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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 17 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 and 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
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 1,3, 5-9, and 17 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 1 recites the limitation "the connecting lines" in ln 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution the limitations after the term preferably are interpreted to be optional and therefore not required by the claim.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8-9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (US5080845 of record) hereinafter Herrmann in view of Jain (US2016/0039992 of record) and Harbord et al. (DE102018222499 of record with reference made to previously provided machine translation) hereinafter Harbord.
Regarding claim 1, Herrmann teaches:
A device, comprising:
a melting extruder for melting a plastic (Fig 1: first extruder 1; col 3, ln 9-22),
a degassing extruder arranged downstream of the melting extruder for degassing the plastic melt (Fig 1: second extruder 18; col 3, ln 35-55),
characterised in that
at a plastic melt path comprising the melting extruder, the degassing extruder, as well as the connecting lines therebetween (Fig 1: connecting pipe 16), there are provided at least one process gas feed (Fig 1: feed 15; col 3, ln 30-31) and at least one gas discharge for discharging an exhaust gas stream (Fig 1: discharge orifice 25, vacuum discharge orifice 32; col 3, ln 50-53), wherein a process gas feed is connected to the melting extruder and a gas discharge is connected to the degassing extruder (Fig 1).
Hermann does not teach a device for recycling flakes from shredded and washed post-consumer plastic waste,
a pre-treatment unit for drying and homogenising the flakes from shredded and washed post-consumer plastic waste,
the melting extruder arranged downstream of the pre-treatment unit for melting the plastic waste dried and homogenized in the pre-treatment unit
a granulating device arranged downstream of the degassing extruder for granulating the plastic melt,
a post-treatment unit arranged downstream of the granulating device.
In the same field of endeavor regarding plastics processing, Jain teaches a recycling flakes from shredded and washed post-consumer plastic waste ([0024]),
a pre-treatment unit for drying and homogenising the flakes from shredded and washed post-consumer plastic waste ([0054]),
the melting extruder arranged downstream of the pre-treatment unit for melting the plastic waste dried and homogenized in the pre-treatment unit (Fig 1; [0054]),
a granulating device arranged downstream of degassing for granulating the plastic melt ([0054]),
a post-treatment unit arranged downstream of the granulating device (Fig 1; [0058]) for the motivation of producing recycled plastic pellets with enhanced physical, mechanical, optical and aesthetic properties ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Hermann to perform plastics recycling with the processing equipment as taught by Jain in order to produce recycled plastic pellets with enhanced physical, mechanical, optical and aesthetic properties.
Hermann in view of Jain does not teach wherein the at least one process gas feed is connected to an ozone source or an ozone generating device, whereby ozone-enriched process gas may be supplied to the plastic melt path.
In the same field of endeavor regarding plastic processing, Harbord teaches the removal of odour from plastic melt by a process gas stream enriched with ozone from an ozone generator for the motivation of removing volatiles from plastics with high recycled content ([0017, 0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device as taught by Herrmann and Jain with the ozone generator as taught by Harbord in order to remove volatiles from plastics with high recycled content.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not teach optionally a melt filter arranged between the melting extruder and the degassing extruder for removing foreign matter from the plastic melt,
and optionally a drying device arranged between the granulating device and the post-treatment unit for drying the granules.
However, the above limitations are optional and therefore not required by the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hermann further teaches a process gas feed connected to a connecting line upstream of the degassing extruder (Fig 1: connecting pipe 16).
Regarding claim 6, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Harbord further teaches an adjustment device for adjusting the amount of ozone, which is supplied to the plastic melt path ([0050]), in dependency on the ozone concentration of the exhaust gas stream from the plastic melt path.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not explicitly recite adjusting the amount of ozone in dependency on the ozone concentration of the exhaust gas stream from the plastic melt path.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. The prior art teaches the claimed structure of an adjustment device for adjusting the amount of ozone. Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 8, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not explicitly recite the process gas to be enriched with ozone is air.
However, this limitation is directed to material worked upon, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 9, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not explicitly recite the ozone concentration in the enriched process gas is at least 0.1 ppm.
However, this limitation is directed to material worked upon, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 17, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not explicitly recite wherein the ozone concentration in the enriched process gas is in a range between 10 ppm and 100 ppm.
However, this limitation is directed to material worked upon, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (JPH0924244 with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Shimizu.
Regarding claim 5, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not teach an in-line measuring device for measuring the ozone concentration of the exhaust gas stream from the plastic melt path.
In the same field of endeavor regarding waste gas, Shimizu teaches an apparatus for decomposing waste ozone gas comprising a device for measuring the concentration of ozone in a waste gas stream (Fig 1: sensor 8; [0013]) for the motivation of decomposing waste ozone gas ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust gas stream as taught by Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord with the exhaust ozone gas processing as taught by Shimizu in order to decompose waste ozone gas.
Regarding claim 7, Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord does not teach at least one apparatus for the at least partial depletion of ozone contained in the exhaust gas stream, wherein the apparatus is configured to deplete ozone preferably for the thermal or catalytic treatment of the exhaust gas stream or for irradiating the exhaust gas stream using electromagnetic waves.
In the same field of endeavor regarding waste gas, Shimizu teaches an apparatus for decomposing waste ozone gas comprising a catalyst (Fig 1: catalyst layer 6; [0013]) for the motivation of decomposing waste ozone gas ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust gas stream as taught by Hermann in view of Jain and Harbord with the exhaust ozone gas processing as taught by Shimizu in order to decompose waste ozone gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights