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 .
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 14-26 are 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.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the limit grain size". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the mixing of the first and second screened fractions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-16, 18-21 and 23-26 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claims 14-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’).
Regarding claim 14, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers, in particular HDPE containers (Paragraph 1 lines 1-15), said method comprising the following method steps:
sorting the containers (Paragraph 9 line 3-Paragraph 10 line 3),
comminuting the containers to produce flakes (Paragraph 10 lines 4-5),
friction washing the flakes (Paragraph 10 lines 5-10),
sorting the flakes (Paragraph 11 lines 1-7),
extruding and granulating the cleaned flakes (Paragraph 11 lines 7-10),
wherein
the flake-sorting process is used to separate flakes and the flake-sorting process is a combination of:
a color-sorting process (Paragraph 11 lines 3-5),
a screening step (Paragraph 11 lines 1-3), and
an optical polymer-sorting process (Paragraph 11 lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 15, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 14, wherein in the screening step at least a first and a second screened fraction of flakes are produced (Paragraph 11 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the first screened fraction comprises flakes with a grain size < x mm and the second screened fraction comprises flakes with a grain size > x mm (Paragraph 11 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 23, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the first and second screened fractions are sorted separately in a first and a second color-sorting process (Paragraph 11 lines 1-7).
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.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 17, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching the method in accordance with claim 14, wherein the limit grain size is x=6 mm.
Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) states that a screening system divides the flake into a rough cut of smaller pieces and larger pieces in preparation for the color sorting stage (Paragraph 11 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein the limit grain size is x=6 mm in order to divide the flakes into sizes according to the desired final product, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) in view of Clark (US 10695953).
Regarding claim 18, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein material is sorted out from the first screened fraction by the optical polymer-sorting process and the polymer-sorting process takes place directly after the screening step (Paragraph 11 lines 1-6).
Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching wherein PP is sorted out by the optical polymer-sorting process.
Clark (US 10695953) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Col. 10 lines 5-20), wherein PP is sorted out by the optical polymer-sorting process (Fig. 1 #140, Col. 11 lines 42-49).
Clark (US 10695953) explains that the optical sorting equipment may remove loose polymeric contaminants that may be mixed in with the desired polymer flakes (Col. 11 lines 42-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein PP is sorted out by the optical polymer-sorting process as taught by Clark (US 10695953) in order to remove polymeric contaminants that may be mixed in the with desired polymer flakes.
Regarding claim 19, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein material is sorted out from the second screened fraction by a further optical polymer-sorting process and the further polymer-sorting process takes place directly after the screening step (Paragraph 11 lines 1-6).
Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching wherein PP is sorted out by a further optical polymer-sorting process.
Clark (US 10695953) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Col. 10 lines 5-20), wherein PP is sorted out by a further optical polymer-sorting process (Fig. 1 #140, Col. 11 lines 42-49).
Clark (US 10695953) explains that the optical sorting equipment may remove loose polymeric contaminants that may be mixed in with the desired polymer flakes (Col. 11 lines 42-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein PP is sorted out by a further optical polymer-sorting process as taught by Clark (US 10695953) in order to remove polymeric contaminants that may be mixed in the with desired polymer flakes.
Claims 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) in view of Arakane et al. (US 6588597).
Regarding claim 20, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein in the screening step a third screened fraction with a grain size < 1 mm is created and thereby the first screened fraction has a grain size between 1 mm and x mm.
Arakane et al. (US 6588597) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Col. 1 lines 7-11), wherein in the screening step a third screened fraction with a grain size < 1 mm is created (Fig. 2 #12, Col. 4 lines 2-6).
Arakane et al. (US 6588597) explains that a screen for removing dust including dirt scraped out from the crushed piece and the fine crushed plastic is used (Col. 4 lines 25-38) in order to provide a high quality plastic without the fine material (Col. 4 lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein in the screening step a third screened fraction with a grain size < 1 mm is created as taught by Arakane et al. (US 6588597) in order to remove dust including dirt and fine crushed plastic, such that the first screened fraction has a grain size between 1 mm and x mm.
Regarding claim 26, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching the method in accordance with claim 20, wherein the third screened fraction is fed to a disposal facility.
Arakane et al. (US 6588597) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Col. 1 lines 7-11), wherein the third screened fraction (Fig. 2 #12, Col. 4 lines 2-6) is fed to a disposal facility (Fig. 2 #16b, Col. 4 lines 48-57).
Arakane et al. (US 6588597) explains that a screen for removing dust including dirt scraped out from the crushed piece and the fine crushed plastic is used (Col. 4 lines 25-38) in order to provide a high quality plastic without the fine material (Col. 4 lines 58-67), and explains that the fine particles are separated from the gas and discharged into a recovery port (Col. 4 lines 48-57).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein the third screened fraction is fed to a disposal facility as taught by Arakane et al. (US 6588597) in order to remove and collect dust including dirt and fine crushed plastic.
