Patent Application 17768992 - PROCESS FOR A PLASTIC PRODUCT CONVERSION - Rejection

Patent Application 17768992 - PROCESS FOR A PLASTIC PRODUCT CONVERSION

Title: PROCESS FOR A PLASTIC PRODUCT CONVERSION

Application Information

• Invention Title: PROCESS FOR A PLASTIC PRODUCT CONVERSION
• Application Number: 17768992
• Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-14T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-04-14T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 252
• National Sub-Class: 373000
• Examiner Employee Number: 99930
• Art Unit: 1736
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0018113🔗
• US 0199469🔗
• US 0145519🔗

Office Action Text

    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
Claims 3, 12, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, lines 1-2, “the moulded product comprising of a powder” should read “the moulded product comprises a powder”.
In Claim 12, lines 1-2, “the waste plastic product is a powder of the waste plastic product is obtained by milling” should read “the waste plastic product is a powder of the waste plastic product obtained by milling”. 
In Claim 13, lines 2-3, “comprises at least two polymers of the following list of polymers
consisting of LDPE” should read “comprises at least two polymers selected from the group consisting of LDPE”. 
In Claim 13, line 4, “PS (Polystyrene); PET (Polyethylene terephthalate)” should read “PS (Polystyrene); and PET (Polyethylene terephthalate)”. 
In Claim 13, lines 4-5, “the powder of the waste plastic product comprises for more than 50 wt% of these list of polymers” should read “the powder of the waste plastic product comprises more than 50 wt% of the list of polymers”. 
In Claim 16, lines 1-2, “wherein at least 90 wt% of the powder of plastic product will pass through a 30 mesh screen” should read “wherein at least 90 wt% of the powder of the plastic product passes through a 30 mesh screen”.
Appropriate correction is required.

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 4, 7, 8, and 14 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the moulded products” in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 1 discloses “a moulded product”.A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product”, and the claim also recites “the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.

Claim 7 recites the limitation “the moulded products” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 1 discloses “a moulded product”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an elongated furnace” in two instances in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear if there is a second elongated furnace claimed. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring one elongated furnace. 
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the elongated reactor” in line 5 and “the reactor” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as Claim 7 discloses “an elongated furnace” in line 2. For purposes of examination, the elongated reactor will be interpreted as the aforementioned elongated furnace. 
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the moulded products” in lines 1 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 1 discloses “a moulded product”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the powder of a plastic product” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “larger plastic product or products” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no reference value, or standard for comparison, for “larger plastic product or products”.
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.


(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohlig et al. (US 2010/0018113 A1). 
Bohlig teaches a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass (Example 5, Paragraph 0234, Pellet Composition: 80% Fiber/20% Plastic; Page 24, Feed Stock #4, 91.8% Newsprint, 2.2% Plastics, 6.0% Yard wastes). Bohlig teaches a process for a biomass product conversion by subjecting a moulded product to a pyrolysis or mild gasification thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a char product (Paragraph 0007, Gasification generates a gaseous, fuel rich product known as synthesis gas (syngas)…pyrolysis also
produces char that consists mainly of carbon or charcoal and ash; Pages 24-25, Feed Stock #4 Gasifier Output). 

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.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.

Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berends et al. (US 2020/0199469 A1) in view of Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). 
With regard to Claim 1, Berends teaches a process for a biomass product conversion by subjecting a moulded product to a pyrolysis or mild gasification thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a char product (Abstract, subjecting the solid biomass feed to a pyrolysis reaction thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a solid fraction comprising of char particles). 
Berends is silent to a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass.
However, Walter teaches a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass (Paragraph 0019, the combined carbonized mixture 24 may include 80-90% carbonized component and 0-20% binder 16 and in some cases may be 5% binder 16). Walter notes that the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass (Paragraph 0015, The combination of a biomass feedstock and carbonized component with an optional binder and/or lubricant can result in a densified biomass which is structurally stable with heating values (energy density) (HHV) in the range of 7,500-11,000 BTU/lb). 
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Berends to have a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass, as taught by Walter, as the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass. 
With regard to Claim 2, Berends teaches the process wherein the gaseous fraction is separated from the char product (Paragraph 0035, A series of two or even more cyclones may be applied to achieve a good separation of the solid char particles and the gaseous fraction). Berends teaches the process wherein the gaseous fraction is subjected to a partial oxidation at a temperature of between 1000 and 1600 C  (Paragraph 0036, The gaseous fraction obtained in step (ii) is subjected to a partial oxidation…at a temperature of between 1000 and 1600 C). Berends teaches the process wherein the gaseous organic compounds as present in the gaseous fraction are converted to hydrogen and carbon monoxide (Paragraph 0036, the C1 and higher hydrocarbons and oxygenates as present in the gaseous fraction are mainly converted to hydrogen and carbon monoxide). 

