloses adding more compensation containers or stirring containers based on project parameters (Col. 5, L59-Col. 6, L7). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a further stirring container based on throughput needs.
With regards to claim 21, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 20 as outlined
above. Adams further discloses stirring container and further stirring container are fluidically connected to the compensation container via a respective pipeline (46).
With regards to claim 22, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 21 as outlined
above. Adams further discloses wherein the connections of the pipelines each open into the respective container below the first and/or the second predetermined liquid level (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kong et al. (CN 108340510), hereafter Kong.
With regards to claim 23, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 21 as outlined
above. Adams does not disclose wherein the stirring container and further stirring containers each have the same height and the connections each open into the respective container at a height between half and two thirds of the container height.
However, Kong discloses wherein the containers each have the same container height and
the connections each open into the respective container at a height between half and two thirds of
the container height (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the invention to structure the container size and the pipeline as
disclosed by Adams in the manner disclosed by Kong in order to make things more uniform
so that anomalies can be easily detected.
With regards to claim 24, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 21 as outlined
above. Adams does not disclose wherein the pipelines are each flanged tangentially to the stirring container and further stirring container via their connections on the stirring container side.
However, Kong discloses a tangential pipeline connecting a stirring container and a compensation container (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to tangentially attach the pipelines disclosed by Adams in the manner disclosed by Kong in order to increase flow velocity to increase efficiency.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Rothon et al. (US 4563274), hereafter Rothon.
With regards to claim 25, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 16 as outlined
above. Adams does not disclose wherein the compensation container has a level detection device and a control device which is configured to keep the filling level in the compensation container at a constant level.
However, Rothon discloses wherein a compensation container (tank 14) has a level
detection device (rangefinder 46) and a control device (controller 44) which is configured to
keep the filling level in the compensation container at a constant level (via actuator 38 on gate
34; Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to add a level detection device and control device as
disclosed by Rothon, in the arrangement disclosed by Adams, in order for enough liquid to be
in the arrangement for the components to work properly (Rothon Col. 5, L3-6)
With regards to claim 26, Adams and Rothon disclose all the elements of claim 25 as
outlined above. Adams does not disclose wherein the control device is connected to the level
detection device via a data connection and controls an actuator of a valve arranged at an inlet, via
which the liquid level in the compensation container can be regulated.
However, Rothon further discloses wherein the control device is connected to the level
detection device via a data connection and controls an actuator (38) of a valve (gate 34) arranged
at an inlet, via which the liquid level in the compensation container can be regulated.
Therefore, the combination of Adams and Rothon disclose this feature.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams as applied to claims 16 and 17, respectfully above, and further in view of Neureither et al. (US 5948276), hereafter Neureither.
With regards to claim 27, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 17 as outlined
above. Adams does not disclose which further comprises a hydrocyclone is configured to separate the ground material of the plastic waste mixture depending on a predeterminable density separation cut.
However, Neureither discloses a stirring container (10) connected to a hydrocyclone (15). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a hydrocyclone as disclosed by Neureither to the arrangement disclosed by Adams depending on a desired end product.
With regards to claim 29, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 16 as outlined
above. Adams does not disclose wherein at least one hydrocyclone is arranged downstream of the stirring container. However, Neureither discloses a stirring container (10) connected to a hydrocyclone (15). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a hydrocyclone as disclosed by Neureither to the arrangement disclosed by Adams if necessary, depending on a desired end product.
With regards to claim 28, Adams discloses all the elements of claim 29 as outlined
above. Adams does not disclose wherein the hydrocyclone has an inlet for process water, a first outlet for a light fraction and a second outlet for a heavy fraction.
However, Neureither discloses wherein the hydrocyclone has an inlet for process water
(running device 13), a first outlet for a light fraction (overflow 16); and a second outlet for a
heavy fraction (underflow 17). Therefore, the combination of Adams and Neureither discloses this feature.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. New grounds of rejection are presented above.
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 JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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 McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
