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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites “at conditions preventing a reaction between the dye and the alcoholic solvent”, which requires that any reaction between dye and alcohol solvent not occur. Claim 25, which depends on claim 1, recites “wherein the prevented reaction includes an esterification and trans-esterification reaction of the dye with the alcoholic solvent”. Claim 1 already requires that any reaction between dye and alcohol solvent not occur. Accordingly, claim 25 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12-17, 19-21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (JP2005-330444A) in view of Mukai (US 2009/0133200 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 19, and 25, Inada teaches methods of removing dye / depolymerizing polyesters (Abstract; Examples) and describes examples where ethylene glycol and waste polyester are combined, extracting dye from polyester into ethylene glycol solvent, separating polyester and ethylene glycol, and then depolymerizing the polyester using NaOH catalyst and ethylene glycol (¶ 80-83). The extractions containing dye can be subjected to activated carbon treatment to separate dye from the ethylene glycol; the ethylene glycol suitable for use again (¶ 41). Inada expressly indicates the dye is extracted with ethylene glycol and does not allude to any chemical reaction taking place between dye and solvent. Note also Inada expressly teaches conditions are such that esterification/trans-esterification reactions with polyester do not occur during the extraction process (¶ 47).
Inada teaches extracting dye into ethylene glycol occurs at temperatures spanning 100-200 degrees C and at ratios spanning 5-50:1 ethylene glycol to polyester (¶ 42-43). The disclosed ranges overlap those claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Inada suggests the claimed ranges. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Inada. See MPEP 2123.
To the extent Inada differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to re-using the recovered ethylene glycol in the depolymerization process, Mukai also pertains to removing dye / depolymerizing polyesters (Abstract; Examples). Mukai teaches it was known in the art recovered/purified ethylene glycol from dye extractions are suitable for various purposes within the waste polyester treatment process, inclusive of the depolymerization step (¶ 40), being economically effective (¶ 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-utilize the purified ethylene glycol of Inada within other parts of the waste polyester treatment process such as the depolymerization step, because doing so would be economically effective as taught by Mukai.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, Inada teaches the ethylene glycol used can be purified via distillation (¶ 41), but differs from the subject matter claimed in that ethylene glycol with dye mixture is not subject to distillation to recover glycol. Mukai teaches it was known in the art alkylene glycol after dye extraction can be purified via distillation to recover glycol in sufficient purity for use in extraction, depolymerization, or polyester synthesis in an economically effective manner (¶ 39-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to purify the dye/glycol mixtures of Inada using the distillation methods of Mukai because doing so would provide glycol in sufficient purity for use in extraction, depolymerization, or polyester synthesis in an economically effective manner as taught by Mukai.
While not providing a numerical percentage for purity, Mukai nevertheless indicates the degree of purity is a result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal/workable glycol purities within the scope of the present claims so as to produce sufficient feedstock for the creation of new, relatively pure, polyesters or to facilitate extraction/depolymerization.
Regarding Claim 4, only ethylene glycol is used in the releasing step (¶ 80-81).
Regarding Claim 12, Inada teaches examples where 100 vol% polyester fabric is used (¶ 80).
Regarding Claim 13, Inada teaches optimum conditions for extraction treatment may vary and one can test/optimize according to the degree of extraction required (¶ 46-47). Thus, Inada indicates the degree of extraction is a result effective variable subject to routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal/workable degrees of extraction within the scope of the present claims so as to optimize material costs, temperatures, and degrees of purity in the materials obtained.
Regarding Claim 14, Inada teaches embodiments where rotating vessel such as Rotocel extraction devices are used (¶ 34-35).
Regarding Claim 15, Inada teaches ethylene glycol is at predefined temperatures upon contact with fibers in extraction vessel (¶ 43, 80).
Regarding Claim 16, Inada teaches embodiments where ethylene glycol is continuously supplied and treated to predefined temperatures (¶ 80), construed as solvent being refreshed.
Regarding Claim 17, Inada teaches embodiments where a multi-stage extraction process is utilized (¶ 34), reading on first and second releasing steps. Inada teaches purified/recovered ethylene glycol can be re-used in extractions (¶ 41).
Regarding Claim 20, Inada teaches embodiments where the waste polymer further comprises polyamide/nylon (¶ 7, 71).
Regarding Claim 21, although Inada does not describe embodiments where polyamide is separated from waste polymer before catalytic decomposition of polyester, Mukai teaches separation of polyamides is difficult after the depolymerization reaction step, and notes polyamide can be removed via dissolution and removal prior to the depolymerization step (¶ 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyamide removal protocol of Mukai within the methods of Inada because doing so would result in easier and effective means of polyamide removal as taught by Mukai. The timeframe described by Mukai suggests embodiments where polyamide is removed subsequent to separating waste polymer from alcohol solvent and prior to depolymerization of polyester.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 11, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (JP2005-330444A) in view of Mukai (US 2009/0133200 A1) and Fang (CN110845761A). As the cited CN and JP publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Inada and Mukai within ¶ 9-22 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 5 and 8, Inada differs from the subject matter claimed in that the protocol for removing dye from extractant does not include solvent-solvent extraction or nanofiltration. Fang also pertains to the depolymerization / removal of impurities of polyesters (¶ 1-2). Fang teaches dye/pigment impurities can be removed from crude diol mixtures via solvent-solvent extraction with a hydrocarbon second solvent capable of forming two liquid phases (i.e. immiscible), after which the resulting glycol mixture is subjected to nanofiltration to ultimately yield a clear mixture where dye/pigment is unobservable (¶ 34, 46-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the extraction/nanofiltation protocol of Fang within the methods of Inada because doing so would predictably and effectively remove extracted dye from the ethylene glycol mixtures of Inada as taught by Fang.
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, Fang teaches various second solvents such as carbon tetrachloride (¶ 34), construed as halogenated alkane. Such a solvent has lower polarity than ethylene glycol.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inada (JP2005-330444A) in view of Mukai (US 2009/0133200 A1) and Castillo (US 2018/0371206 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Inada and Mukai within ¶ 9-22 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 22, Inada differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the use of a functionalized magnetic particle catalyst. Castillo teaches it was known in the art depolymerization of polyesters can take place via using magnetic nanoparticles with catalyst entity (Abstract; ¶ 57-58). The catalysts provide good degredation yields and are easy to separate/recover using magnets (Abstract; ¶ 18, 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the magnetic nanoparticle catalysts of Castillo within the methods of Inada because doing so would promote depolymerization effectively and provide removal of catalyst via magnets as taught by Castillo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues Inada uses extraction temperatures within the examples that exceed the range claimed. This is not found persuasive as Inada expressly teaches temperatures spanning 100-200 degrees C can be used, which overlaps the range claimed.
Applicant also argues Inada and Mukai are not compatible, reasoning Mukai extracts dyes with a mixture of xylene/ethylene glycol whereas Inada uses ethylene glycol and Mukai uses a different ratio. This is not found persuasive as Mukai is not being relied upon for the further inclusion of xylene or for a particular glycol:polyester ratio. Inada and Mukai are analogous art and it is maintained the re-use of recovered ethylene glycol in a depolymerization process would have been obvious in view of the Mukai reference for reasons set forth above.
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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights