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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinass (US 4,102,503), hereinafter Meinass, in view of Lovette, Jr (US 4,025,990), hereinafter Lovette.
Regarding Claim 1, Meinass discloses a process for grinding materials, the process comprising (Col 1, Ln 8-14),
grinding the cooled plastic material in a first mill (2) (Col 4, Ln 31) to form firststage plastic material. Meinass is silent to particle size of less than 300 µm, however Applicant claims no specific advantage to either the process or finished article due to particle size, therefore Examiner maintains that a skilled Artisan would recognize the need to grind the plastic material to a size consistent with the process requirements, in order to achieve a desired finished product. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Meinass to grind the material to a particle size less than 300 µm as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Meinass is further silent to grinding the first-stage plastic material in a second mill to form a second-stage plastic material having a particle size less than about 100 µm.
Lovette teaches a two-step process for freezing and grinding rubber, plastic and metal (Col 1, Ln 60-63 and Col 2, Ln 9-11 ), a related art. Lovette further teaches the advantage of freezing in the process to obtain clean, finely divided small material pieces in an efficient, economical manner for later use (Col 2, Ln 16-19). Examiner notes that although Lovett is not explicit to freezing the material to be ground, and Examiner notes that the limitation "freezing a plastic material", as recited in Claim 1, is broad and does not require a specific temperature to define "freezing", Lovette teaches cryogenically cooling the material to be ground (Col 1, Ln 50) using liquified refrigerant (Col 1, Ln 46-47), passing the material to be ground to a cryogenic freezer (Col 2, Ln 54-56), which Examiner has interpreted to mean cooling the material at least below its freezing point. Lovette further teaches the advantage of freezing the material to be ground to be the embrittlement of the material prior to grinding, causing the material to become frangible, therefore improving the grinding process (Col 2, Ln 59-60).
Lovette is further silent to freezing a plastic material having a particle size of at least 100 µm to form a frozen plastic material, however Applicant claims no specific advantage to either the process or finished article due to particle size, therefore Examiner maintains that a skilled Artisan would recognize the need to grind the plastic material to a size consistent with the process requirements, in order to achieve the desired finished product. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a second grinder to further reduce the first stage ground product as taught by Lovette to produce a finely ground material. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to grind to a size of less than 100 µm as a matter of routine engineering design choice based on the desired final product size.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for grinding plastic, as disclosed by Meinass, to include freezing the material to be ground and a second grinding step to further reduce the material size consistent with process requirements for economical and robust process operation and to produce the desired finished product.
Regarding Claim 2, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Meinass is silent to the temperature of the material to be ground, disclosing that the temperature is sufficient to achieve embrittlement of the material (Col 2, Ln 14-16), thereby improving the milling process by cold milling (Col 55-57). Examiner notes that no specific advantage is claimed to a particular temperature of the material to be ground and that a skilled Artisan would recognize the need to optimize the process temperature to achieve the desired results.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for grinding plastic, as taught by combined Meinass/Lovette, to include each step of grinding is performed while the frozen plastic material and the first-stage plastic material each have a temperature lower than about -200 °F, in order to optimize the process temperature to achieve the desired results.
Regarding Claim 3, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Meinass is silent to the temperature of the material to be ground, disclosing that the temperature is sufficient to achieve embrittlement of the material (Col 2, Ln 14-16), thereby improving the milling process by cold milling (Col 55-57). Examiner notes that no specific advantage is claimed to a particular temperature of the material to be ground and that a skilled Artisan would recognize the need to optimize the process temperature to achieve the desired results.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for grinding plastic, as taught by combined Meinass/Lovette, to include each step of grinding is performed while the frozen plastic material and the first-stage plastic material each have a temperature lower than about -300 °F, in order to optimize the process temperature to achieve the desired results.
Regarding Claim 4, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Meinass further discloses an attrition mill (2) (Col 4, Ln 31).
Regarding Claim 5, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Meinass is silent a second milling step, however Meinass discloses use of a jet mill to achieve high comminution efficiency (Col 2, Ln 59).
Lovette teaches a two stage milling process, incorporating a cryogenic freezer grinder (21) (22) (col 4, Ln 60-62), however Lovette is not explicit to the details of the grinder.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for grinding plastic, as taught by combined Meinass/Lovette, to include the second mill of Lovette is a jet mill as disclosed by Meinass, in order to achieve high comminution efficiency.
Regarding Claim 6, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Combined Meinass/Lovette teaches the process changes from freezing the plastic material to grinding the first-stage plastic material in a continuous, uninterrupted manner (as illustrated in Meinass, Fig 1 and Lovette, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 7, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the
claimed invention as stated above. Meinass discloses the material to be ground to be thermoplastic material, a petrochemical which may contain, among other constituents, nylon, as evidenced by Spencer Industries Incorporated, Basics of Thermoplastic Production (https://www.spencerindustries.com/the-basics-of-thermoplasticproduction/#:~ :text= Thermoplastics%20can %2 0com e%20f ram %20 both, %2D%20and% 20plant%2Dbased%20materials, site accessed 17OCT2023).
Regarding Claim 8, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Meinass is silent to the step of freezing the plastic material occurs while the plastic material is in the first mill, however Examiner notes that no specific advantage is claimed to freezing the plastic material while the plastic material is in the first mill and a skilled Artisan would recognize the need for optimization of the process equipment to include combining steps into a unitary location in order to reduce the overall process equipment footprint.
It would the ref ore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for grinding plastic, as taught by combined Meinass/Lovette, to include freezing the plastic material occurs while the plastic material is in the first mill, in order to reduce the overall process equipment footprint.
Regarding Claim 9, combined Meinass/Lovette teaches all aspects of the claimed invention as stated above. Combined Meinass/Lovette teaches the step of freezing the plastic material occurs prior to placing the plastic material in the first mill (as illustrated in Meinass, Fig 1 and Lovette, Fig 1 ).
Regarding Claim 10, the first-stage plastic material maintains a low temperature of no more than -100°F as the first-stage plastic material is transferred directly from the first mill to the second mill.
Regarding Claim 11, the process changes from grinding the frozen plastic material in the first mill to grinding the first-stage plastic material in the second mill in a continuous, uninterrupted manner such that the first-stage plastic material is not isolated prior to being ground in the second mill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowable over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 12, it is the opinion of the Examiner that the art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious
"grinding the frozen plastic material in a first mill to form first-stage plastic material having a second particle size less than the first particle size, the first-stage plastic material having a second temperature greater than the first temperature", as required by Claim 12.
Prior art Meinass (US 4,102,503) fails to disclose, or fairly suggest, alone or in combination with other prior art (such as previously cited Lovette, Jr, US 4,025,990) "grinding the frozen plastic material in a first mill to form first-stage plastic material having a second particle size less than the first particle size, the first-stage plastic material having a second temperature greater than the first temperature" as required by Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 17, it is the opinion of the Examiner that the art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious
"grinding the frozen plastic material in a first mill to form first-stage plastic material having a second particle size less than the first particle size, the first-stage plastic material having a second temperature greater than the first temperature…wherein the first mill is enclosed and liquid nitrogen is introduced to the plastic material to form the frozen plastic material before or in the first mill, and the second mill includes one or more openings such that the second mill is not suitable for use with liquid nitrogen and the first stage plastic material is not refrozen in the second mill", as required by Claim 17.
Prior art Meinass (US 4,102,503) fails to disclose, or fairly suggest, alone or in combination with other prior art (such as previously cited Lovette, Jr, US 4,025,990) "grinding the frozen plastic material in a first mill to form first-stage plastic material having a second particle size less than the first particle size, the first-stage plastic material having a second temperature greater than the first temperature…wherein the first mill is enclosed and liquid nitrogen is introduced to the plastic material to form the frozen plastic material before or in the first mill, and the second mill includes one or more openings such that the second mill is not suitable for use with liquid nitrogen and the first stage plastic material is not refrozen in the second mill" as required by Claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. (issued in application number 17/205,423; patent number unavailable). This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Examiner notes reference is made to the latest (amended) claims, in Application Number 17/205,423, the issued patent number being unavailable.
Regarding Claim 1, a process for grinding materials (Claim 1, Ln 1), the process comprising, freezing a plastic material having a particle size of at least 300 µm to form a frozen plastic material (Claim 1, Ln 3-4),
grinding the frozen plastic material in a first mill to form first-stage plastic material having a particle size of less than 300 µm (Claim 1, Ln 5-6), and
grinding the first-stage plastic material in a second mill to form a secondstage plastic material having a particle size less than about 100 µm (Claim 1, Ln 7-8),
wherein the first-stage plastic material is not refrozen prior to the step of grinding the first-stage plastic material in the second mill (Claim 1, Ln 9-12).
Regarding Claim 2, each step of grinding is performed while the frozen plastic material and the first-stage plastic material each have a temperature lower than about -200 °F (disclosed by claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the frozen plastic material has a temperature of lower than about -300 °F (disclosed by claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, the first mill is in an attrition mill (disclosed by claim 5).
Regarding Claim 5, the second mill is a jet mill (disclosed by claim 6).
Regarding Claim 6, the process changes from grinding the first-stage plastic material to grinding the second-stage plastic material in a continuous, uninterrupted manner (disclosed by claim 7).
Regarding Claim 7, the plastic material comprises polycarbonate, polylactic acid, polyethylimide, polyethylene, polycaprolactam, polytetrafluoroethylene, nylon, or a mixture thereof (disclosed by claim 9).
Regarding Claim 8, the step of freezing the plastic material occurs while the plastic material is in the first mill (disclosed by claim 10).
Regarding Claim 9, the step of freezing the plastic material occurs prior to placing the plastic material in the first mill (11).
Regarding Claim 10, the first-stage plastic material maintains a low temperature of no more than -100°F as the first-stage plastic material is transferred directly from the first mill to the second mill (disclosed by claim 15).
Regarding Claim 11, the process changes from grinding the frozen plastic material in the first mill to grinding the first-stage plastic material in the second mill in a continuous, uninterrupted manner such that the first-stage plastic material is not isolated prior to being ground in the second mill (disclosed by claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12, a process for grinding materials (Claim 1, Ln 1), the process comprising,
freezing a plastic material having a first particle size to form a frozen plastic material at a first temperature (Claim 1, Ln 3-4),
grinding the frozen plastic material in a first mill to form first-stage plastic material having a second particle size less than the first particle size (Claim 1, Ln 5-8), the first-stage plastic material having a second temperature greater than the first temperature disclosed by claim 2, 3), and
grinding the first-stage plastic material in a second mill to form a secondstage plastic material having a particle size less than about 100 µm (Claim 1, Ln 7-8),
wherein, prior to and during the step of grinding the first-stage plastic material, the first stage plastic material has a third temperature greater than or equal to the second temperature (disclosed by Claim 2, the temperature is greater than that disclosed by Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 13, the first-stage plastic material maintains a low temperature of no more than -100°F as the first-stage plastic material is transferred directly from the first mill to the second mill (disclosed by claim 15).
Regarding Claim 14, the process changes from grinding the frozen plastic material in the first mill to grinding the first-stage plastic material in the second mill in a continuous, uninterrupted manner such that the first-stage plastic material is not isolated prior to being ground in the second mill (disclosed by claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, the first mill is in an attrition mill (disclosed by claim 5).
Regarding Claim 16, the second mill is a jet mill (disclosed by claim 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,110,411 to Clausen, et alia teaches thermoplastics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724