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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 4/6/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the amendment of ¶ 119 changing “the depolymerization solution” to “the resulting solution”. No basis for the amendment is found. Therefore, the amendment constitutes new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-10 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 1 indicates the method has “typical green and low-carbon characteristics”. The scope of the claim is unclear as to what does or does not constitute “typical” characteristics are not defined by the claims or the specification. The term “low-carbon” is also relative, the degree of which is not defined by the claim or the specification. Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. Removal of the terminology “with typical green and low-carbon characteristics” is suggested.
As claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim 8 indicates the depolymerization catalyst comprises one or more of various species. However, claim 1 already provides a listing of species of depolymerization catalysts (see “wherein the depolymerization catalyst comprises one or more of a titanate nanotube, titanium phosphate, titanium dioxide, butyl titanate, titanium glycolate, or titanium butanediol”). Some of the species listed within claim 1 are repeated in claim 8; others are new; and yet others are omitted. It is unclear what is meant or implied by the additional listing of claim 8 (are they meant to be additional catalyst(s)? A listing of different catalysts for another purpose?). Accordingly, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
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) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (J. Appl. Poly. Sci.) in view of Tamada (US 2005/0096482 A1), Parrott (US 2018/0319950 A1), and Honda (JP2010-242016A). 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, and 6, Chen teaches methods of depolymerizing poly(ethylene terephthalate) under microwave irradiation (Abstract) comprising adding PET particles to ethylene glycol (polyol) and reacting/dissolving the PET with depolymerization catalyst under microwave conditions under an inert (nitrogen) atmosphere to obtain BHET depolymerization product (“Glycolysis Reaction” of Page 2810). The PET starting material is from consumed soft drink bottles (“Materials”), construed as waste PET. The reaction takes place in a round bottom flask / reflex condenser assembly with no indication of a sealed/pressurized vessel. It is therefore implied depolymerization occurs under normal pressure. Chen teaches temperatures such as 150 and 170 degrees C and timeframes spanning 10-35 minutes (Figure 5). Chen reports the temperature is controlled/maintained to within +/- 3 degrees C (“Glycolysis Reaction” of Page 2810), which overlaps the +/- 2 degrees C range 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 Chen suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Chen. See MPEP 2123.
Chen teaches at the end of the reaction, BHET is purified/removed from the polyol solvent via filtration (“Glycolysis Reaction” of Page 2810). Chen teaches oligomers are removed, which are deemed to be by-products that are also removed. The BHET can be re-used/polymerized to create new polyesters (Page 2809, Right Column). Chen differs from the subject matter claimed in that 1) titanium catalyst is not used, 2) microwave absorbent is not described, and 3) a particular microwave protocol of re-creating polyester from BHET is not described.
With respect to catalyst, Chen teaches the use of zinc acetate as catalyst (“Glycolysis Reaction” of Page 2810). Tamada also describes processes involving depolymerizing waste PET and producing new polyesters therefrom using microwaves (Abstract; Examples 7 and 8). Tamada teaches several catalysts are known for depolymerization, inclusive of titanium alkoxides such as tetrabutoxytitanate (TBT), tetraisopropoxytitanate (TPT) and tetraethoxytitanate; and zinc organic acid salts such as zinc acetate (¶ 24). In view of such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute zinc acetate with titanium alkoxides such as tetrabutoxytitanate (TBT), tetraisopropoxytitanate (TPT) and tetraethoxytitanate, and thereby predictably afford workable methods of depolymerizing polyesters as taught by Tamada. TBT is synonymous with butyl titanate. Alternatively, since the titanium alkoxides are heated in glycol solvent under ester exchange conditions, the in-situ formation of titanium glycolate would naturally arise.
With respect to microwave absorbent, Parrott also pertains to methods of depolymerizing polyesters with microwaves (Abstract) and notes the further inclusion of microwave absorber facilitates the reactions with more energy efficiency (¶ 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the microwave absorbers of Parrott within the systems of Chen because doing so would increase energy efficiency as taught by Parrott.
With respect to further esterification steps S3 and S4, Honda teaches it was known in the art polyester condensation can also be performed using microwave chemistry (Abstract; Claims). The use of microwaves provides energy-savings due to shortened reaction times (¶ 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-polymerize the recovered monomers of Chen with the methods of Honda because doing so would facilitate the creation of new polyester products in an energy-efficient manner as taught by Honda.
Honda teaches embodiments where terephthalic acid (“binary acid”), ethylene glycol (“chain extender”), and bis(hydroxyethyl)terephthalate (BHET; same monomer produced by Chen) are reacted under microwave conditions to produce an esterification product, which is subsequently mixed with catalyst and phosphorus-containing stabilizer and condensation polymerized under vacuum conditions to yield polyester (¶ 64-65). One or more polyol components, such as ethylene glycol and trimethylolpropane (“polyol”), can be used (¶ 18). A catalyst can also be used in the microwave reaction (¶ 25).
With respect to the inert atmosphere within Honda, although Honda does not explicitly recite the presence of an inert atmosphere, Parrott also pertains to methods involving chemical reactions with microwaves (Abstract) and notes it was known in the art such reactions can be performed at atmospheric or elevated pressure, either under air or in an inert atmosphere (¶ 13). It view of such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the air atmosphere of the prior art with nitrogen, and thereby predictably afford the workable depolymerization/repolymerization of polyesters in accordance with the teachings of Parrott.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Chen teaches above 0 to 2 wt% of catalyst relative to weight of polyester (Figure 4) and instances where the PET:EG mass ratio is 1:(3-7) (Figure 3). 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 Chen suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Chen. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 7, Parrott teaches microwave absorbers such as sodium chloride (¶ 20).
Regarding Claim 8, Tamada teaches several catalysts are known for depolymerization, inclusive of titanium alkoxides such as tetrabutoxytitanate (TBT), tetraisopropoxytitanate (TPT) and tetraethoxytitanate (¶ 24), construed as butyl titanate and ethyl titanate.
Regarding Claim 9, Honda teaches various organic phosphite stabilizers (¶ 34).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (J. Appl. Poly. Sci.) in view of Tamada (US 2005/0096482 A1), Parrott (US 2018/0319950 A1), Honda (JP2010-242016A), and Kappe (“Practical Microwave Synthesis for Organic Chemists”). 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 Chen, Tamada, Parrott, and Honda within ¶ 12-22 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches powers of 500-1000 W being used (Figure 2). While not indicating what frequency is used, Kappe teaches practically all commercial microwave instruments operate at 2.45 GHz so as to not to interfere with telecommunications equipment (Page 200). 2.45 GHz corresponds to a wavelength of roughly 122 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a wavelength of 2.45 GHz / 122 mm because doing so would avoid interfering with telecommunications equipment as taught by Kappe.
Regarding Claim 10, Honda teaches microwave powers spanning 1-5 kW and times spanning 15-150 min (Table 1 and ¶ 22). While not specifically describing reactions using temperatures/times/powers within the specified ranges, it is known in the art that such are result effective variables subject to routine optimization with respect to microwave reactions (Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 of Kappe). 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 workable or optimal reaction temperatures, timeframes, and microwave powers within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired reaction characteristics.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga (US 2009/0318579 A1) in view of Kappe (“Practical Microwave Synthesis for Organic Chemists”), Parrott (US 2018/0319950 A1), and Honda (JP2010-242016A). 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, and 6, Ikenaga teaches methods of preparing recycled polyesters via depolymerizing polyester with microwaves to recover depolymerization product (Abstract; Examples). Ikenaga teaches examples where waste PET is added to ethylene glycol (polyol solvent) and titanium dioxide catalyst and reacted/dissolved with microwaves in an open container (i.e. normal pressure) for 30 minutes to obtain a depolymerization product (¶ 138, 41). Purification is performed via removing the polyol solvent by distillation to obtain BHET depolymerization monomer (¶ 138). Embodiments are taught where unreacted PET (deemed a by-product) is removed by purification (Table 2). Ikenaga differs from the subject matter claimed in that 1) depolymerization temperature / inert conditions / microwave absorbent are not described and 2) re-polymerization of recovered BHET to form new polyester is not described.
With respect to microwave depolymerization parameters, Kappe teaches general knowledge concepts regarding microwaves for use within organic synthesis. Kappe teaches microwave reaction temperatures are known to be critical toward successful reactions, desirable reaction timeframes, and yield (section 5.2.3 and 5.2.5) and thus, indicates the temperature of reacting to be a known result effective variable. 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 workable or optimal reaction temperatures within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired reaction timeframes and yields.
With respect to temperature variance, Kappe teaches it was known in the art microwave instrumentation/software are capable of achieving/monitoring/maintaining reaction temperatures with excellent control (Section 5.2.4; e.g. Figure 5.5). Kappe teaches without maintaining a temperature program, the quality of reaction control is compromised, overheating may result, and reproducibility in results is diminished (Sections 5.1 and 5.2.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize temperature control software, such that the temperature fluctuations are 2 degrees C or less, because doing so would maintain reaction control, prevent overheating, and increase reproducibility as taught by Kappe.
With respect to further esterification steps S3 and S4, Honda teaches it was known in the art polyester condensation can also be performed using microwave chemistry (Abstract; Claims). The use of microwaves provides energy-savings due to shortened reaction times (¶ 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-polymerize the recovered monomers of Ikenaga with the methods of Honda because doing so would facilitate the creation of new polyester products in an energy-efficient manner as taught by Honda.
Honda teaches embodiments where terephthalic acid (“binary acid”), ethylene glycol (“chain extender”), and bis(hydroxyethyl)terephthalate (BHET; same monomer produced by Ikenaga) are reacted under microwave conditions to produce an esterification product, which is subsequently mixed with catalyst and phosphorus-containing stabilizer and condensation polymerized under vacuum conditions to yield polyester (¶ 64-65). One or more polyol components, such as ethylene glycol and trimethylolpropane (“polyol”), can be used (¶ 18). A catalyst can also be used in the microwave reaction (¶ 25).
With respect to microwave absorbent, Parrott also pertains to methods of depolymerizing polyesters with microwaves (Abstract) and notes the further inclusion of microwave absorber facilitates the reactions with more energy efficiency (¶ 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the microwave absorbers of Parrott within the systems of Ikenaga because doing so would increase energy efficiency as taught by Parrott.
With respect to inert atmospheres, although Ikenaga/Honda do not utilize an inert atmosphere, Parrott also pertains to methods involving chemical reactions with microwaves (Abstract) and notes it was known in the art such reactions can be performed at atmospheric or elevated pressure, either under air or in an inert atmosphere (¶ 13). It view of such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the air atmosphere of the prior art with nitrogen, and thereby predictably afford the workable depolymerization/repolymerization of polyesters in accordance with the teachings of Parrott.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Ikenaga teaches catalyst is used in amounts spanning 0.1-20 pbw relative to 100 pbw polyester (¶ 96), equivalent to 0.1-20 wt%. The weight ratio between polyester and reaction polyol is 1: (1-50) (¶ 103). The disclosed ranges overlap the ranges 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 Ikenaga suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Ikenaga. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 5, Ikenaga uses a reactor emitting a 2.45 GHz microwave frequency at a power ranging from 0-700 W (¶ 136). 2.45 GHz corresponds to a wavelength of roughly 122 mm. The disclosed power range overlaps that 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 Ikenaga suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Ikenaga. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 7, Parrott teaches microwave absorbers such as sodium chloride (¶ 20).
Regarding Claim 9, Honda teaches various organic phosphite stabilizers (¶ 34).
Regarding Claim 10, Honda teaches microwave powers spanning 1-5 kW and times spanning 15-150 min (Table 1 and ¶ 22). While not specifically describing reactions using temperatures/times/powers within the specified ranges, it is known in the art that such are result effective variables subject to routine optimization with respect to microwave reactions (Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 of Kappe). 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 workable or optimal reaction temperatures, timeframes, and microwave powers within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired reaction characteristics.
Related Prior Art
Espinosa-Lopez (Polymer Bulletin 2019, 76, 2931-2944) also describes protocols involving the creation of polyesters using microwave synthesis.
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