Claims 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) in view of Allen et al. (WO 03086733).
Regarding claim 21, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching the method in accordance with claim 14, wherein the color-sorting process takes place before the screening step.
Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) states that a screening system divides the flake into a rough cut of smaller pieces and larger pieces in preparation for the color sorting stage (Paragraph 11 lines 1-3), and after the color sorting step the material goes through various additional sorters depending on the desired final product (Paragraph 11 lines 6-7).
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Page 3 lines 6-17), wherein the color-sorting process takes place before the screening step (Page 3 lines 15-32, Fig. 17 see ‘C’ before ‘TF’).
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) explains that the sequence of separation processes are determined based on one or more properties of the mixture to be separated and/or one or more desire properties of a recycled plastic material to be prepared from the waste plastic material (Page 3 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein the color-sorting process takes place before the screening step as taught by Allen et al. (WO 03086733) in order to provide output material with desired properties.
Regarding claim 22, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the color-sorting process takes place after the mixing of the first and second screened fractions.
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Page 3 lines 6-17), wherein the color-sorting process takes place after the mixing of the first and second screened fractions (Page 3 lines 15-32, Page 21 lines 20-23).
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) explains that the sequence of separation processes are determined based on one or more properties of the mixture to be separated and/or one or more desire properties of a recycled plastic material to be prepared from the waste plastic material (Page 3 lines 15-17). Allen et al. (WO 03086733) additionally explains that the preprocessing step may include blending in order to stabilize variations in feed compositions of materials supplied to the recycling plant (Page 21 lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein the color-sorting process takes place after the mixing of the first and second screened fractions as taught by Allen et al. (WO 03086733) in order to stabilize variations in feed compositions and provide output material with desired properties.
Regarding claim 24, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 15, wherein the cleaned flakes of the first and second screened fractions are stored in a flake storage facility (Paragraph 2 lines 1-4).
Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching wherein the cleaned flakes of the first and second screened fractions are stored in a flake storage facility in a defined ratio.
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Page 3 lines 6-17), wherein the cleaned flakes of the first and second screened fractions (Page 7 lines 7-10, Page 12 lines 27-34) are stored in a flake storage facility in a defined ratio (Page 53 lines 25-28).
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) explains that it may be desirable to recombine products from different streams in order to yield products with controlled compositions (Page 53 lines 25-34). Allen et al. (WO 03086733) further explains that different grades of a given plastic can be melt mixed to create a new material with a different property profile (Page 2 lines 20-21), for example combining different grades of material to form a desired mass flow rate (Page 72 lines 5-8). Allen et al. (WO 03086733) additionally explains that the effectiveness of color sorting and stabilizing the final product color can be improved when there is more precise particle size control used prior to the color sorting (Page 12 lines 30-34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein the cleaned flakes of the first and second screened fractions are stored in a flake storage facility in a defined ratio as taught by Allen et al. (WO 03086733) in order to provide a product with a controlled composition.
Regarding claim 25, Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) teaches the method in accordance with claim 24, wherein the cleaned flakes of the first and second screened fractions are partially stored temporarily in a first and a second intermediate storage facility (Paragraph 2 lines 1-4).
Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) lacks teaching the temporarily stored flakes are fed to the flake storage facility in a defined ratio.
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) teaches a method for recycling polyolefin containers (Page 3 lines 6-17), wherein the cleaned flakes of the first and second screened fractions are partially stored temporarily in a first and a second intermediate storage facility (Page 53 lines 6-19, output of each sequence in the plant) and the temporarily stored flakes are fed to the flake storage facility in a defined ratio (Page 53 lines 25-28).
Allen et al. (WO 03086733) explains that it may be desirable to recombine products from different streams in order to yield products with controlled compositions (Page 53 lines 25-34). Allen et al. (WO 03086733) further explains that different grades of a given plastic can be melt mixed to create a new material with a different property profile (Page 2 lines 20-21), for example combining different grades of material to form a desired mass flow rate (Page 72 lines 5-8). Allen et al. (WO 03086733) additionally explains that the effectiveness of color sorting and stabilizing the final product color can be improved when there is more precise particle size control used prior to the color sorting (Page 12 lines 30-34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiser (‘Plastic Dreams’) to include wherein the temporarily stored flakes are fed to the flake storage facility in a defined ratio as taught by Allen et al. (WO 03086733) in order to combine two product outputs in a controlled manner and therefore provide a final product with a controlled composition and properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clark (US 9636860) teaches a method comprising sorting, grinding, washing, and sorting flakes with color sorting and optical sorting.
Booth et al. (US 8735457) teaches the production of extruding post-consumer polymer mixtures which were previously blended in silos.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights