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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden would be placed between two groups. This is not found persuasive because two groups have divergent subject matter and requires searching in different databases, classes, and each group considered to be a single invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kao (US 20200147837) in view of CN 204712312U (translation attached) further in view of WO 2014039218, hereinafter WO’218, listed in IDS and DOW.
Regarding Claim 1, Kao discloses treatment method for ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) waste materials comprising the: crushing waste EVA shoe soles, waste EVA sheets, waste EVA trimmings, and other waste products to obtain block-shaped crushed materials ([002], [0021] different pieces of EVA were cut into specific shape).
Kao fails to teach the block with a length of less than 7 cm and a width of less than 5 cm; however, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to cut the pieces in the desired length and width. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
Kao didn’t disclose that the block shaped crushed material would go into a waste crusher.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, CN 204712312 U, discloses into a waste crusher to obtain strip-shaped crushed materials; wherein: the waste crusher comprises a crushing assembly for crushing EVA waste materials, the crushing assembly comprises a first crushing roller and a second crushing roller opposite to each other (Figure-1, first roller-21, second crushing roller-22, page-2 translated, small shaped material are obtained ) , a crushing channel is formed between the first crushing roller and the second crushing roller for crushing the EVA waste materials, a surface of the first crushing roller is a smooth surface, a surface of the second crushing roller comprises a plurality of crushing grooves (Figure-1, page-1-2 translated), and a roll gap between the first crushing roller and the second crushing roller (Figure1).
CN 204712312 U fail to teach the roll gap is less than 3mm, however, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to cut the pieces in the desired length and width . Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Kao’s teaching of EVS waste material treatment and combine with CN 204712312 U for the purpose of small pieces are obtained to facilitate the recycling of the waste material (page-2)
Further, Kao putting the products into a mixer at a high temperature processing the block-shaped mixed materials, which have been subjected to internal mixing by a screw extruder to obtain an EVA recycled film ([0021], [0023]).
However, Kao didn’t specifically disclose that a highest temperature of the internal mixing temperature is 150°C, and an internal mixing time is 18 to 25 minutes, so as to obtain block-shaped mixed materials; however, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to cut the pieces in the desired length and width. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
However, Kao didn’t specifically disclose that processing the block-shaped mixed materials, which have been subjected to internal mixing by a screw extruder and an open mill to obtain the product . In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, of EVA products WO 2014039218 discloses that EVA products are processed through mixing and open mill for recycling EVA materials ([008], [0012], [0031]). Further, WO’218 discloses adding petroleum resin and oligomers into the EVA material ([0007], [0014]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Kao’s teaching of EVS waste material treatment and combine with WO’218 of a screw extruder and an open mill for the purpose of thorough mixing of the EVA materials for recycling purpose
The above prior art didn’t disclose Surlyn resin as another component in the EVA material while mixing. It’s common in the art as shown by DOW, that SURLYN resin is used by breaking down waste plastic (attached as SURLYN).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Kao’s/ CN 204712312 U /WO’218 teaching of EVS waste material treatment and combine with DOW for the purpose of breaking down the waste material and improves the recycling process.
The above prior art didn’t disclose that and PMP into an internal mixer in a weight ratio of 85:(4-10) :(4-8), Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
Regarding Claim 2 CN 204712312 U discloses the plurality of crushing grooves are arranged obliquely on the surface of the second crushing roller (Figure 2, obliquely groove-221), and an inclination angle of each of 3-5-degrees. However, CN 204712312 U didn’t disclose an inclination angle of each plurality of crushing grooves is 10-45°. However, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
Regarding Claim 3 CN 204712312 U discloses the plurality of crushing grooves have outer-large and inner-small structures (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 4, WO’ 218 discloses treatment method for the EVA waste materials according to claim 1, wherein: the PMP is fatty acid oligomers. ([0027])
Regarding Claim 5, Kao discloses the plastic compound is extruded at a temperature of 200-0 C but didn’t disclose that a base temperature of the screw extruder is 130- 150 °C. However, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A.
Also, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding Claim 6, WO’218 discloses a specific operation of the open mill comprises performing a film calendering process ([0031]), but fails to teach at a temperature of less than 65 °C. However, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
Regarding Claim 7, Kao discloses that a specific thickness of the recycled film is obtained ([0021], Claim 1), however didn’t specify that is less than or equal to 0.2mm. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 SEE MPEP 2144.05 A
Conclusion
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
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights