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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 7th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 10 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 23rd, 2026.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646).
Regarding claim 1, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches a plant for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Page 1 lines 3-7, Page 10 lines 8-11), comprising:
- a feeding station (Fig. 2 #110), configured for receiving in input waste (Fig. 2 ‘MS’) deriving from the separate collection of plastics and to dose the waste in order to release in output a flow of material to be treated having a controlled flow rate (Page 27 line 31-Page 28 line 13);
- a first station (Fig. 2 #160) configured for removing metal fragments from the flow of material to be treated (Page 29 lines 26-29);
- at least one optical separator (Fig. 2 #220a, 220b, 320a, 320b) configured for removing from the flow of material to be treated non-polyolefin polymers, cellulosic components, and textile components (Page 27 lines 2-10);
- a screen (Fig. 2 #140) configured for removing from the flow of material to be treated foreign bodies with dimensions smaller than a predefined minimum value (Page 29 lines 3-10);
- a shredder (Fig. 2 #130) configured for reducing the particle size of the material to be treated to a predefined value (Page 28 lines 23-28);
- a second station (Fig. 2 #170) for the removal of metal fragments from the flow of material to be treated (Page 30 lines 3-5); and
- an aeraulic separator (Fig. 2 #154) configured for separating a three-dimensional polyolefin fraction (Fig. 2 ‘PS’), comprising polyolefin fragments with bulk density higher than a predefined threshold value (Page 30 lines 12-16), from a two-dimensional polyolefin fraction (Fig. 2 ‘FS’), comprising polyolefin fragments with bulk density lower than the predefined threshold value (Page 30 lines 12-16).
Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching an aeraulic separation machine configured for removing from the flow of material to be treated heavy fractions, comprising fragments having a density higher than a predefined threshold value.
Miller et al. (US 7810646) teaches a plant for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Col. 2 lines 36-54), comprising an aeraulic separation machine (Fig. 3 #70) configured for removing from the flow of material to be treated heavy fractions (Fig. 3 #76), comprising fragments having a density higher than a predefined threshold value (Col. 4 lines 45-50).
Miller et al. (US 7810646) explains that the heavier waste material can include rocks, concrete, food waste, wood, or any other type of material that has a relatively heavier weight than the recyclable materials (Col. 3 lines 18-20), and explains that the majority of the recyclable items are included in the lighter waste material (Col. 3 lines 29-34).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include an aeraulic separation machine configured for removing from the flow of material to be treated heavy fractions, comprising fragments having a density higher than a predefined threshold value as taught by Miller et al. (US 7810646) in order to separate lighter weight materials, which include the majority of the recyclable items, from heavier materials, which may include rocks, concrete, food waste, wood, etc.
Regarding claim 2, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches the plant according to claim 1, wherein the first station (Fig. 2 #160) and/or the second station (Fig. 2 #170) for the removal of the metal fragments from the flow of material to be treated comprise a magnetic iron-remover (Page 29 lines 26-29) and an Eddy Current Separator (ECS) (Page 30 lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 1, wherein the aeraulic separation machine comprises a main chamber, inside which a conveyor belt, a first collection element and a second collection element are arranged;
wherein the aeraulic separation machine further comprises a blower and air recirculation ducts;
wherein:
- the conveyor belt comprises an initial section and an end section, and is configured for receiving the material to be treated at the initial section and to bring it towards the end section;
- the first collection element is located immediately downstream of the end section of the conveyor belt, below it;
- the second collection element is located beyond the first collection element, along the direction defined by the conveyor belt;
- the blower and the main chamber are configured for generating an air flow parallel to the conveyor belt; and
- the recirculation ducts connect the inside of the main chamber to the blower.
Miller et al. (US 7810646) teaches a plant for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Col. 2 lines 36-54), wherein the aeraulic separation machine comprises a main chamber (Fig. 3 #70), inside which a conveyor belt (Fig. 3 #20), a first collection element (Fig. 3 #40) and a second collection element (Fig. 3 #38) are arranged;
wherein the aeraulic separation machine further comprises a blower (Fig. 3 #22);
wherein:
- the conveyor belt (Fig. 3 #20) comprises an initial section (Fig. 3 see initial section of #20) and an end section (Fig. 3 see end section of #20), and is configured for receiving the material to be treated at the initial section (Fig. 3 see #20 receiving material to be treated from #14) and to bring it towards the end section (Fig. 3 see #20 bringing material towards end section);
- the first collection element (Fig. 3 #40) is located immediately downstream of the end section of the conveyor belt, below it (Fig. 3 #40 is located immediately downstream and below end section of #20);
- the second collection element (Fig. 3 #38) is located beyond the first collection element, along the direction defined by the conveyor belt (Fig. 3 #38 located beyond #40 along direction of #20);
- the blower (Fig. 3 #22) and the main chamber (Fig. 3 #70) are configured for generating an air flow parallel to the conveyor belt (Fig. 3 see airflow from #22 extending parallel to #20).
Miller et al. (US 7810646) teaches a different embodiment wherein the aeraulic separation machine further comprises air recirculation ducts (Col. 3 lines 37-49); and
- the recirculation ducts connect the inside of the main chamber to the blower (Col. 3 lines 37-49).
Miller et al. (US 7810646) explains that the air separator separates relatively light recyclable waste material from other waste material (Col. 4 lines 29-34). Miller et al. (US 7810646) explains that the recycling air arrangement reduces the air pressure in the chamber, further promoting the circulation of light recyclable waste materials to the collection element (Col. 3 lines 37-49).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include wherein the aeraulic separation machine comprises a main chamber, inside which a conveyor belt, a first collection element and a second collection element are arranged; wherein the aeraulic separation machine further comprises a blower and air recirculation ducts; wherein: - the conveyor belt comprises an initial section and an end section, and is configured for receiving the material to be treated at the initial section and to bring it towards the end section; - the first collection element is located immediately downstream of the end section of the conveyor belt, below it; - the second collection element is located beyond the first collection element, along the direction defined by the conveyor belt; - the blower and the main chamber are configured for generating an air flow parallel to the conveyor belt; and - the recirculation ducts connect the inside of the main chamber to the blower as taught by Miller et al. (US 7810646) in order to separate mixed waste materials according to density, and reduce the air pressure in the chamber, further promoting the separation of relatively light materials.
Regarding claim 5, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches the plant according to claim 4, wherein the optical separator (Fig. 2 #220a, 220b, 320a, 320b) configured for the removal of the fragments containing polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) and polyvinylchloride (PVC), and for the removal of paper, cardboard and textile components (Page 10 lines 8-11, Page 27 lines 2-7, Page 36 line 25-Page 37 line 4).
Regarding claim 6, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches the plant according to claim 5, wherein the screen (Fig. 2 #140) is configured for removing from the flow of material to be treated the foreign bodies with dimensions smaller than 2 cm (Page 21 lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 7, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches the lacks teaching the plant according to claim 6, wherein the shredder is configured for reducing the particle size of the material to be treated to a value between 35 mm and 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include wherein the shredder is configured for reducing the particle size of the material to be treated to a value between 35 mm and 50 mm in order to provide a particle size suitable for downstream processing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646) and further in view of Barskij et al. (SU 1731297).
Regarding claim 8, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 7, wherein the aeraulic separator comprises:
a blower, a main body, a cyclone and recirculation ducts;
the main body comprising, arranged one above the other, a flow distributor, a washing chamber, a labyrinth chamber and a hood;
wherein
- the main body defines in its inside a continuous path for an air flow, fed by the blower;
- at the bottom of the washing chamber there are located transfer means configured for translating the material to be treated onto the bottom of the washing chamber, from an inlet to an outlet;
- the transfer means are permeable to a vertical air flow rising from the flow distributor below;
- the labyrinth chamber, located above the washing chamber, comprises a plurality of bulkheads inclined with respect to the flow direction;
- the hood, located above the labyrinth chamber, converges into a first recirculation duct that connects the inside of the main body to the cyclone; and
- a second recirculation duct connects the cyclone to the blower.
Barskij et al. (SU 1731297) teaches a plant for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3), wherein the aeraulic separator (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-5) comprises:
a blower (Fig. 3 #10), a main body (Fig. 1 body of #1), a cyclone (Fig. 3 #15) and recirculation ducts (Fig. 3 see ducts between #5, 15, 16, 10 and 8);
the main body comprising, arranged one above the other, a flow distributor (Fig. 3 #8), a washing chamber (Fig. 1 space above #2), a labyrinth chamber (Fig. 1 chamber of #3, 4) and a hood (Fig. 1 #5);
wherein
- the main body defines in its inside a continuous path for an air flow, fed by the blower (Fig. 3 #1 defines a continuous path of air flow from #10);
- at the bottom of the washing chamber there are located transfer means (Fig. 1 #2) configured for translating the material to be treated onto the bottom of the washing chamber (Paragraph 0015 lines 5-13), from an inlet (Fig. 1 #6) to an outlet (Fig. 1 #7);
- the transfer means (Fig. 1 #2) are permeable to a vertical air flow rising from the flow distributor below (Fig. 1 #2 permeable to vertical air flow rising from #8);
- the labyrinth chamber (Fig. 1 chamber of #3, 4), located above the washing chamber (Fig. 1 #3, 4 located above space above #2), comprises a plurality of bulkheads (Fig. 1 #4) inclined with respect to the flow direction (Fig. 1 #4 inclined with respect to vertical flow direction);
- the hood (Fig. 1 #5), located above the labyrinth chamber (Fig. 1 #5 located above chamber of #3, 4), converges into a first recirculation duct (Fig. 3 see #5 converges into duct between #9, 15) that connects the inside of the main body to the cyclone (Fig. 3 duct between #9 and #15 connects inside of #1 to #15); and
- a second recirculation duct (Fig. 3 duct between #15, 16, 10) connects the cyclone to the blower (Fig. 3 duct between #15, 16, 10 connects #15 to #10).
Barskij et al. (SU 1731297) explains that the device cleans small products with low aerodynamic resistance (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-2), and a reduction of energy costs for classification is achieved (Paragraph 0018 line 1-Paragraph 0020 line 2).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include wherein the aeraulic separator comprises: a blower, a main body, a cyclone and recirculation ducts; the main body comprising, arranged one above the other, a flow distributor, a washing chamber, a labyrinth chamber and a hood; wherein - the main body defines in its inside a continuous path for an air flow, fed by the blower; - at the bottom of the washing chamber there are located transfer means configured for translating the material to be treated onto the bottom of the washing chamber, from an inlet to an outlet; - the transfer means are permeable to a vertical air flow rising from the flow distributor below; - the labyrinth chamber, located above the washing chamber, comprises a plurality of bulkheads inclined with respect to the flow direction; - the hood, located above the labyrinth chamber, converges into a first recirculation duct that connects the inside of the main body to the cyclone; and - a second recirculation duct connects the cyclone to the blower as taught by Barskij et al. (SU 1731297) in order to separate small products in a separator with reduced energy costs.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646), Barskij et al. (SU 1731297) and further in view of Desender (WO 2019008094).
Regarding claim 9, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching the plant according to claim 8, further comprising:
- a pyrolytic reactor configured for subjecting the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction to pyrolysis and for obtaining pyrolytic oil, and
- a thermal reactor configured for subjecting the pyrolytic oil to thermal cracking and for obtaining regenerated monomers.
Desender (WO 2019008094) teaches a plant for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Page 1 lines 4-6), further comprising:
- a pyrolytic reactor (Fig. 2 #40) configured for subjecting the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction to pyrolysis and for obtaining pyrolytic oil (Page 19 lines 16-20), and
- a thermal reactor (Fig. 2 #44) configured for subjecting the pyrolytic oil to thermal cracking and for obtaining regenerated monomers (Page 19 lines 16-34).
Desender (WO 2019008094) explains that a plastics to fuel conversion takes place to produce paraffin and other hydrocarbons that can be obtained for use as-is or for use as base material in the petrochemical industry, for example in producing jet fuel (Page 19 lines 12-15).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include - a pyrolytic reactor configured for subjecting the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction to pyrolysis and for obtaining pyrolytic oil, and
- a thermal reactor configured for subjecting the pyrolytic oil to thermal cracking and for obtaining regenerated monomers as taught by Desender (WO 2019008094) in order to produce products which may be used as-is or as a base material in the petrochemical industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646) and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 10, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches a method for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Page 1 lines 3-7, Page 10 lines 8-11), comprising steps of:
- providing a mass of loose waste deriving from separate collection of plastics (Page 27 line 31-Page 28 line 13);
- dosing the loose waste in order to obtain a flow of material to be treated having a controlled flow rate (Page 27 line 31-Page 28 line 13, Fig. 2 rate in which #110 is operated);
- removing macroscopic metal fragments from the flow of material to be treated (Page 29 lines 26-29);
- removing from the flow of material to be treated non-polyolefin polymers (Page 27 lines 2-10);
- removing from the flow of material to be treated cellulosic components and textile components (Page 36 line 25-Page 37 line 4);
- removing from the flow of material to be treated foreign bodies with dimensions smaller than a predefined minimum value (Page 29 lines 3-10);
- reducing the particle size of the material to be treated to a predefined value (Page 28 lines 23-28); and
- removing metal fragments from the flow of material to be treated (Page 30 lines 3-5);
the method further comprises the steps of:
- removing a three-dimensional polyolefin fraction (Fig. 1 ‘PS’), comprising polyolefin fragments with bulk density higher than a predefined threshold value (Page 30 lines 12-16); and
-making available a two-dimensional polyolefin fraction (Fig. 1 ‘FS’), comprising polyolefin fragments with bulk density lower than the predefined threshold value (Page 30 lines 12-16),
wherein the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction comprises polyolefins (Page 34 lines 23-25), a percentage of less than 20% of extruded polystyrene and a percentage of less than 2% of metal fragments and/or foreign bodies (Page 35 lines 1-13).
Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching - removing from the flow of material to be treated heavy fractions comprising fragments having density higher than a predefined threshold value.
Miller et al. (US 7810646) teaches a method for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Col. 2 lines 36-54), comprising - removing from the flow of material to be treated heavy fractions (Fig. 3 #70 removing #76 from flow of materials) comprising fragments having density higher than a predefined threshold value (Col. 4 lines 45-50).
Miller et al. (US 7810646) explains that the heavier waste material can include rocks, concrete, food waste, wood, or any other type of material that has a relatively heavier weight than the recyclable materials (Col. 3 lines 18-20), and explains that the majority of the recyclable items are included in the lighter waste material (Col. 3 lines 29-34).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include removing from the flow of material to be treated heavy fractions comprising fragments having density higher than a predefined threshold value as taught by Miller et al. (US 7810646) in order to separate lighter weight materials, which include the majority of the recyclable items, from heavier materials, which may include rocks, concrete, food waste, wood, etc.
Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching wherein, after the steps of removing the macroscopic metal fragments, removing the non-polyolefin polymers, removing the cellulosic components and the textile components, removing the foreign bodies, removing the heavy fractions, and reducing the particle size of the material to be treated, the method further comprises the steps of: - removing a three-dimensional polyolefin fraction.
Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) however states that the steps or acts may be conducted in any suitable order, and the steps or acts may be conducted by different equipment, at different times, and/or at different sites (Page 45 lines 12-16).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include wherein, after the steps of removing the macroscopic metal fragments, removing the non-polyolefin polymers, removing the cellulosic components and the textile components, removing the foreign bodies, removing the heavy fractions, and reducing the particle size of the material to be treated, the method further comprises the steps of: - removing a three-dimensional polyolefin fraction, as Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) explains that the order of steps is merely a matter of engineering design choice, and thus does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d.553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667), in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646), legal precedent and further in view of Desender (WO 2019008094).
Regarding claim 11, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching the method according to claim 10, further comprising preliminary steps of:
- providing bales of compacted polymer-based waste deriving from the separate collection of plastics;
- opening the bales so as to obtain a mass of loose raw waste; and
- treating the mass of loose raw waste so as to make available a pre-treated loose waste mass containing a mixture of polymers and a percentage of metal fragments and other foreign bodies comprised within 30% by weight of the total.
Desender (WO 2019008094) teaches a method for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Page 1 lines 4-6), further comprising preliminary steps of:
- providing bales of compacted polymer-based waste deriving from the separate collection of plastics (Fig. 12A ‘baled input’, Page 32 lines 21-24);
- opening the bales so as to obtain a mass of loose raw waste (Fig. 12A ‘Bale splitter’); and
- treating the mass of loose raw waste so as to make available a pre-treated loose waste mass containing a mixture of polymers and a percentage of metal fragments and other foreign bodies comprised within 30% by weight of the total (Fig. 12A ‘Overband magnet’ removes metal fragments, Fig. 5A see mass balance information of ‘Plastics’).
Desender (WO 2019008094) explains that an overall integrated process is shown, wherein baled MSW and loose input MSW can be provided as two or more separate streams as an initial feed of MSW into the system (Page 32 lines 21-24), and other units and their specific integration as shown in Fig. 12A are used to separate the mixed waste into certain fractions/streams (Page 32 lines 21-31). Desender (WO 2019008094) additionally explains that the magnetic separation step is used for separating ferro and non-ferro materials from the main stream, and the main stream from which recyclable metals have been removed can then be subject to additional separation operations (Page 18 lines 8-16).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include preliminary steps of: - providing bales of compacted polymer-based waste deriving from the separate collection of plastics; - opening the bales so as to obtain a mass of loose raw waste; and - treating the mass of loose raw waste so as to make available a pre-treated loose waste mass containing a mixture of polymers and a percentage of metal fragments and other foreign bodies comprised within 30% by weight of the total as taught by Desender (WO 2019008094) in order to provide baled waste to the system and separate the mixed waste into certain fractions/streams which can then be subject to additional separation operations.
Regarding claim 12, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the step of removing the three- dimensional polyolefin fraction is carried out by passing the flow of material to be treated through an ascending air flow that drags the two-dimensional polyolefin fragments with it (Page 30 lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 14, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching the method according to claim 12, further comprising steps of:
- subjecting the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction to pyrolysis in order to obtain pyrolytic oil; and
- subjecting the pyrolytic oil to thermal cracking for the production of regenerated plastic monomers.
Desender (WO 2019008094) teaches a method for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Page 1 lines 4-6), further comprising steps of:
- subjecting the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction to pyrolysis in order to obtain pyrolytic oil (Fig. 2 #40, Page 19 lines 16-20), and
- subjecting the pyrolytic oil to thermal cracking for the production of regenerated plastic monomers (Fig. 2 #44, Page 19 lines 16-34).
Desender (WO 2019008094) explains that a plastics to fuel conversion takes place to produce paraffin and other hydrocarbons that can be obtained for use as-is or for use as base material in the petrochemical industry, for example in producing jet fuel (Page 19 lines 12-15).
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include - subjecting the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction to pyrolysis in order to obtain pyrolytic oil; and
- subjecting the pyrolytic oil to thermal cracking for the production of regenerated plastic monomers as taught by Desender (WO 2019008094) in order to produce products which may be used as-is or as a base material in the petrochemical industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646), legal precedent, Desender (WO 2019008094) and further in view of Trioworld (EP 4059687).
Regarding claim 13, Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) lacks teaching the method according to claim 12, further comprising a step of packaging the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction so that it can be easily stored and/or transported.
Trioworld (EP 4059687) teaches a method for sorting polyolefin-based waste (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), further comprising a step of packaging the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction so that it can be easily stored and/or transported (Fig. 1 #150, Paragraph 0041 lines 1-5).
Trioworld (EP 4059687) explains that the polyethylene flakes may be baled and wrapped in a plastic film, and the bale may be provided with a label for increased traceability (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-12)
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 Priesters et al. (WO 2024012667) to include a step of packaging the two-dimensional polyolefin fraction so that it can be easily stored and/or transported as taught by Trioworld (EP 4059687) in order to provide a labeled, traceable bale to downstream processes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miller et al. (US 7810646).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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