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 Objections
Claim 82 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lacks a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 71, 72, 74-77, 80-87, 89, 90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2528494 by Walker.
Walker describes a recycling process.
Regarding claim 71 and 89, Walker describes a process comprising:
a) providing a fabric which may be a blend of polyester (target material) with other material (p.19 paragraph 3) and an undesired material (e.g. dye) (p.21 paragraph 3).
b) providing an organic solvent, for example cyclohexanone (p.21 paragraph 3), but also others reading on the instant claim (p.5 final paragraph)
c) contacting the cyclohexanone with the material and heating for a sufficient time to suspend the undesired dye without dissolving the polyester (p.21 paragraph 3)
d) separating (filtering) the solvent solution comprising the dissolved undesired dye (p.21 paragraph 3)
Regarding claim 72, Walker exemplifies 90-100C during step c) (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 74, Walker describes blends of polyester materials (polyester + dye exemplified p.21 paragraph 3; polyester + cotton p.19 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 75 and 76, Walker exemplifies cyclohexanone (p.21 paragraph 3) and describes other cyclic ketones (p.5 final paragraph) including cyclopentanone and combinations with cyclohexanone.
Regarding claim 77, Walker exemplifies polyester (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 80 and 90, Walker describes a system without cellulose wherein the blend is of polyester and dye (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 81, Walker exemplifies 10 minutes (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 82, Walker exemplifies a polyester and dye blended material, i.e. one that consists essentially of polyester (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 83, Walker exemplifies mixing the textile material in a vessel (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 84, Walker meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “passing the material through the organic solvent” by describing comminuted polyester which is mixed with a solvent then filtered (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 85, Walker describes agitating (mixing) the comminuted polyester with cyclohexanone (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 86, Walker describes filtering, which includes at least the applied force of gravity to pull the solvent out of the solvent-wetted textile material (p.21 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 87, Walker describes evaporating the solvent from the solvent-wetted polyester (p.21 paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 71-78, 80-84, 86, 89, 90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110790980 by Xing et al.
Xing describes separating impurities from a waste polyester fiber product.
Regarding claim 71 and 89, Xing describes a method comprising:
a) providing a feedstock of polyester blended products (translation p.1 final paragraph)
b) providing an organic solvent of cyclohexanone or cyclopentanone in an embodiment (p.2 paragraph 5-6; also specifically for spandex (polyurethane) p.2 paragraph 8)
c) contacting the organic solvent with the blended polyester with the solvent for time (15-25 min) effective to dissolve or suspend e.g. spandex (p.2 paragraph 8)
d) separating the solvent solution comprising the dissolved or suspended undesired material
For all of steps a)-d) see also Xing example 2.
Regarding claims 72 and 73, Xing exemplifies a temperature of 150C (Example 2) and describes a range of 130-150C (p.2 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 74, Xing describes polyester in the textile (Example 2), specifically diverse polyester fiber products “garment trimmings, curtains, carpets, etc”.
Regarding claim 75, Xing exemplifies cyclohexanone (Example 2) and describes cyclopentanone or a mixture of cyclohexanone and cyclopentanone (p.2 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 76, Xing exemplifies only cyclohexanone (Example 2) and describes describes cyclopentanone or a mixture of cyclohexanone and cyclopentanone (p.2 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 77, Xing exemplifies polyester (Example 2) and describes polyamide as present during the spandex separation step (p.2 paragraph 9), rendering it a target polymer in the instant terms.
Regarding claim 78, Xing exemplifies the cyclohexanone as a solvent for “a part of spandex” (polyurethane) in Example 2. See also p.2 paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 80 and 90, Xing does not mention the presence of cotton/cellulose.
Regarding claim 81, Xing exemplifies 15 minutes (Example 2) and describes 15-25 min (p.2 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 82, Xing meets this claim by reciting a textile with a polyester base (p.1 paragraph 4, Example 2).
Regarding claim 83, Xing describes immersing the textile material in a vessel containing the organic solvent (Example 2).
Regarding claim 84, Xing describes putting the polyester product into the cyclohexanone solution and filtering it out, meeting the broadest interpretation of “passing through the organic solvent” (Example 2).
Regarding claim 86, Xing describes filtering, which involves applying the force of gravity to remove solvent (Example 2).
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) 73 and 88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2528494 by Walker.
Walker is described above.
Regarding claim 73, Walker describes temperatures up to 120C (p.12 paragraph 4; p.5 paragraph 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Walker describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 88, Walker describes an alternative method of washing with ethanol to remove residual solvent (p.22 final paragraph). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adapt this method for removing the cyclohexanone solvent in the first stage because Walker describes it as effective to remove solvent in another stage.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2528494 by Walker in view of US 6147128 by Reither.
Walker is described above.
Regarding claim 79, Walker describes recovering the polyester into a usable clear polyester, but is not more specific about the “usable” aspect (p.2 paragraph 1).
Reither describes an industrial fabric and yarn.
Reither describes using a blend comprising recycled polyester that was previously a yarn or fiber or fabric to create new yarn (textile material)(col 1 ln 49-55). Reither states that the cost of yarn can be decreased by including a certain amount of recycled PET (col 1 ln 39-40). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the purified PET of Walker as a recycled starting material in Reither because turning the purified PET into yarn decreases the cost of making yarn.
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