With regard to Claim 3, Berends teaches a powder of a torrefied biomass (Paragraph 0024, Such pellets are obtained by pressing the torrefied powder into a shape). 
Berends is silent to a powder of a plastic product. 

However, Walter teaches the powder of a plastic product (Paragraph 0031, the binder 16 is a powdered
high density polyethylene ("HDPE")). Berends mentions that a powder enables sufficient mass transport (Paragraph 0024, This is advantageous for mass transport within the pellet while performing the pyrolysis, and especially a slow pyrolysis). Further, Walter notes that the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass (Paragraph 0015, The combination of a biomass feedstock and carbonized component with an optional binder and/or lubricant can result in a densified biomass which is structurally stable with heating values (energy density) (HHV) in the range of 7,500-11,000 BTU/lb).

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Berends to have a powder of a plastic product, as taught by Walter, as a powder enables sufficient mass transport, and the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass.

With regard to Claim 4, Berends is silent to the process wherein the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass and preferably wherein the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product. 

However, Walter teaches the process wherein the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass and preferably wherein the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product (Paragraph 0019, the combined carbonized mixture 24 may include 80-90% carbonized component and 0-20% binder 16 and in some cases may be 5% binder 16). Walter notes that the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass (Paragraph 0015, The combination of a biomass feedstock and carbonized component with an optional binder and/or lubricant can result in a densified biomass which is structurally stable with heating values (energy density) (HHV) in the range of 7,500-11,000 BTU/lb).Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191
USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Berends to teach the process wherein the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass and preferably wherein the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product, as taught by Walter, as the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass.

With regard to Claim 6, Berends teaches the process wherein the pyrolysis or mild gasification is performed at a temperature of between 500 and 800 °C and at a solid residence time of between 10 and 60 minutes (Paragraph 0033, The pyrolysis process in step (i) may also be performed at a temperature of between 500 and 800° C. and at a solid residence time of above 10 minutes and preferably between 10 and 60 minutes). 

With regard to Claim 7, Berends teaches the process wherein the pyrolysis or mild gasification is performed in an elongated furnace wherein the moulded products are continuously transported from a solids inlet at one end of an elongated furnace to a solids outlet at the other end of the elongated furnace (Paragraph 0033, the biomass is continuously transported from an inlet at one end of an elongated, preferably tubular, furnace to an outlet at the other end of the elongated furnace). Berends teaches the process wherein an oxygen comprising gas is supplied to the elongated reactor at two or more axially spaced away positions along the length of the reactor between the solids inlet and the solids outlet (Paragraph 0033, the required temperature is achieved by…a partial oxidation of part of the gaseous fraction as generated in the furnace. The partial oxidation is preferably achieved by
adding an oxygen comprising gas). With regard to Claim 8, Berends teaches the process wherein the moulded products are subjected to a mild gasification wherein the mild gasification is performed in the presence of oxygen and steam and by contacting the moulded products with an oxygen comprising gas (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0049, The solid biomass feed is fed to a rotary kiln furnace 5. To this furnace oxygen is fed via stream 3. In Rotary kiln furnace 5 the required heat is provided by indirect heat exchange using steam 19). 
Berends teaches the process wherein the amount of oxygen is between 0.1 and 0.3 mass oxygen per mass of moulded product (Paragraph 0033, The amount of oxygen fed to the pyrolysis process in step (i) is preferably between 0.1 and 0.3 mass oxygen per mass biomass). 

These rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.

Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berends et al. (WO 2017/160146 A1), herein known as Berends’146, in view of Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Berends’146 teaches a process for a biomass product conversion by subjecting a moulded product to a pyrolysis or mild gasification thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a char product (Page 2, lines 23-27, performing a continuously operated partial oxidation of the solid biomass feed…thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a solid fraction comprising of char particles). 
Berends’146 is silent to a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass.
However, Walter teaches a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass (Paragraph 0019, the combined carbonized mixture 24 may include 80-90% carbonized component and 0-20% binder 16 and in some cases may be 5% binder 16). Walter notes that the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass (Paragraph 0015, The combination of a biomass feedstock and carbonized component with an optional binder and/or lubricant can result in a densified biomass which is structurally stable with heating values (energy density) (HHV) in the range of 7,500-11,000 BTU/lb). 
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Berends’146 to have a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass, as taught by Walter, as the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass. 

With regard to Claim 2, Berends’146 teaches the process wherein the gaseous fraction is separated from the char product (Page 8, lines 21-22, the char particles can be quickly separated from the gaseous fraction). 
Berends’146 teaches the process wherein the gaseous fraction is subjected to a partial oxidation at a temperature of between 1000 and 1600 C  (Page 10, lines 3-5, the gaseous fraction obtained in step (ii) is subjected to a partial oxidation step (iii) at a temperature of between 1100 and 1600 C). 
Berends’146 teaches the process wherein the gaseous organic compounds as present in the gaseous fraction are converted to hydrogen and carbon monoxide (Page 9, lines 23-27, it is possible to convert a considerable amount of the carbon as present in the biomass feed to gaseous hydrocarbons and eventually to the desired hydrogen and carbon monoxide).

With regard to Claim 3, Berends’146 teaches a powder of a torrefied biomass (Page 4, lines 1-4, The solid biomass feed as used in step (i) is suitably a sieve fraction wherein 99 wt% is smaller than 2 mm. Such a particles size is advantageous to enable sufficient mass transport and reaction of the carbon present in the biomass feed in the short residence time of step (i) and to obtain a char product of high quality).
Berends’146 is silent to a powder of a plastic product.  
However, Walter teaches the powder of a plastic product (Paragraph 0031, the binder 16 is a powdered
high density polyethylene ("HDPE")). Berends’146 mentions that a powder enables sufficient mass transport (Page 4, lines 2-3, Such a particles size is advantageous to enable sufficient mass transport). Further, Walter notes that the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass (Paragraph 0015, The combination of a biomass feedstock and carbonized component with an optional binder and/or lubricant can result in a densified biomass which is structurally stable with heating values (energy density) (HHV) in the range of 7,500-11,000 BTU/lb).

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Berends’146 to have a powder of a plastic product, as taught by Walter, as a powder enables sufficient mass transport, and the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass.

With regard to Claim 4, Berends’146 is silent to the process wherein the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass and preferably wherein the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product. 

However, Walter teaches the process wherein the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass and preferably wherein the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product (Paragraph 0019, the combined carbonized mixture 24 may include 80-90% carbonized component and 0-20% binder 16 and in some cases may be 5% binder 16). Walter notes that the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass (Paragraph 0015, The combination of a biomass feedstock and carbonized component with an optional binder and/or lubricant can result in a densified biomass which is structurally stable with heating values (energy density) (HHV) in the range of 7,500-11,000 BTU/lb).Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191
USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Berends’146 to teach the process wherein the moulded products comprise of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass and preferably wherein the moulded products comprise of between 2 and 5 wt% of a plastic product, as taught by Walter, as the addition of a plastic product results in a structurally stable densified biomass.

With regard to Claim 8, Berends’146 teaches the process wherein the moulded products are subjected to a mild gasification wherein the mild gasification is performed in the presence of oxygen and steam and by contacting the moulded products with an oxygen comprising gas (Page 7, lines 20-22, Step (i) is preferably performed by feeding a mixture comprising the solid biomass and a carrier gas to a reactor in which the partial oxidation takes place. Suitable carrier gasses are nitrogen, carbon dioxide, syngas and steam). Berends’146 teaches the process wherein the amount of oxygen is between 0.1 and 0.3 mass oxygen per mass of moulded product (Page 7, lines 17-18, The amount of oxygen fed to step (i) is preferably between 0.1 and 0.3 mass oxygen per mass biomass as fed to step (i)). 

Claims 1, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519 A1). in view of Berends et al. (WO 2017/160146 A1), herein known as Berends’146.
With regard to Claim 1, Walter teaches a moulded product comprising of between 1 and 20 wt% of a plastic product and between 99 and 80 wt% of a torrefied biomass (Paragraph 0019, the combined carbonized mixture 24 may include 80-90% carbonized component and 0-20% binder 16 and in some cases may be 5% binder 16).
Walter is silent to a process for a biomass product conversion by subjecting a moulded product to a pyrolysis or mild gasification thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a char product. 

However, Berends’146 teaches a process for a biomass product conversion by subjecting a moulded product to a pyrolysis or mild gasification thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a char product (Page 2, lines 23-27, performing a continuously operated partial oxidation of the solid biomass feed…thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a solid fraction comprising of char particles). Berends’146 notes that syngas prepared through this process has applications in various chemical processes such as Fischer-Tropsch or methanation (Page 11, lines 1-4, the obtained syngas mixture is used as feedstock in various processes to make chemicals and fuels, such as the Fischer-Tropsch process, methanation process, methanol process, acetic acid
process, ammonia process, DME process, etc.). 

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for Walter to teach a process for a biomass product conversion by subjecting a moulded product to a pyrolysis or mild gasification thereby obtaining a gaseous fraction comprising hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a mixture of gaseous organic compounds and a char product, as taught by Berends’146. Syngas prepared through this process has applications in various chemical processes such as Fischer-Tropsch or methanation.

With regard to Claim 11, Walter teaches a waste plastic product (Paragraph 0018, a plastic such as high density polyethylene (HDPE). The HDPE may be obtained from refuse such as material destined for a landfills (e.g., recycled or re-used)).

With regard to Claim 12, Walter teaches the process wherein the waste plastic product is a powder of the waste plastic product (Paragraph 0031, the binder 16 is a powdered high density polyethylene ("HDPE")).Walter teaches the powder of the waste plastic product obtained by milling (Paragraph 0016, Densification of the combined carbonized mixture 24 in the densifier 22 may be accomplished by any appropriate equipment and/or process such as a cuber, pellet mill, or extruder). Walter teaches a mixture of different waste polymer products (Claim 9, the binder includes at least one chosen from a bio-polymer or non-bio polymer; Paragraph 0018, The binder 16 may be any suitable binder, including without limitation, biopolymers or manmade polymers).  

With regard to Claim 13, Walter teaches one of the polymers selected from the group consisting of LDPE (Low-density polyethylene), HDPE (High-density polyethylene); PP (Polypropylene); PS (Polystyrene); and PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) (Paragraph 0031, the binder 16 is a powdered high density polyethylene ("HDPE")). However, the binder material is not particularly limiting (Paragraph 0018, The binder 16 may be any suitable binder, including without limitation, biopolymers or manmade polymers). Furthermore, Walter discloses that HDPE can be obtained from refuse (Paragraph 0018, The HDPE may be obtained from refuse such as material destined for a landfills (e.g., recycled or re-used)).The other plastics listed in Claim 13 are common in refuse that is recycled or re-used. Page 1, lines 7-10 of the instant specification discloses that the following is admitted prior art: “After the sorted waste collection step, the plastic is taken to first selection and treatment plants; it is then separated from other fractions and impurities and then divided by polymer type. In particular, low- and high-density PET and PE are selected”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a mixture of different waste polymer products comprising at least two polymers selected from the group consisting of LDPE (Low-density polyethylene), HDPE (High-density polyethylene); PP (Polypropylene); PS (Polystyrene); and PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) and wherein the waste plastic product comprises more than 50 wt% of the list of polymers.  “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.I.

With regard to Claim 16, Walter teaches the process wherein at least 90 wt% of the powder of plastic product passes through a 30 mesh screen (Paragraph 0026, In another exemplary embodiment, the densified biomass 18 exhibits a grindability rating resulting in less than a 50-micron average particle size). A 30 mesh screen has openings that are 0.595 mm. Since Walter teaches a less than 50 micron average particle size, the product of Walter is expected to pass through a 30 mesh screen. 
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al. (US 2016/0145519 A1). in view of Berends et al. (WO 2017/160146 A1), herein known as Berends’146, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Timur (EP3028842A1). 
With regard to Claim 14, modified Walter is silent to the powder of a plastic product obtained by cryogenic milling of a larger plastic product or products. 

Timur teaches the powder of a plastic product obtained by cryogenic milling of a larger plastic product or products (Paragraph 0056, CoPA, CoPES, TPU, HDPE, and PP powders were separately prepared and sieved by cryogenically grinding the respective individual CoPA, CoPES, TPU, HOPE, and PP blocks under the influence of liquid nitrogen). Cryogenic milling is carried out at a lower temperature through the use of liquid nitrogen. Therefore, the preparation through cryogenic milling increases reusability of the powder, for instance, for the production of pellets (Paragraph 0015, The lower temperature stress on the plastic powder during the manufacturing process also increases the reusability of the non-sintered material). 

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention for modified Walter to teach the powder of a plastic product obtained by cryogenic milling of a larger plastic product or products, as taught by Timur. The preparation through cryogenic milling increases reusability of the powder for the production of pellets. 

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. 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.





/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736