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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the crystallisation temperature” is objected to because the claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced, and while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitations with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; therefore, the recitation above should read “a crystallization temperature” to overcome this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the melting temperature” is objected to because the claim recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced - while this recitation is not ambiguous because there is inherent basis for such subject matter, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitations with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used; therefore, the recitation above should read “a ” to overcome this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“separating element for separating” in claim 15 (see paragraphs [0124] & [0126] of the specification as published, US 2026/0077538, for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function); and
“conveying element for conveying” in claim 16 (see paragraphs [0133]-[0135] of the specification as published, US 2026/0077538, for the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrinello et al. (US 2020/0276738; made of record in the IDS filed 02/28/2025) in view of Mayes et al. (US 2018/0265665).
As to claim 1: Parrinello discloses the claimed method for making an object with at least one polymeric material (i.e., method for producing objects made of polymeric material) (Parrinello at [0001]), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
extruding the polymeric material in an extrusion stage (i.e., the apparatus 1 for carrying out the method includes a melting device 2 which comprises an extruder device 3 for melting and extruding the polymeric material) (Parrinello at [0060], Fig. 1);
pressing the material to obtain the object (i.e., the mould is configured to compression mould the object from a dose of the polymeric material) (Parrinello at [0024], [0037], Fig. 1), and
cooling the polymeric material downstream of the extrusion stage (i.e., downstream of the melting device 2, which comprises the extruder device 3 for melting and extruding the polymeric material, a cooling zone is provided and defined inside a heat exchanger 6; the cooling zone configured to cool the flow of polymeric material coming from the melting device 2) (Parrinello at [0064], Fig. 1).
Parrinello discloses downstream of the melting device 2, which comprises the extruder device 3 for melting and extruding the polymeric material, a cooling zone is provided and defined inside a heat exchanger 6; the cooling zone configured to cool the flow of polymeric material coming from the melting device 2; and the heat exchanger 6 being defined inside a cascade extruder or a planetary extruder, in particular arranged immediately downstream of the extruder device that melts and extrudes the polymeric material (i.e., therefore the process flow would include extruder device that melts the polymeric material --> heat exchanger --> cascade/planetary extruder) (Parrinello at [0064], [0122], [0124], Fig. 1).
Though, Parrinello fails to disclose the claimed method using a composite material in which a material of natural origin is dispersed in the at least one polymeric material; adding the material of natural origin to the polymeric material, thereby obtaining the composite material; and wherein the material of natural origin is added to the polymeric material after having cooled the polymeric material downstream of the extrusion stage.
However, Mayes teaches a method of making a cellulosic fiber-thermoplastic composite article, the method including the steps of providing a copolymer composition, combining the copolymer and cellulosic fibers, applying heat, mixing energy and pressure to form a mixture, and forming the article in a molding or extrusion operation (Mayes at [0001]). Mayes further teaches during the blending step, the copolymer and cellulosic fiber are typically intimately mixed by high shear mixing to form a copolymer-cellulosic fiber composite where the mixture includes a continuous copolymer phase and cellulosic fiber dispersed phase with some reaction taking place between the copolymer and cellulosic fibers, and the dispersed cellulosic fibers being suspended or dispersed throughout the copolymer phase (i.e., method using a composite material in which a material of natural origin is dispersed in the at least one polymeric material) (Mayes [0114]).
Specifically, Mayes teaches adding the copolymer to a first extruder and then combining the copolymer with the cellulosic fiber in a second extruder (i.e., adding the material of natural origin to the polymeric material, thereby obtaining the composite material); and the cellulosic fiber being fed via wood hopper to a twin screw extruder, which heats the fiber to temperature while being transported, and the copolymer being fed via a polymer hopper to a single screw extruder, in which the copolymer is melted and fed to the twin screw extruder where the molten copolymer and cellulosic material are mixed (i.e., wherein the material of natural origin is added to the polymeric material after having cooled the polymeric material downstream of the extrusion stage in Parrinello) (Mayes at [0112], [0136])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the method incorporating a composite material in which cellulosic fibers are dispersed in a polymer composition, and adding the cellulosic fibers downstream of the extrusion after having cooled the polymeric material downstream of the extrusion stage as such is known in the art of molding composite products given the discussion of Mayes above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Additionally, doing so is the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. One would have been motivated to use a cellulosic/polymer composite for the purpose of benefiting from the cellulosic/polymer composites enhanced resistance to moisture (as recognized by Mayes at [0006]).
