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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are examined in this office action of which claims 1-17 were amended and claims 18-20 in the preliminary amendment dated 6/12/24.
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 6 and 16-17 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one granular composite material comprises cellulose fibers in an amount greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 20% by weight with respect to the total weight of the polymeric component comprising polyethylene and the metallic aluminum. Similarly claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one granular composite material comprises water in an amount less than or equal to 5% by weight with respect to the total weight of the polymeric component comprising polyethylene and the metallic aluminum. As both of these claims note that the percentages are recited with respect to the total weight of the polymeric component comprising polyethylene and the metallic aluminum, it is not clear how cellulose fibers and water can form a percentage of two elements that do not include them.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “in a vicinity of a floating slag layer” in the last line of the claim. The term “vicinity” in claim 16is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While adding material to a floating slag layer is clear, it is not clear what constitutes a vicinity of a floating slag layer.
Claim 17 recites a method of employing at least one granular composite material where the method comprises “using the at least one granular composite material as one or more of fuel, reducing agent, foaming slag-forming agent, deoxidizing agent, and decarburizing agent”. It is not clear what the active method step in this claim is. It is not clear what step is taken with the at least one granular composite material to meet the claim limitations, see MPEP § 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 96/08328 A1 and its English translation of Masaru.
As to claim 1, Masaru discloses a method of using waste plastic as a heating agent in the refining of metals (Masaru, paragraphs [0003] and [0005]), meeting the limitation of a method for producing a ferrous alloy. Masaru discloses performing conventional methods and desulfurization to prepare molten steel in an 80-ton steelmaking arc furnace (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of melting a ferrous metal chard in a metallurgical furnace to obtain a mass of molten metal (Masaru, paragraph [0061]). Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of where the granular composite material comprises greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 97% by weight of a polymeric component comprising polyethylene; and greater than or equal to 3% and less than or equal to 50% by weight of metallic aluminum as by 30% of the aluminum dross being metallic aluminum, this means that 12% by mass of the overall granular material is metallic aluminum.
Masaru discloses where this granular mixture is injected into the molten steel (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of feeding into the metallurgical furnace, before, during, and/or after the melting of the ferrous metal charge, at least one granular composite material.
As to claim 4, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of where the metallic aluminum in an amount greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 30% by weight as by 30% of the aluminum dross being metallic aluminum, this means that 12% by mass of the overall granular material is metallic aluminum.
As to claim 5, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation where the polymeric component comprising polyethylene comprises the polyethylene in an amount greater than or equal to 70% by weight with respect to a weight of the polymeric component comprising polyethylene.
As to claim 8, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic (Masaru, paragraph [0061]). As both polyethylene and melamine both contain carbon, this meets the claim limitation of the at least one granular composite material comprises at least one carbonaceous material as a carbonaceous material is a material that contains carbon.
As to claims 9 and 10, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation where the physical mixture includes a slagging agent as aluminum will deoxidize the steel and form slag, recycled polymetric material as waste plastic is recycled, and a carbon source as the polymers are a carbon source.
As to claim 13, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation where the recycled polymeric material is polyethylene as waste polyethylene is recycled material.
As to claim 15, Masaru discloses performing conventional methods and desulfurization to prepare molten steel in an 80-ton steelmaking arc furnace which is electric (Masaru, paragraphs [0003] and [0061]), meeting the limitation of where the metallurgical furnace is an electric arc furnace.
As to claim 16, it is not clear what is meant by vicinity, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring feeding the at least one granular composite material into the mass of molten metal which would necessarily be near a floating slag layer. Masaru discloses where the mixture is injected into molten steel via a lance (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation as by being in the molten steel, it is near a floating layer of the slag meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 17, it is not clear what the active method step in the claim is, see 112(b) rejection above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as adding the granular composite material to ferrous alloy. Masaru discloses where the mixture is injected into molten steel via a lance (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), thereby meeting the claim limitation as Masaru discloses where the granular mixture is added to molten steel.
As to claim 19, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation greater than or equal to 10% and less than or equal to 25% by weight of metallic aluminum as by 30% of the aluminum dross being metallic aluminum, this means that 12% by mass of the overall granular material is metallic aluminum.
As to claim 20, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation where greater than or equal to 95% by weight of the polymetric component is polyethylene.
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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 96/08328 A1 and its English translation of Masaru.
As to claims 3 and 18, Masaru discloses where the amount of aluminum dross added to the heating agent of the present invention is preferably 10 to 70% (Masaru, paragraph [0022]), meaning that the polymer comprising polyethylene is 30-90% overlapping the claimed range of 70% to 95% in claim 3 and 75% to 90% in claim 18. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 96/08328 A1 and its English translation of Masaru in view of CN110724789 A (cited on IDS dated 6/12/24) and its English translation of Zhang.
As to claim 2, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of there being at least one granular composite material comprising polyethylene and metallic aluminum. However, Masaru does not disclose where the granular composite comprises a multilayer material.
