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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 44-66) in the reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 67 and 68-86 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/16/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 63 recites the limitation “the pellet metering device has a screw conveyor which conveys the recycled material to the extruder” in lines 1-2, and the limitation is equivalent to the originally filed claim 20. Instant Specification does not provide antecedent basis for the pellet metering device having “a screw conveyor.” Also, the limitation of “the pellet metering device … conveys the recycled material to the extruder” is not fully supported by Instant Specification and possibly brings a rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a).
Appropriate corrections of specification and claim are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 48, 51-52, and 64-66 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 48 should be corrected to end with a period instead of a comma.
Claim 51 should be corrected to “the upstream of the annular nozzle” (line 5).
Claim 52 should be corrected to “as a function of the melt pressure at the upstream and/or the downstream of the filter” (lines 6-7).
Claim 64 should be corrected to “the at least one further layer” (line 4).
Claim 65 should be corrected to “two of the at least [[two]]one further layer” (line 4).
Claim 66 should be corrected to “[[a]]the machine direction” (lines 1-2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a means for determining a level to which it is filled with the recycled material” in claim 56 (according to the structure(s) disclosed in para. [0104] of Instant Specification, as published).
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a cooling means” in claim 44.
“a means for collecting condensate” in claim 49.
“a means for mixing” in claim 55.
“a means for determining a recycled material consumption” in claim 57 (here, the claim further recites that the means is a weighing device).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 44-66 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 44 recites the limitation “the machine direction” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a machine direction.”
Claims 45-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 44.
Claim 49 recites the limitation “the vacuum degassing unit” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as or at least one of “at least one degassing unit” (claim 48 line 2), or (2) another new vacuum degassing unit. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 49 recites the limitation “during the vacuum degassing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “during vacuum degassing.”
Claim 63 recites the limitation “the pellet metering device has a screw conveyor which conveys the recycled material to the extruder” (lines 1-2). The underlined limitation renders the claim unclear as the pellet metering device is for stocking and metering the pelleted material (see claim 62). For the purpose of examination, the underlined limitation would be interpreted as “the pelleted material.”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 44-45, 48, 53, 62, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1).
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Regarding claim 44, Schmidt teaches a blown film installation (fig. 1) for producing a film web from a recycled material (claim 14), the blown film installation comprising:
an extruder for melting and homogenizing the recycled material into a melt (claim 2: twin screw extruder; fig. 1; of note, here the extruder is capable of performing the recited function for the recycled material; see MPEP 2114);
an annular nozzle for extruding a film tube ([0076]: a circular die 9; fig. 1);
a guide for a melt flow between the extruder and the annular nozzle via an annular nozzle melt pump, for conveying the melt to the annular nozzle ([0077]: a multi-screw extruder, linked, directly or via a pressure device, to a circular film-blowing die, e.g., via a melt pump 8; fig. 1);
a tube formation zone for longitudinal and transverse drawing of the film tube ([0076]: a top (upward) from a circular die 9; fig. 1);
a cooling means for the film tube moving in the machine direction ([0076]: air-ring 10 cools the film as it travels upwards; fig. 1);
a collapsing section beyond the tube formation zone for collapsing the film tube into a double-layer film web ([0076]: a top of a bubble 13; fig. 1); and
a pair of draw-off rollers beyond the cooling means for drawing off the film tube ([0076]: a pair of nip rolls),
wherein the extruder is configured as a twin-screw extruder ([0077]; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 45, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 44, further comprising:
a filter having at least one filter element for filtering the melt from an unfiltered side to a filtered side, wherein the filter is arranged in the guide for the melt flow between the extruder and the annular nozzle ([0040-0042]: a filtering device such as a screen pack 7; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 48, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 44, wherein the twin-screw extruder has at least one degassing unit which makes it possible to extract impurities and contaminants ([0023, 0039]: the multi-screw contains a degassing section and advantageously a vent port in section 1.8; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 53, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 44, further comprising a storage silo for stocking the recycled material ([0076]: a mixture of polymer and, if desired, additives is measured with a metering device (not shown in FIG. 1) and added via dosing units 1 to 4 of the first barrel section 0.1; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 62, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 44, wherein a recycled material supply (first barrel section 0.1) is configured to additionally or alternatively receive a pelleted recycled material, in addition to the recycled material, in order to convey it to the extruder, wherein the blown film installation has a pellet metering device for stocking and metering the pelleted material, and wherein the pelleted material is virgin material and/or higher-quality recyclates compared to the recycled material ([0076]: a mixture of polymer and, if desired, additives is measured with a metering device (not shown in FIG. 1) and added via dosing units 1 to 4 of the first barrel section 0.1). Of note, here, the limitation “a/the pelleted recycle material” is directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, the limitation is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 66, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 44, wherein a machine direction is oriented substantially vertically in a bottom-top direction ([0009]: upward blowing of the molten plastic; fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) in view of Sierbert (DE 4405552 A1).
Regarding claims 46 and 47, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 45, but does not specifically teach that the filter has a cleaning device which continuously and/or discontinuously replaces the filter element (claim 46), or further comprising a filter melt pump between the extruder and the annular nozzle melt pump, which pumps the melt to the filter (claim 47).
Sierbert teaches extrusion-based film blowing ([0001]). Sierbert teaches the filter has a cleaning device which continuously and/or discontinuously replaces the filter element ([0007]: a self-cleaning filter 2a; fig. 2), and the blown film installation further comprises a filter melt pump between the extruder and the blow molding tool (instead of annular nozzle melt pump), which pumps the melt to the filter ([0005, 0007]: the melt pump delivers a constant volume flow with constant pressure P3 regardless of the pressure fluctuations on the inlet side or of the melt flow after the filter; fig. 2)
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based film blowing (Schmidt: abstract; Sierbert: [0001]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Schmidt with a known self-cleaning system including a filter 2a and a pump as taught by Sierbert in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of maintaining continuous production by removing high levels of contamination without interrupting melt flow (Sierbert: derived from [0007]). Upon the modification, when the self-filtering system of Sierbert is placed instead of the screen pack 7 of Schmidt, modified Schmidt also teaches that the filter melt pump (Sierbert: pump 4 in fig. 2) is placed between the extruder and the annular nozzle melt pump (Schmidt: fig. 1) in the blow film installation.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) in view of Hagen (US 20220040886 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 48, but does not specifically the vacuum degassing unit has a means for collecting condensate which arises during the vacuum degassing.
Hagen teaches a continuous method for removing a solvent from a suspension or solution comprising a target polymer (abstract). Hagen teaches that an extruder comprises a degassing unit, and the degassing unit is connected to a vacuum pump and has a condenser ([0236-0257]; figs. 2, 3).
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; Hagen: abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the degassing unit of Schmidt to be connected to a condenser and a vacuum pump as taught by Hagen in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of effectively and safely removing impurities and/or unwanted vapors without contaminating work environment.
Claims 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) and Sierbert (DE 4405552 A1) as applied to claim 46, and further in view of Mizoguchi (JP H05286011 A).
Regarding claim 50, modified Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 46, wherein the extruder has a recycled material supply ([0076]: a barrel section 0.1 for a polymer mixture; fig. 1; of note, the barrel section 0.1 is capable for supplying a recycled material; see MPEP 2114), but does not specifically teach that the recycle material supply with a stuffing screw.
Mizoguchi teaches a method and apparatus of supplying powder for compressing powder during powder supply to an extruder ([0001-0004]). Mizoguchi teaches that the extruder has a recycled material supply (cylinder 2) with a stuffing screw (screw 4) ([0014-0017]; figs. 1-2).
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; Mizoguchi: [0007]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the barrel section of modified Schmidt to further have a stuffing screw as taught by Mizoguchi in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of ensuring consistent feeding of a supply material so as to prevent surging or inconsistent output of extrudate.
Regarding claim 51, modified Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 50, further comprising at least two pressure sensors for capturing pressures within the guide for the melt flow, in each case in the melt flow at the extruder and upstream of the annular nozzle, wherein the extruder and/or the annular nozzle melt pump and/or the recycled material supply can be regulated as a function of a melt pressure in the melt flow at the extruder and/or upstream of the annular nozzle (Schmidt: [0042-0046]: the pressure is preferably controlled and measured at three points P1, P2, and P3, and a pressure device such as a pump and an extruder allows a control of the pressure; Sierbert: [0005, 0007, 0010, 0015]: pressure control of melt flows downstream of melt filters and in extruders by measuring and controlling pressures at P1, P2, P3, and Pu; figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 52, modified Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 51, further comprising two additional pressure sensors for capturing the melt pressure in the melt flow upstream and downstream of the filter, wherein the extruder and/or the annular nozzle melt pump and/or the recycled material supply and/or a deflection device of the filter and/or a filter element changing apparatus can be regulated as a function of the melt pressure upstream and/or downstream of the filter (Sierbert: [0005, 0007, 0010, 0015]: pressure control of melt flows downstream of melt filters and in extruders by measuring and controlling pressures at P1, P2, P3, and Pu; [0007]: a self-cleaning filter, wherein already filtered melt S2a is used to rinse contaminated screens in reverse flow direction and to guide the dirt separately to the outside figs. 1-3).
Claims 54 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) in view of O'Brien (GB 2249987 A).
Regarding claim 54, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 53, but does not specifically teach further comprising a screw conveyor which conveys the recycled material from the storage silo to a recycled material supply.
O'Brien teaches a metering means comprising an auger screw conveyor 39 meters a material from a hopper 36 to an extruder (pg. 15 lines 18-21; figs. 1-3).
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; O'Brien: figs. 1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the dosing units (i.e., equivalent to “the storage silo” as recited) of Schmidt to have a known screw conveyor as taught by O'Brien in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of providing a metered material into an extruder or a hopper of the extruder in controlled way.
Regarding claim 63, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 62, but does not specifically teach that the pellet metering device has a screw conveyor which conveys the recycled material to the extruder.
O'Brien teaches a metering means comprising an auger screw conveyor 39 meters a material from a hopper 36 to an extruder (pg. 15 lines 18-21; figs. 1-3).
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; O'Brien: figs. 1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the metering device of Schmidt to have a known screw conveyor as taught by O'Brien in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of providing a metered material into an extruder in a controlled way.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) in view of Gnam (US 20210008763 A1).
Regarding claim 55, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 53, but does not specifically teach that the storage silo has a means for mixing the recycled material within the storage silo.
Gnam teaches a storage container 18 having a means for mixing a target solution with an additive ([0095]; fig. 2).
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; Gnam: abstract, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the dosing units (i.e., equivalent to “the storage silo” as recited) of Schmidt to have a known means for mixing as taught by Gnam in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of maintaining a homogeneously mixed raw material composition prior to transfer to an extruder.
Claims 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) in view of Ricciardi (US 5,423,455 A1).
Regarding claims 56 and 57, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 53, but does not specifically teach that the storage silo has a means for determining a level to which it is filled with the recycled material (claim 56) and a means for determining a recycled material consumption thereof, wherein the means for determining the recycled material consumption is a weighing device of the storage silo (claim 57).
Ricciardi teaches an improved system and method for feeding material at a controlled rate (abstract, fig. 1). Ricciardi teaches that the storage silo has a means for determining a level to which it is filled with the recycled material (col. 7 lines 25-52: using a high probe 30 and a low probe 40; fig. 1) and a means for determining a recycled material consumption thereof, wherein the means for determining the recycled material consumption is a weighing device of the storage silo (col. 7 line 54 – col. 8 line 35: probes 30, 40 and weighing mechanism 11; fig. 1).
In the same field of endeavor of a storage container for receiving, storing, and conveying materials therein for further processing (Schmidt: [0076]; Ricciardi: abstract, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the dosing units (i.e., equivalent to “the storage silo” as recited) of Schmidt to have a known means for determining a level of stored material and a level of consumed material as taught by Ricciardi in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of feeding of a supply material with improved control over accuracy and automation (Ricciardi: derived from col. 1 lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 58, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 53, but does not specifically teach further comprising a dispensing silo for filling the recycled material in the storage silo.
Ricciardi teaches a dispensing silo for filling the recycled material in the storage silo (col. 5 lines 6-12: a refill supply source such as a refill hopper 20; fig. 1).
In the same field of endeavor of a storage container for receiving, storing, and conveying materials therein (Schmidt: [0076]; Ricciardi: abstract, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the dosing units (i.e., equivalent to “the storage silo” as recited) of Schmidt to be further connected to another silo to refill a raw material into the storage silo as taught by Ricciardi in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of facilitating of feeding of a supply material for use with improved control over accuracy and automation (Ricciardi: derived from col. 1 lines 42-51).
Claims 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) and Ricciardi (US 5,423,455 A1) as applied to claim 58, and further in view of Kujawa (US 20220193957 A1).
Regarding claims 59 and 60, modified Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 58, further comprising a shredder for comminuting a starting material, wherein the shredder is configured to comminute the starting material into the recycled material (claim 59) and a transport device for transporting the recycled material from the shredder to the storage silo and/or the dispensing silo, wherein the transport device is configured as a conveyor belt and/or as a screw conveyor or as a pressure conveying system (claim 60).
