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 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more polyamide polymers” should be “the one or more polyamide polymers”. 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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites “wherein separating the solubilized portion from the insolubilized portion comprises…”. The terminology “separating the solubilized portion from the insolubilized portion” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
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)(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(s) 1, 14, 16, 21, 42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 2023/0250252 A1).
The Examiner has reviewed priority document CN202010611058.5 of Chang and finds written support for the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, Chang teaches methods of recycling polyamides (Abstract) comprising dissolving polyamide waste material in a phenolic solvent, conducting decolorant treatment via addition of activated carbon, filtering to obtain polyamide solution, and precipitating polyamide (¶ 39). Since Chang teaches decolorization, it is implied the waste polyamide material is a colored polymeric material. Chang indicates the polyamides also contain insoluble materials (¶ 18), thus indicating a mixture of solubilized/insolubilized portions form. Prior to activated carbon treatment, the solubilized fraction contains at least of portion of colorants and the polymer. The treatment of activated carbon is a separation technique that removes a majority of colorants from the solubilized portion.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, Chang teaches solvents with phenol (pKa ~ 10) (¶ 39).
Regarding Claim 42, since claim 42 only further limits the identities of polyester materials within claim 1, Chang’s disclosure of polyamides meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 44, Chang teaches various polyamides such as polyamide 66 (¶ 17, 44).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2023/0250252 A1) in view of Berthold (EP0603434 A1). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The Examiner has reviewed priority document CN202010611058.5 of Chang and finds written support for the citations below.
Chang teaches methods of recycling polyamides (Abstract) comprising dissolving polyamide waste material in a phenolic solvent, conducting decolorant treatment via addition of activated carbon, filtering to obtain polyamide solution, and precipitating polyamide (¶ 39). Since Chang teaches decolorization, it is implied the waste polyamide material is a colored polymeric material. Chang indicates the polyamides also contain insoluble materials (¶ 18), thus indicating a mixture of solubilized/insolubilized portions form. Prior to activated carbon treatment, the solubilized fraction contains at least of portion of colorants and the polymer. The treatment of activated carbon is a separation technique that removes a majority of colorants from the solubilized portion.
Regarding Claim 27, Chang teaches precipitating polyamide via addition of water (¶ 39). Chang differs from the subject matter claimed in that alcohol nonsolvent for precipitation is not described. Berthold also pertains to the purification of waste polyamides via dissolving/filtering/precipitation (¶ 11-13) and teaches both water and short-chain aliphatic alcohols are commonly known precipitation agents of the art (¶ 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute water with short-chain aliphatic alcohols within the protocol of Chang thereby predictably affording purified polyamides in accordance with the teachings of Berthold.
Regarding Claim 30, Chang teaches precipitated polyamide is isolated/dried (¶ 39). Berthold teaches it was well known precipitates are processed according to filtration/gentle drying (¶ 13,15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to isolate precipitates via filtration since such is a conventional known means of the art of predictably affording isolated/dried purified polyamide substrates in accordance with Berthold.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2023/0250252 A1) in view of Berthold (EP0603434 A1) and Yang (U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,726). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Chang and Berthold within ¶ 17-20 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 28 and 29, Berthold teaches short-chain aliphatic alcohols are known nonsolvents for polyamides, but differs with the subject matter claimed in that particular alcohols are not described. Yang also pertains to polyamide purification via solvation/precipitation (Abstract). Yang teaches short-chain aliphatic alcohols such as n-butanol or isopropanol can be used as washing solvents of polyamide in that they can remove residual dye/colorant/solvating agents, but do not solubilize polyamide at low temperatures (Page 8, Lines 32-48; Example 11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize short-chain aliphatic alcohols such as n-butanol or isopropanol as precipitating non-solvents because polyamides are insoluble in such solvents at low temperatures and other soluble residuals can be removed.
Claim(s) 1, 21, 27-30, 42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold (EP0603434 A1) in view of Yang (U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,726). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 21, and 27, Berthold teaches methods of purifying waste polyamides (¶ 9-14) comprising dissolving waste polyamide in solvents such as phenols or cresols, filtering undissolved parts, and then precipitating in non-solvents such as short-chain aliphatic alcohols (¶ 11-13). Berthold teaches the purity of the obtained polyamides are almost identical to that of virgin materials (¶ 18).
Berthold differs from the subject matter claimed in that it is not expressly indicated the waste polyamides have colorant impurities that are removed. A step of removing colorants from a solubilized portion is not described. Yang also pertains to methods of purifying polyamides via dissolving/filtering/precipitation (Abstract; Col. 3, Lines 21-45). Yang teaches colored waste polyamide materials can be purified, whereby upon dissolution of polyamide/colorant in the solvent, the resulting mixture is subjected to various separation techniques to remove the colorants from the solubilized portion, inclusive of extraction, ion exchange, and/or treatment with decolorization agent (Col. 7, Line 60 to Col. 8, Line 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the methods of Yang to the protocols of Berthold when purifying waste colored polyamide materials because doing so would predictably afford the further decoloration/purification of such materials in accordance with the teachings of Berthold/Yang.
Regarding Claims 28 and 29, Berthold teaches short-chain aliphatic alcohols are known nonsolvents for polyamides, but differs with the subject matter claimed in that particular alcohols are not described. Yang also pertains to polyamide purification via solvation/precipitation (Abstract). Yang teaches short-chain aliphatic alcohols such as n-butanol or isopropanol can be used as washing solvents of polyamide in that they can remove residual dye/colorant/solvating agents, but do not solubilize polyamide at low temperatures (Page 8, Lines 32-48; Example 11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize short-chain aliphatic alcohols such as n-butanol or isopropanol as precipitating non-solvents because polyamides are insoluble in such solvents at low temperatures and other soluble residuals can be removed.
Regarding Claim 30, Berthold teaches the precipitates are processed according to filtration/gentle drying (¶ 13,15).
Regarding Claim 42, since claim 42 only further limits the identities of polyester materials within claim 1, Berthold’s disclosure of polyamides meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 44, Berthold teaches various polyamides such as polyamide 6 (¶ 20).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold (EP0603434 A1) in view of Yang (U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,726) and Stefandl (U.S. Pat. No. 5,898,063). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Berthold and Yang within ¶ 25-30 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, Berthold teaches phenols or cresols as solvents (¶ 11), but differs from the subject matter claimed in that preferred species are not disclosed. Stefandl is also directed toward the purification of polyamides via dissolution/filtration/precipitation (Abstract; Claim 1). Stefandl teaches phenolic/cresol solvents are known for dissolving polyamides, such as m-cresol (Col. 4, Lines 25-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize solvents such as m-cresol, because doing so would predictably afford solubilized polyamides for purification as taught by Stefandl. m-cresol has a pKa of roughly 10.2.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 16, 21, 27, 28, 30, 42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidebotham (U.S. Pat. No. 4,003,880) in view of Yang (U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,726).
Regarding Claims 1, 14, 16, and 21, Sidebotham teaches methods of purifying waste polyesters comprising dissolving polyester containing residual dye with solvent, removing undissolved impurities/fibers via filtration, and precipitating the polyester (Abstract; Col. 6, Lines 48-53). Sidebotham indicates after precipitation, residual dye remains in solution (Col. 7, Line 66 to Col. 8, Line 3), indicating the dissolution step results in solubilized portion of residual dye+polymer and insoluble portion. Sidebotham teaches dissolution solvents inclusive of phenol (pKa ~ 10) and m-cresol (pKa ~ 10.2) (Table 1).
Sidebotham differs from the subject matter claimed in that a step of subjecting the solubilized portion to a separation technique to remove majority of colorants and provide a solution of polymer is not described. Yang is also directed toward the purification of waste polymer materials via dissolution/filtration/precipitation (Abstract). Yang teaches colored waste polymeric materials can be purified, whereby upon dissolution of polymer/colorant in the solvent, the resulting mixture can be subjected to various separation techniques to remove the colorants from the solubilized portion, inclusive of extraction, ion exchange, and/or treatment with decolorization agent (Col. 7, Line 60 to Col. 8, Line 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the colorant treatment protocols of Yang within the methods of Sidebotham because doing so would assist in the removal of residual dyes/colorants as taught by Yang.
Regarding Claims 27 and 28, Sidebotham teaches various precipitating nonsolvents can be used such as methanol, ethanol, or 1-butanol (Col. 6, Lines 54-68).
Regarding Claim 30, Sidebotham teaches filtration following precipitation (Col. 8, Lines 4-20).
Regarding Claim 42, Sidebotham teaches various polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate (Col. 8, Line 63 to Col. 9, Line 7).
Regarding Claim 44, since claim 44 only further limits the identities of polyamide materials within claim 1, Sidebotham’s disclosure of polyesters meets the claim.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidebotham (U.S. Pat. No. 4,003,880) in view of Yang (U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,726) and Wiejak (GB1201523A).
The discussion regarding Sidebotham and Yang within ¶ 35-40 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 29, Sidebotham teaches various nonsolvents for polyesters such as low molecular weight aliphatic alcohols and acetone (Col. 6, Lines 54-68). Sidebotham differs from the subject matter claimed in that isopropanol is not described as precipitating solvent. Wiejak describes the solubilization/precipitation of PET polyesters (Page 1). Wiejak teaches various solvents are known precipitating solvents, inclusive of acetone and isopropanol (Page 1, Lines 50-67). In view of the teachings of Wiejak it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute nonsolvents such as acetone with isopropanol, thereby predictably affording the precipitation of polyesters in accordance with the teachings of Wiejak.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759