DETAILED ACTION
In Application filed on 12/19/2024, claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-21 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2017/0260093 (“Barrow er al” hereinafter Barrow).
Regarding Claim 16, Barrow teaches a method of making particles, the method comprising: obtaining a supply of treated plastic waste ([0020], providing a granulated waste plastic material); thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture ([0098] and [0189], the source material use is waste plastic material and the method further comprises the step of adding one or more additives to the extruding mixture, such as pozzolanic materials); hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product ([0102]-[0104]); and processing the extruded product to form particles ([0151]-[0153]).
Regarding Claim 18, Barror teaches the method of claim 16, wherein processing the extruded product includes exposing waste plastic material at exterior surface of the particles ([0129] and [0148]).
Regarding Claim 19, Barrow teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the supply of plastic waste includes at least one of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS ([0099], the waste plastic material might be acetonitrile butadiene styrene), polyurethane, polyamide, and PET.
Regarding Claim 20, Barrow teaches the method of claim 16, wherein mixing the supply of treated plastic with pozzolans further comprises mixing the supply of treated plastic with at least of an essence, a fire retardant ([0073], the method further comprises the step of providing one or more additives to the extruding mixture such as sand which is a known fire retardant), and an anti-bacterial agent.
Regarding Claim 21, Barrow teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the supply of treated plastic waste includes at least about 50% waste plastic material by weight ([0098], the source material for use in the invention is waste plastic material. Such material is typically a heterogeneous mixture of co-mingled plastic; thus, the plastic waste is 100% co-mingled plastic) , and wherein the supply of plastic waste includes at least some non-plastic material in the form of food residue ([0098], for example, milk bottles, plastic drink bottles (many of which contain sugary drinks), which is food residue and [0100], no extensive cleaning is needed, thus residual sugars are remain from sugary drink containers), cellulosic material and/or metallic foil material.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0260093 (“Barrow er al” hereinafter Barrow) in view of KR101706116 (“Jang et al” hereinafter Jang), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 2, Barrow teaches a method of making particles ([0002]), the method comprising: mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture ([0098] and [0189], the source material use is waste plastic material and the method further comprises the step of adding one or more additives to the extruding mixture, such as pozzolanic materials); hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product ([0102]-[0104]); and processing the extruded product to form particles ([0151]-[0153]).
Barrow fails to teach obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least one of calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide.
Jang teaches obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least one of calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide ([0033], the plastic waste is pulverized with one or more powder additives calcium hydroxide powder). Jang further discloses the pulverized recycled aggregate in fine powder is mix with natural pozzolanic material ([0033]).
Barrow and Jang are both in the same field of method of making a plastic aggregate/composition from waste plastic to be use for concrete. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Barrow such that it teaches the above discussed limitations as taught by Jang in order to react calcium hydroxide with pozzolanic to increases strength and durability of the final composition ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the extruded product comprises waste plastic material (Barrow, [0098] and [0151], the source material used for extrusion is plastic waste and the extruded material is plastic aggregate).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, wherein processing the extruded product includes exposing waste plastic material at exterior surface of the particles (Barrow, [0129] and [0148]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the supply of plastic waste includes at least one of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS (Barrow, [0099], the waste plastic material might be acetonitrile butadiene styrene), polyurethane, polyamide, and PET.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the supply of plastic waste includes at least about 50% waste plastic material by weight (Barrow, [0098], the source material for use in the invention is waste plastic material. Such material is typically a heterogeneous mixture of co-mingled plastic; thus, the plastic waste is 100% co-mingled plastic) , and wherein the supply of plastic waste includes at least some non-plastic material in the form of food residue ([0098], for example, milk bottles, plastic drink bottles (many of which contain sugary drinks), which is food residue and [0100], no extensive cleaning is needed, thus residual sugars are remain from sugary drink containers), cellulosic material and/or metallic foil material.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: prior to mixing the supply of treated plastic waste treated with the pozzolans, blending the supply of treated plastic waste with a supplemental supply of plastic waste from a different source (Barrow, [0098] he source material for use in the invention is waste plastic material. Such material is typically a heterogeneous mixture of co-mingled plastic which implied that a plurality of plastic waste from various source formed a heterogeneous mixture of co-mingle plastic).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, wherein mixing the supply of treated plastic with pozzolans further comprises mixing the supply of treated plastic with at least of an essence, a fire retardant (Barrow, [0073], the method further comprises the step of providing one or more additives to the extruding mixture such as sand which is a known fire retardant), and an anti-bacterial agent.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0260093 (“Barrow er al” hereinafter Barrow) in view of KR101706116 (“Jang et al” hereinafter Jang), machine translation provided as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of WO2012/114129 (“Evans et al” hereinafter Evans).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Barrow teaches the method of claim 2, but fails to teach where the supply of plastic waste is treated with at least some calcium oxide.
However, Evans teaches the supply of plastic waste (page 10, lines 16-17, the basic blend includes recycled plastics) is treated with calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide (page 13, lines 6-12, there is added to the binder blend such as calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide).
Barrow and Evans are both in the same field of method of making a plastic aggregate/composition from waste plastic to be use for concrete. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the calcium hydroxide disclosed by the modified Barrow by calcium oxide as taught by the Evans because utilizing one known binder material in place of another binder material also suitability in the field of recycling plastic waste is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0260093 (“Barrow er al” hereinafter Barrow) in view of KR101706116 (“Jang et al” hereinafter Jang), machine translation provided, and WO2012/114129 (“Evans et al” hereinafter Evans).