Kujawa teaches an apparatus for forming a plastic article using recycled plastic material (abstract, [0002]). Kujawa teaches a shredder for comminuting a starting material, wherein the shredder is configured to comminute the starting material into the recycled material ([0038]: a shredder 108 to shred plastics into a suitable size; fig. 1) and a transport device for transporting the recycled material from the shredder to the storage silo and/or the dispensing silo, wherein the transport device is configured as a conveyor belt and/or as a screw conveyor or as a pressure conveying system ([0038]: a loading conveyor 104 and feed the material via a load conveyor 116; fig. 1).
In the same field of endeavor of utilizing a recycled plastic material (Schmidt: [0025]; Kujawa: [0002, 0012]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to the blown film installation of modified Schmidt to further comprise a shredder and a conveyor system connected thereto upstream and downstream as taught by Kujawa in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of preparing the recycled plastic material into a suitable size and transporting the material into a desired place such as downstream processor so as to facilitate feeding of the material for use with improved control and automation (Kujawa: derived from [0038]).
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1), Ricciardi (US 5,423,455 A1), and Kujawa (US 20220193957 A1) as applied to claim 60, and further in view of Gnam (US 20210008763 A1).
Regarding claim 61, modified Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 60, further comprising at least one mixing silo for mixing the recycled material with further materials, wherein the mixing silo is connected to the storage silo and/or the dispensing silo via a blower and/or a conveyor belt and/or a screw conveyor for introducing the recycled material and/or mixtures thereof.
Gnam teaches at least one mixing silo for mixing the recycled material with further materials, wherein the mixing silo is connected to the storage silo and/or the dispensing silo via a blower and/or a conveyor belt and/or a screw conveyor for introducing the recycled material and/or mixtures thereof ([0095]: a storage container 18, wherein a polymer solution and an additive are mixed; [0079-0095]: the storage container 18 for mixing is connected to a plurality of storage containers 1-3, 6, 17 via feed tube 9 by pumps or conveyor; [0137-0139]; fig. 2). Here, the storage silo is capable of mixing the recycled material, and the recycled material is directed to an article worked upon the apparatus. See MPEP 2114, 2115.
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; Gnam: abstract, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the storage silo of modified Schmidt to be further connected with a mixing silo as taught by Gnam in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of preparing a homogeneously mixed raw material composition prior to transporting to an extruder.
Claims 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (EP 2631060 A1) in view of Borchardt (US 20140334749 A1).
Regarding claims 64 and 65, Schmidt teaches the blown film installation according to claim 44, but does not specifically teach that the blown film installation is configured to produce the film web with at least one further layer in addition to a layer made of the recycled material, wherein the blown film installation has at least one additional extruder which melts and homogenizes the material of at least one additional layer into a melt, and wherein the at least one additional extruder is configured as a twin-screw extruder (claim 64), and the blown film installation is configured to produce the film web in which the recycled material is arranged between at least two further layers in the film web (claim 65).
Borchardt teaches that the blown film installation is configured to produce the film web with at least one further layer in addition to a layer made of the recycled material, wherein the blown film installation has at least one additional extruder which melts and homogenizes the material of at least one additional layer into a melt, and wherein the at least one additional extruder is configured as a screw extruder, and the blown film installation is configured to produce the film web in which the recycled material is arranged between at least two further layers in the film web ([0070-0073]: co-extrusion blown film installation; [0084-0085]: a second layer 140 arranged between a first layer 138 and a third layer 148, wherein the third layer can be the same material as the first layer; figs. 1-3, 5).
In the same field of endeavor of extrusion-based material processing (Schmidt: abstract; Borchardt: fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the blown film installation of Schmidt to further have at least one additional extruder and a die of coextrusion for forming a multi-layer blown film with at least two different materials as taught by Borchardt in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a single, high-performance film with increased mechanical strength and enhanced cost-efficiency (Borchardt: derived from [0005-0009]). Moreover, it would have been also obvious to substitute the additional single screw extruder of modified Schmidt (Borchardt: fig. 1) to another known twin-screw extruder as taught by Schmidt (claim 2) in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of extruding a material with reduced material degradation and improved precise process control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whaley (US 20130119575 A1) teaches plastic recycling apparatus and system comprising a plurality of containers, mixers and conveyors (abstract, figs. 1, 8-9).
Berghaus (US 20020177631 A1) teaches a method and device for producing foam films (abstract, [0043], fig. 1).
Djerf (US 5,649,785 A) teaches a method of treating solid waste for recovering constituent materials (abstract, fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744