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 l: Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 are hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS entered 06/17/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cristel (US 20200148838 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cristel teaches a method for processing PET polymers in order to form PET pellets (ABS, P0001), comprising: dividing PET melt into PET pellets in an underwater pelletizer (P0022, P0056); supplying pellets in a mixture with process water via a discharge line from the underwater pelletizer to a dryer discharging the pellets from the dryer to a post-treatment station (P0070); keeping the process water at a process water temperature below a glass transition temperature of the PET polymers used in order to produce a golf ball-like surface structure on the PET pellets (P0060, Tg is 75-82C, P0059, water temperature is kept between 60-75C); separating the pellets from the process water within one second or less (P0064); aftertreating after the drying in an at least two-stage aftertreatment process (P0073, P0081); wherein the aftertreating comprises first supplying which the pellets with a gas (P0075); keeping the gas uniformly hot at a first temperature higher than a surface temperature of the pellets for a first period of time in a first post-treatment chamber to form nuclei (P0148, P0150), and wherein the aftertreating comprises treating the pellets in a second post-treatment chamber for crystallization (P0115) at a second temperature, higher than the first temperature (P0118, P0122) over a second period of time, which is a multiple of the first period of time (P0072, 1-10 s, P0124, 30 min-3hrs).
Regarding claim 2, Cristel teaches conveying the pellets from a pelletizing chamber of the underwater pelletizer via the discharge line into the dryer within 0.1 seconds (P0064) which is less than 0.5 seconds.
Regarding claim 4, Cristel teaches supplying the process water to the at least approximately cylindrical pelletizing chamber of the underwater pelletizer (1, fig.1) in an at least approximately tangential direction (9b to 1, fig.1); and discharging from the pelletizing chamber into the discharge line in an at least approximately tangential direction (1 to 3, fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Cristel teaches maintaining the process water in the pelletizing chamber of the underwater pelletizer at a process water temperature in a range from 60-75C which is fully within the claimed range of 40 C to 80 C (P0059).
Regarding claims 13-14, Cristel teaches aftertreating the pellets in the second post-treatment chamber at least 5 times longer than in the first post-treatment chamber (time in the first post-treatment chamber is 1/10s-10s, P0072) which is in a range of 30 min to 180 minutes (P0124, 3 hours=180min) which is fully within the claimed range of 15 minutes to 180 minutes and at least 5 times longer than 50s.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristel (US 20200148838 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Cristel teaches treating the pellets in the first post-treatment chamber for the first period of time ranging from one tenth of a second up to 10 seconds (P0072) which overlaps with the claimed range of a quarter of a minute to 5 minutes.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Cristels temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 10, Cristel teaches keeping the second temperature in the second post-treatment chamber 10-90 C (P0120) which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 C to 50 C warmer than the first temperature of the uniformly hot tempered gas in the first post-treatment chamber.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Cristels temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 11, Cristel teaches the second post-treatment chamber comprises maintaining the chamber for the pellets at the second temperature in a range from 170-240 C (P0122) which overlaps with the claimed range of 160 C to 230 C.
Cristel does not specify a temperature-controlled chamber wall and/or a temperature-controlled support surface. However, the heat of Cristel is supplied in another manner (P0115). It would be obvious to try heating through a surface as there are limited ways to introduce heat to a chamber such as convection, radiant, or conduction methods.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, Cristel teaches flowing the pellets in the second post-treatment chamber with a gas (P0115); and keeping the gas uniformly hot at a gas temperature of 175 bis 240° C (P0151) which overlaps with the claimed range of 140 C to 220 C.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Cristels temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 3, 5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cristel (US 20200148838 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4, in view of Eloo (DE102004050356A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cristel teaches injecting air and/or gas into the upstream end portion of the discharge line immediately after the pelletizing chamber to produce an air/gas process water/pellet mixture in the discharge line (P0074-77).
Cristel is silent to compressed air and/or compressed gas.
Eloo, in the same field of endeavor, polymer processing, teaches injecting compressed air and/or compressed gas into the upstream end portion of the discharge line immediately after the pelletizing chamber to produce an air/gas process water/pellet mixture in the discharge line (P0034-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cristel to inject compressed air and/or compressed gas into the system as Eloo does to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected improved transport of the PET granulate as taught by Eloo (P0034).
Regarding claim 5, Cristel teaches bringing the process water in the pelletizing chamber into turbulence by a pump wheel (P0080); and mixing the process water with the pellets (P0080-81).
Cristel is silent to a cutter head.
Eloo teaches a cutter head as part of a water granulator system (P0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cristel with a cutter head as Eloo does to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected desired processing of the PET granulate as taught by Eloo (P0032).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Cristel teaches flowing the pellets with the gas (P0071); and keeping the gas uniformly hot at the first temperature in a range of 120 to 150° C (P0072) which overlaps with 130 C to 180 C and which is in a range of 20 C to 40 C above the surface temperature of the pellets.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Cristels temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Cristel is silent to keeping the pellets in the first post-treatment chamber in motion by a vibratory conveyor.
Eloo teaches that pellets are conveyed on a conventional vibratory conveyor (P0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cristel with a vibratory conveyor as Eloo does to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected agglomeration to be avoided as taught by Eloo (P0010).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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 on (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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741