Regarding Claim 10, Barrow teaches particles formed by the process ([0002]) of: mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture ([0098] and [0189], the source material use is waste plastic material and the method further comprises the step of adding one or more additives to the extruding mixture, such as pozzolanic materials); hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product ([0102]-[0104]); and processing the extruded product to form particles ([0151]-[0153]).
Barrow fails to teach obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least some calcium oxide.
Jang teaches obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with calcium hydroxide ([0033], the plastic waste is pulverized with one or more powder additives calcium hydroxide powder). Jang further discloses the pulverized recycled aggregate in fine powder is mix with natural pozzolanic material ([0033]). Evans teaches the supply of plastic waste (page 10, lines 16-17, the basic blend includes recycled plastics) is treated with calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide (page 13, lines 6-12, there is added to the binder blend such as calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide).
Barrow, Jang, and Evans are in the same field of method of making a plastic aggregate/composition from waste plastic to be use for concrete. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Barrow such that it teaches the above discussed limitations as taught by Jang in order to react calcium hydroxide with pozzolanic to increases strength and durability of the final composition ([0045]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the calcium hydroxide disclosed by the modified Barrow by calcium oxide as taught by the Evans because utilizing one known binder material in place of another binder material also suitability in the field of recycling plastic waste is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Barrow teaches a concrete product including particles (Barrow, [0010]) formed by the process of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Barrow teaches the particles formed by the process of claim 10, wherein the extruded product comprises waste plastic material (Barrow, [0098] and [0151], the source material used for extrusion is plastic waste and the extruded material is plastic aggregate).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Barrow teaches the particles formed by the process of claim 10, wherein processing the extruded product includes exposing waste plastic material at exterior surface of the particles (Barrow, [0129] and [0148]).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Barrow teaches the particles formed by the process of claim 10, wherein the supply of plastic waste includes at least one of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS (Barrow, [0099], the waste plastic material might be acetonitrile butadiene styrene), polyurethane, polyamide, and PET
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Barrow teaches the particles formed by the process of claim 10, wherein prior to mixing the supply of treated plastic waste treated with the pozzolans, blending the supply of treated plastic waste with a supplemental supply of plastic waste from a different source (Barrow, [0098] he source material for use in the invention is waste plastic material. Such material is typically a heterogeneous mixture of co-mingled plastic which implied that a plurality of plastic waste from various source formed a heterogeneous mixture of co-mingle plastic).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2017/0260093 (“Barrow er al” hereinafter Barrow) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of KR101706116 (“Jang et al” hereinafter Jang), machine translation provided, and WO2012/114129 (“Evans et al” hereinafter Evans).
Regarding Claim 17, Barrow teaches the method of claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the treated plastic waste is treated with at least some calcium oxide.
Jang teaches obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with calcium hydroxide ([0033], the plastic waste is pulverized with one or more powder additives calcium hydroxide powder). Jang further discloses the pulverized recycled aggregate in fine powder is mix with natural pozzolanic material ([0033]). Evans teaches the supply of plastic waste (page 10, lines 16-17, the basic blend includes recycled plastics) is treated with calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide (page 13, lines 6-12, there is added to the binder blend such as calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide).
Barrow, Jang, and Evans are in the same field of method of making a plastic aggregate/composition from waste plastic to be use for concrete. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Barrow such that it teaches the above discussed limitations as taught by Jang in order to react calcium hydroxide with pozzolanic to increases strength and durability of the final composition ([0045]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the calcium hydroxide disclosed by the modified Barrow by calcium oxide as taught by the Evans because utilizing one known binder material in place of another binder material also suitability in the field of recycling plastic waste is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,878 (hereinafter ‘878). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 2, current application claims a method of making particles (see claim 1, line 1 of ‘878), the method comprising: obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least one of calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide (claim 1, line 3-7); thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture (claim 1, line 8-11); hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product (claim 1, line 12-14); and processing the extruded product to form particles (claim 1, line 15-17).
Regarding Claim 10, current application claims a particles formed by the process of: obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least some calcium oxide; thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture; hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product; and processing the extruded product to form particles (see claim 20).
Regarding Claim 16, current application claims a method of making particles, the method comprising: obtaining a supply of treated plastic waste; thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture; hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product; and processing the extruded product to form particles (see claims 1 and 22).
Regarding Claims 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, and 19-20 of instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-3, 14, and 21 of the ‘878 patent.
Claims 2-3, 6-11, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,706 (hereinafter ‘706). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 2, current application claims a method of making particles (see claim 1, line 1 of ‘706), the method comprising: obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least one of calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide (claim 1, lines 2-5); thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture (claim 1, lines 6-9); hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product (claim 1, line 10-12); and processing the extruded product to form particles (claim 1, line 13-15).
Regarding Claim 10, current application claims a particles formed by the process of: obtaining a supply of plastic waste treated with at least some calcium oxide; thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture; hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product; and processing the extruded product to form particles (see claim 13).
Regarding Claim 16, current application claims a method of making particles, the method comprising: obtaining a supply of treated plastic waste; thereafter, mixing the supply of treated plastic waste with pozzolans to form a plastic waste mixture; hot extruding the plastic waste mixture to form an extruded product; and processing the extruded product to form particles (see claims 1 and 17).
Regarding Claims 3, 6-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 19-21 of instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-3, 7, 10, 13-15, 17 of patent ‘706.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754