As to claim 2: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the object is a packaging component (Parrinello at [0002], [0038]).
As to claim 3: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the object is a concave object (Parrinello at [0038]).
As to claim 4: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the polymeric material comprises a semi-crystalline polymer which includes an amorphous fraction and a crystalline fraction (Parrinello at [0003], [0039], [0040]), and wherein the material of natural origin is added to the polymeric material while the polymeric material is at a temperature higher than or equal to the crystallization temperature of the crystalline fraction (Parrinello at [0041], [0042], [0043], [0063], [0064] – given the combination of Parrinello and Mayes in the rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 5: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 4. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein in the extrusion stage, the semi-crystalline polymer is heated to an extrusion temperature which is higher than the melting temperature of the crystalline fraction (Parrinello at [0040], [0063], [0097]).
As to claim 6: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the polymeric material comprises an amorphous polymer having a glass transition temperature (Parrinello at [0003], [0039], [0040]).
Mayes, further reads on the claimed wherein the material of natural origin is added to the polymeric material while the polymeric material is at a working temperature higher than the glass transition temperature of the amorphous polymer (Mayes at [0048], [0138], [0136]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 6. Parrinello further discloses semi-crystalline materials including polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET); and a working temperature in the melting device 2 being higher than or equal to the melting temperature, where it is known that the melting temperature is always higher than the glass transition temperature for semi-crystalline polymers (Parrinello at [0003], [0039], [0040], [0063], [0097]). Additionally, Mayes teaches the extruder temperatures ranging from 180oC to 225oC, and the exact extruder temperature varying based on the melt temperature and/or glass transition temperature of the copolymer (Mayes at [0048]).
Therefore, given the glass transition temperatures (i.e., inherent material property/temperature range specific to each material) for PP, HPDE, and PET materials as disclosed by Parrinello are at least 80oC (or more) lower than the extruder temperatures taught by Mayes it can be concluded that Parrinello modified by Mayes further reads on the claimed wherein the working temperature is at least 80oC higher than the glass transition temperature of the amorphous polymer, for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 8: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed the method furthermore comprising the step of mixing the composite material obtained by added the material of natural origin to the polymeric material (Mayes at [0112], [0136]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the polymeric material is cooled downstream of the extrusion stage with a cooling speed higher than or equal to 5oC/min (Parrinello at [0108]).
As to claim 10: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the step of pressing the composite material to obtain the object comprises cutting a continuous flow of composite material to obtain a dose of composite material, and shaping the dose by compression in a mould to obtain the object (Parrinello at [0024], [0025], [0078], [0079], [0098], [0099], Fig. 1).
As to claim 11: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Mayes further discloses the claimed wherein the material of natural origin comprises cellulose in the form of fibers or powder (Mayes at [0006], [0034], [0035], [0036], [0082], [0083], [0084]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 17: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 1. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the object is selected from a group consisting of a closing element for a container, a container, a capsule, and a preform for a container (Parrinello at [0002], [0038]).
As to claim 18: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 6. Parrinello further discloses semi-crystalline materials including polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET); and a working temperature in the melting device 2 being higher than or equal to the melting temperature, where it is known that the melting temperature is always higher than the glass transition temperature for semi-crystalline polymers (Parrinello at [0003], [0039], [0040], [0063], [0097]). Additionally, Mayes teaches the extruder temperatures ranging from 180oC to 225oC, and the exact extruder temperature varying based on the melt temperature and/or glass transition temperature of the copolymer (Mayes at [0048]).
Therefore, given the glass transition temperatures (i.e., inherent material property/temperature range specific to each material) for PP, HPDE, and PET materials as disclosed by Parrinello are at least 50oC (or more) lower than the extruder temperatures taught by Mayes it can be concluded that Parrinello modified by Mayes further reads on the claimed wherein the working temperature is at least 50oC higher than the glass transition temperature of the amorphous polymer, for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 19: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 8. Mayes further discloses the claimed wherein the mixing step occurs in a twin-screw extruder (Mayes at [0119], [0120], [0136]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 20: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the method of claim 9. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the polymeric material is cooled downstream of the extrusion stage with a cooling speed higher than or equal to 10oC/min (Parrinello at [0108]).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrinello et al. (US 2020/0276738; made of record in the IDS filed 02/28/2025) in view of Mayes et al. (US 2018/0265665).
As to claim 12: Parrinello discloses the claimed apparatus for making an object with at least one polymeric material (i.e., apparatus for producing objects made of polymeric material) (Parrinello at [0001], Fig. 1), wherein the apparatus comprises:
an extrusion stage for extruding the polymeric material (i.e., the apparatus 1 for carrying out the method includes a melting device 2 which comprises an extruder device 3 for melting and extruding the polymeric material) (Parrinello at [0060], Fig. 1);
a cooler positioned downstream of the extrusion stage for cooling the polymeric material (i.e., downstream of the melting device 2, which comprises the extruder device 3 for melting and extruding the polymeric material, a cooling zone is provided and defined inside a heat exchanger 6; the cooling zone configured to cool the flow of polymeric material coming from the melting device 2) (Parrinello at [0064], Fig. 1); and
a pressing device for pressing the material, so as to obtain the object (i.e., the mould is configured to compression mould the object from a dose of the polymeric material) (Parrinello at [0024], [0037], Fig. 1).
Parrinello discloses downstream of the melting device 2, which comprises the extruder device 3 for melting and extruding the polymeric material, a cooling zone is provided and defined inside a heat exchanger 6; the cooling zone configured to cool the flow of polymeric material coming from the melting device 2; and the heat exchanger 6 being defined inside a cascade extruder or a planetary extruder, in particular arranged immediately downstream of the extruder device that melts and extrudes the polymeric material (i.e., therefore the process flow would include extruder device that melts the polymeric material --> heat exchanger --> cascade/planetary extruder) (Parrinello at [0064], [0122], [0124], Fig. 1).
Though, Parrinello fails to disclose the claimed apparatus using a composite material in which a material of natural origin is dispersed in the at least one polymeric material; a metering unit positioned downstream of the cooler for adding the material of natural origin to the polymeric material which has been cooled, thereby obtaining the composite material; and a mixer for mixing the composite material.
However, Mayes teaches a method of making a cellulosic fiber-thermoplastic composite article, the method including the steps of providing a copolymer composition, combining the copolymer and cellulosic fibers, applying heat, mixing energy and pressure to form a mixture, and forming the article in a molding or extrusion operation (Mayes at [0001]). Mayes further teaches during the blending step, the copolymer and cellulosic fiber are typically intimately mixed by high shear mixing to form a copolymer-cellulosic fiber composite where the mixture includes a continuous copolymer phase and cellulosic fiber dispersed phase with some reaction taking place between the copolymer and cellulosic fibers, and the dispersed cellulosic fibers being suspended or dispersed throughout the copolymer phase (i.e., a composite material in which a material of natural origin is dispersed in the at least one polymeric material) (Mayes [0114]).
Specifically, Mayes teaches adding the copolymer to a first extruder and then combining the copolymer with the cellulosic fiber in a second extruder; and the cellulosic fiber being fed via wood hopper to a twin screw extruder, which heats the fiber to temperature while being transported, and the copolymer being fed via a polymer hopper to a single screw extruder, in which the copolymer is melted and fed to the twin screw extruder where the molten copolymer and cellulosic material are mixed (i.e., a metering unit positioned downstream of the cooler for adding the material of natural origin to the polymeric material which has been cooled, thereby obtaining the composite material; and a mixer for mixing the composite material) (Mayes at [0112], [0136])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the composite material in which cellulosic fibers are dispersed in a polymer composition, and a metering unit for adding material of natural origin to the polymeric material, thereby obtaining the composite material and a mixer for mixing the composite material as such is known in the art of molding composite products given the discussion of Mayes above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Additionally, doing so is the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. One would have been motivated to use a cellulosic/polymer composite for the purpose of benefiting from the cellulosic/polymer composites enhanced resistance to moisture (as recognized by Mayes at [0006]).
As to claim 13: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the apparatus of claim 12. Mayes further discloses the claimed wherein the mixer comprises a twin-screw extruder (Mayes at [0119], [0120], [0136]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 12.
As to claim 14: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the apparatus of claim 12. Parrinello further discloses the claimed wherein the pressing device comprises a mould for moulding the object by compression moulding (Parrinello at [0001], [0024], [0037], [0083], [0084], [0086], Fig. 1).
As to claim 15: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the apparatus of claim 14. Parrinello further discloses the claimed the device furthermore comprising a separating element for separating a dose of composite material from a continuous flow of composite material coming from the cooler (Parrinello at [0025], [0078], [0079], [0098], Fig. 1).
As to claim 16: Parrinello and Mayes disclose the apparatus of claim 15. Parrinello further discloses the claimed the device furthermore comprising a conveying element movable along a path for conveying the dose towards the mould (Parrinello at [0081], [0082], [0091] Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights