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 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 1-17 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.
With regard to claim 1, the phrase “having g a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 5-14 with respect to polycarbonate” cause the scope of the claims unclear. Hansen solubility parameters are generally understood to be intrinsic properties of compounds. However, the claims do not explain how the HSP value is determined “with respect to polycarbonate” nor do the claims specify a method for determining whether a given compound satisfies the recited HSP range relative to polycarbonate. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether a given compound falls within the scope of the claims, thereby rendering the claims indefinite. Note claims 2-17 are dependent on claim 1.
In view of the lack of clarity discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the following rejection under 35 USC § 103 is made assuming, that the claim 1 is sufficiently definite for purposes of determining obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210067555A see abstract and pages 6-8.
Claim 1 is directed to a recycling process of a waste plastics, comprising: preparing a first solution by dissolving a waste plastic in an organic solvent; adding an adsorbent to the first solution; recrystallizing a plastic by adding 60 parts by weight or more of a compound having a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 5 to 14 with respect to polycarbonate based on 100 parts by weight a total weight of the first solution; and collecting the recrystallized plastic.
KR20210067555A discloses a method for regenerating a crystal filtrate after recovering BHET crystals during a waste plastic chemical recycling process and reusing the same. More specifically, the reference provides a method for chemical recycling of waste plastics comprising the following steps: depolymerizing waste PET in a reaction solvent to produce a depolymerization solution containing BHET; crystallizing BHET in the depolymerization solution, separating and recovering BHET crystals, and obtaining a crystal filtrate; and removing impurities from the crystal filtrate to obtain a regenerated crystal filtrate. Thus, the method includes introducing waste plastic into a depolymerization reactor together with a reaction solvent and depolymerization catalyst, and performing the depolymerization reaction at elevated temperature to obtain a depolymerization. See page 1 lines 5-12 and page 8 lines 1-8, page 6 lines 18-22.
KR20210067555A expressly discloses that the reaction solvent is not particularly limited and that polyhydric alcohols may be used as the reaction solvent, including ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, propylene glycol and butanediols. See page 6 lines 23-26.
Further, the reference teaches that the depolymerization solution is subjected to cooling to induce crystallization of the directed product, followed by solid liquid separation to recover crystals and obtain a crystal filtrate. See page 8 lines 4-8 and lines 9-14.
The reference discloses that crystallization temperature may be selected within a broad range, and that maintaining the solution within a selected temperature range improves crystallization efficiency and separation performance. See page 8 lines 15-19.
Lastly the reference discloses impurities may be removed from the crystal filtrate using adsorption with activated carbon and ion exchange resins, and that the regenerated reaction solution may be reused in subsequent depolymerization reactions. See page 9 lines 13-19 and page 10 lines 1-19. Thus, the reference specifically teaches that reaction solvents for glycolysis and crystallization are not limited.
KR20210067555A does not disclose that the claims’ recrystallization step is defined as adding a compound having a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 5-14 with respect to polycarbonate, and a minimum amount ( > 60 parts by weight) of that compound is specified. KR20210067555A does not explicitly disclose the Hansen solubility parameters or the specific minimum amount.
However, the use of a Hansen solubility parameter to characterize solubility compatibility is known in the art and solvent selection and adjustments based on solubility compatibility are routinely performed depending on the process requirements. See page 6 lines 23-26 and page 8 lines 4-8. The use of a Hansen solubility parameter range is a known way to characterize solvent compatibility with a polymer, and selecting a solvent having suitable compatibility would have been an obvious designed choice in view of the reference’s disclosure. See page 6 lines 23-26 and page 8 lines 15-19.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and add a compound having an appropriate solubility compatibility with polycarbonate and to adjust its amount to a level induce recrystallization of the plastic, in view of the reference teaching that solvent composition and quantity may be selected to control crystallization behavior. Page 8 lines 2-3.
Claim 2 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, further comprising, after the preparing of the first solution, performing a filtration.
KR20210067555A discloses crystallizing polymer derived material from a solution and separation and recovering the crystallized material using conventional solid-liquid separation techniques and teaches removing undissolved solids and impurities from the depolymerization or dissolution solution by filtration using filters or equivalent solid-liquid separation methods. See page 7 lines 25-28 and page 8 lines 27-28. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform filtration of the prepared solution since it is routine purification in solvent based polymer recycling processes as taught by the reference.
Claim 3 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, further comprising, after adding of the adsorbent to the first solution, removing the adsorbent.
KR20210067555A discloses separating adsorbents such as activated carbon from the solution after impurity removal using filtration or centrifugation. See page 8 lines 13-26 and page 9 lines 15-20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the adsorbent after adsorption since the reference teaches such.
Claim 4 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the recrystallized plastic is polycarbonate.
KR20210067555A broadly discloses recycling of waste plastics and polymer derived materials including engineering plastics suitable for solvent dissolution and crystallization process. See page 6 lines 18-27.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the disclosed recycling process to polycarbonate since polycarbonate is a known solvent processable plastic that would have been understood to fall within the scope of the reference.
Claim 5 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is a cyclic ether-based solvent, a linear or cyclic carbonate-based solvent, or a hydrocarbon solvent having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, and one or more halogens.
KR20210067555A discloses that the reaction solvents are not particularly limited and that various organic solvents may be selected depending on solubility and process requirements. See page 7 lines 23-28.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a cyclic ether based, carbonate based or hydrocarbon solvent as a routine solvent selection within the b broadly defined scope of the references.
Claim 6 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the compound having a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 5 to 14 with respect to polycarbonate is a hydrocarbon compound comprising one or more selected from an alcohol, a ketone, an ether, a cycloalkane, ester, a carboxylic acid or a nitrile group.
KR20210067555A discloses selecting organic solvents and compounds based on solubility compatibility with the polymer. See page 7 lines 23-28 and page 8 lines 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compounds comprising alcohol, ketone, ether, ester, carboxylic acid, or nitrile functionality in view of the considerations taught by the reference.
Claim 7 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the adsorbent is activated carbon; activated carbon pretreated with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid; acid clay; diatomaceous earth; zeolite; silica gel; alumina; magnesium silicate (MgO3Si) or an ion exchange resin, or a combination thereof.
KR20210067555A discloses explicitly using activated carbonate and ion exchange resins for impurity removal. See page 8 lines 13-26, page 9 lines 15-20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ such since the reference discloses such materials.
Claim 8 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the adsorbent comprises activated carbon, acid clay and magnesium silicate (MgO3Si).
KR20210067555A discloses using multiple adsorbent materials alone or in combination to remove impurities. See page 8 lines 13-26
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a combination of activated carbon, acid clay and magnesium silicate as the adsorbent, since the selection and combination of multiple adsorbents to improve impurity removal is commonly practiced in the art as taught by the refernece.
Claim 9 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the adsorbent is added in an amount of 0.5 parts by weight or more and 8 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the first solution.
KR20210067555A discloses that the amount of adsorbent used for impurity removal may be selected and adjusted based on the impurity content of the solution and the desired purification efficiency. See page 8 lines 13-26.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the adsorbent amount within the claimed range of 0.5 parts by weight or more and 8 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the first solution, since adsorbent amount is variable and routinely optimized.
Claim 10 is directed to the recycling process of claim 8, wherein the adsorbent comprises, based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the first solution: 0.5 parts by weight to 3 parts by weight of the activated carbon, 0.5 parts by weight to 4 parts by weight of the acid clay, and 0.5 parts by weight to 2 parts by weight of the magnesium silicate (MgO3Si).
KR20210067555A discloses that impurity removal efficiency may be controlled by adjusting the type and relative amounts of adsorbent materials used in the solution. See page 8 lines 13-26.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative proportions of activated carbon, acid clay and magnesium silicate within the claimed ranges as varying the ratios of known adsorbents is a routine optimization.
Claim 11 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the waste plastic is included in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 20 parts by weight, and the organic solvent is included in an amount of 80 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the first solution.
KR20210067555A discloses forming a first solution by dissolving waste plastic in an organic solvent at relative weight ratios selected to achieve sufficient dissolution of the plastic. See page 6 lines 18-27 and page 7 lines 12-18.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the relative amounts of waste plastic and organic solvent See page 8 lines 1-8.
Claim 12 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the compound having a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 5 to 14 with respect to polycarbonate is included in an amount of 80 parts by weight to 90 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the first solution.
KR20210067555A discloses that crystallization behavior is controlled by solvent composition and solvent amount during recrystallization. See page 8 lines. 1-8
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of the compound within the claimed range having a Hansen solubility parameter of 5-14 to induce recrystallization, as solvent amount is a variable for crystallization control.
Claim 13 is directed to the recycling process of claim 3, wherein the removing of the adsorbent is performed by using a filter comprising a network structure having a maximum diameter of 0.45 pm or more and 1 pm or less.
KR20210067555A discloses removing adsorbents from a solution after impurity adsorption using filtration or other solid-liquid separation techniques. See page 8 lines 13-26.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a filtration medium having a pore size selected to retain the adsorbent while allowing the solution to pass, as pore size selection is a routine engineering choice.
Claim 14 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein a weight percentage of waste plastics relative to the total weight of the first solution is 20 wt% or less, and a weight percentage of the recrystallized plastic relative to the total weight of the first solution is 20 wt% or less.
KR20210067555A discloses controlling the concentration of waste plastic and dissolved or recrystallized plastic in soliton to maintain stable dissolution and recrystallization processing. See page 6 lines 18-27 and page 8 lines 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the claimed weight percents of waste plastic and recycled plastic relative to the total solution as concentration control is a conventional process parameter.
Claim 15 is directed to a method for preparing a recyclable plastic, the method comprising the recycling process of claim 1.
KR20210067555A discloses recovering recrystallized plastic as a useful output of the recycling process after crystallization and separation. See page 8 lines 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recycled plastic produced by the process as a recyclable plastic material as the intended use follows directly from the recycling process.
Claim 16 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is one or more selected from tetrahydrofuran, propylene carbonate, methylene carbonate or ethylene chloride.
KR20210067555A discloses that the organic solvent used for dissolving the waste plastic is not particularly limited and may be selected from known solvent options suitable for dissolving polycarbonate, as solvent selection is a routine design choice based on solubility. See page 7 lines 23-28.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a specific organic solvent from known solvent options suitable for dissolving polycarbonate, as solvent selection is a routine design choice based on solubility.
Claim 17 is directed to the recycling process of claim 1, wherein the compound having a Hansen solubility parameter (HSP) of 5 to 14 with respect to polycarbonate is ethanol, acetone, ethyl acetate or acetonitrile.
KR20210067555A discloses selecting compounds for recrystallization based on their solubility characteristics with respect to the polymer being recrystallized. See page 8 lines 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound having a Hansen solubility parameter of 5 to 14 capable of inducing recrystallization of polycarbonate, as choosing a specific compound within a known functional class based on solubility is a routine optimization.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765