Zhang relates to the same field of endeavor of additions to molten steel (Zhang, paragraph [0004]). Zhang teaches where a coating of polyethylene is applied to a deoxidizer core (Zhang, paragraphs [0020-[0022]), where a coating meets the limitation of a multilayer material. Zhang teaches that by coating the surface with an outer film, this reduces the chance of contact between the deoxidizers and the atmosphere and humid environment (Zhang, paragraph [0008]). Zhang teaches that this prevents pulverization and thereby improves the deoxidation effect (Zhang, paragraph [0006]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a coating of polyethylene as taught by Zhang to the granules of plastic and aluminum dross disclosed by Masaru, thereby preventing contact of the core of with the atmosphere and thereby prevents pulverization and thereby improves the deoxidation effect (Zhang, paragraph [0006]).
As to claim 14, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of there being at least one granular composite material comprising polyethylene and metallic aluminum. While the claim requires where the materials are obtained from recycling treatment of post-consumer wastes of beverage cartons and/or scraps from a beverage carton production process, this is claiming a product in a product-by-process manner. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product, see MPEP § 2113(I). In this case, how the aluminum and polyethylene are created does not change the claimed structure of a granule which comprises aluminum and polyethylene.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 96/08328 A1 and its English translation of Masaru in view of US 5980595 A of Andrews.
As to claim 6, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of there being at least one granular composite material comprising polyethylene and metallic aluminum. However, Masaru does not disclose where the at least one granular composite material comprises cellulose fibers in an amount greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 20% by weight with respect to the total weight of the polymeric component comprising polyethylene and the metallic aluminum.
Andrews relates to the same filed of endeavor of pellets formed of thermoplastic material (Andrews, abstract). Andrewes teaches adding 0 to about 80% by weight of cellulosic material to a pellet with densified thermoplastic particles (Andrews, col 4, lines 6-8), overlapping the claimed range of 0.5-20% by weight of cellulose fibers. Andrews teaches that these compositions produce a high heat output greater than coal (Andrews, col 3, lines 1-3).
As Masaru is concerned with forming a heating agent (Masaru, paragraphs [0003] and [0005]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add between 0.5 and 20.0% cellulose fibers as taught by Andrews into the composite granules disclosed in Masaru, thereby producing granules with a high heat output greater than coal (Andrews, col 3, lines 1-3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 96/08328 A1 and its English translation of Masaru in view of US 2003/0021991 A1 of Sugayoshi.
As to claim 7, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of there being at least one granular composite material comprising polyethylene and metallic aluminum. However, Masaru does not disclose where the at least one granular composite material comprises water in an amount less than or equal to 5% by weight with respect to the total weight of the polymeric component comprising polyethylene and the metallic aluminum.
Sugayoshi relates to the same field of endeavor of producing pellets using waste plastics (Sugayoshi, paragraph [0001]). Sugayoshi teaches where in the making of pellets using waste plastics, the moisture is 5% or lower (Sugayoshi, paragraph [0186), overlapping the claimed range of less than or equal to 5% by weight water. Sugayoshi teaches that lower moisture contents results in improvements in palletization (Sugayoshi, FIG. 16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a requirement of 5% or lower moisture as taught by Sugayoshi to the composite granules disclosed in Masaru, thereby improving the palletization of the waste plastics (Sugayoshi, FIG. 16).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 96/08328 A1 and its English translation of Masaru in view of JP 2001/348626 A (cited on IDS dated 6/12/24) of Nakayama.
As to claims 11-12, Masaru discloses using a heating agent of granules where 60% by weight of the granules are plastic consisting of 95% by weight of polyethylene-based waste plastic and 5% by weight of melamine-based waste plastic and the remaining 40% of the granules are aluminum dross containing 30% metallic aluminum (Masaru, paragraph [0061]), meeting the limitation of there being at least one granular composite material comprising polyethylene and metallic aluminum. However, Masaru does not disclose where the at least one granular composite material comprises at least one carbon source of fossil or biogenic origin as in claim 11 nor where the at least one granular composite material comprises at least one carbon source of fossil or biogenic origin selected from char, biochar, or char and biochar, and wherein the char, biochar, or char and biochar is obtained using a process selected from: gasification, pyrolysis, roasting, hydrothermal charring, or steam explosion as in claim 12.
Nakayama relates to the same field of endeavor of composite materials including waste plastics for dissolving in metal material (Nakayama, abstract). Nakayama teaches where coal and coke are added as an auxiliary agent to the composite granules (Nakayama, paragraph [0010]), meeting the limitation of the carbon source being of fossil origin, meeting the claim 11 and claim 12 limitations. Nakayama teaches where coal and coke act as deoxidizing agents in steel production (Nakayama, paragraph [0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add coke and coal as taught by Nakayama into the composite granule disclosed in Masaru, thereby adding a deoxidizing agent and removing unwanted oxygen from the steel (Nakayama, paragraph [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights