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 Interpretation
The term “fully saturated” in claim 1 item b) ii) is given the meaning set forth in the specification- “the compound (typically organic compound) does not have any double or triple bonds, i.e. all bonds present in the molecule are single (sigma) bonds” (submitted specification p.4 bottom of page to p.5).
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.
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) 1-5, 7-12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230219261 by Hawkett et al as evidenced by Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients of Simple Organic Compounds” by Sangster.
Hawkett describes a process for recycling.
Regarding claim 1, Hawkett describes:
a) providing a recycled polyolefin containing volatile organic compounds (e.g. HDPE paragraph 107, 111, 118, 120) wherein the description “dirty milk bottle” in paragraph 111, for example, reads on the presence of volatile organic compounds because volatile organic compounds are present in waste milk.
b) contacting the recycled polyolefin with an emulsion comprising:
i) an aqueous phase with base (paragraph 100-102) wherein the base can be present in an amount corresponding with a pH of 7-14 (e.g. little to no base= pH7; 1M NaOH as disclosed in paragraphs 100 and 101= pH 14).
ii) an organic phase consisting essentially of a solvent, for example those listed in paragraph 96. Many of these read on the instant claims, for example pentane, hexane, heptane, cyclopentane, cyclohexane are all fully saturated organic solvents with log P values in the claimed range. Compare the list in paragraph 96 to “Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients of Simple Organic Compounds” by Sangster, a piece of non-patent literature previously provided by applicant.
c) removing the aqueous phase and organic phase from the polyolefin (paragraph 27, 33, 34 drying the washed substrate layer)
d) recovering the washing solution (paragraph 35)
Regarding the term “emulsion”, Hawkett’s description reads on this term because he describes an aqueous solution which is mixed with immiscible solvent (paragraph 94; e.g. solvents in paragraph 96 pentane, hexane, heptane, cyclopentane, cyclohexane immiscible with water). Furthermore Hawkett describes the presence of surfactants (paragraph 30) which stabilize emulsions’ characteristic fine droplets.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the instant invention given Hawkett’s disclosure because he describes embodiments which read on the instant claim, as described above.
Regarding claim 2, Hawkett describes flakes (paragraph 68, 77).
Regarding claim 3, Hawkett describes an embodiment in which the washing happens at room temperature (heating after washing paragraph 93). See also wash temperature 70C in Example 5 (paragraph 114) and 90C in Example 10 (paragraph 119).
Regarding claim 4, Hawkett exemplifies 30 minutes (paragraph 108, 109, 119).
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Hawkett describes ratios in which water is in the majority, i.e. water is the continuous phase, an oil-in-water emulsion. See paragraph 103 for amount of water and paragraph 99 for amount of solvent, which may be for example 80:20 to 95:5.
Regarding claim 7, Hawkett describes linear alkanes such as hexane, heptane and pentane (paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 8, Hawkett describes mechanical mixing (stirring) (paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 9, Hawkett describes rinsing the layer (flake) after washing treatment and drying the recycled polyolefin (paragraph 33, 34).
Regarding claim 10, Hawkett describes recovering (recycling) the aqueous phase (paragraph 35, 111).
Regarding claim 11, Hawkett describes post-consumer waste, e.g. used milk bottles (paragraph 107-108).
Regarding claim 12, although Hawkett does not explicitly disclose that his invention is “for the at least partial removal of volatile organic compounds”, his invention is capable of doing so merely by the steps and components involved. The “at least partial removal of volatile organic compounds” is an intended use and Hawkett meets these by reciting components capable of doing so. Furthermore, the presence of at least some volatile organics in the “dirty milk bottle flake” (paragraph 111).
Regarding claim 16, Hawkett describes shredding (paragraph 107, 18) prior to the wash.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Hawkett, the closest prior art, used in rejection above, does not describe values associated with a water-in-oil emulsion (paragraph 99, 103).
Regarding claim 13, Hawkett does not describe the presence of hydrophilic or hydrophobic volatile organic compounds with sufficient specificity to determine whether his process meets the instant claim.
Other close yet inapplicable art is WO 2017148866 by Kolijn. Kolijn describes a similar cleaning process for recyclable plastic material, yet Kolijn describes the organic phase in the emulsion as a fatty acid ester (p.1 ln 30). According to the instant definition of “fully saturated organic solvent”, a fatty acid ester does not read on this aspect of the instant claim because it has a double bond. There is insufficient motivation to change or add to the organic phase of Kolijn and arrive at the instant independent claim.
Copending application 18848663 is also similar to the instant claims but is not a case of double patenting. The copending application describes polyethylene glycol as an organic component and lacks the description of an emulsion; polyethylene glycol is soluble in water so is unlikely to create an emulsion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights