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 .
Claims 71-98 are pending and are under examination on the merits.
Claims 71, 79, 82, 89 are amended.
Claims 1-70 are previously canceled.
Claims 91-98 are newly added.
Claim Objections
The objection in the previous action to claim 82 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment adding a period.
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 71-98 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.
Claims 71 and 89 recite, in step e), “providing, via melt extrusion…the at least one target polymer in the solid textile form”. The “polymer in the solid textile form” is confusing because it implies that melt extrusion does not cause the target polymer to melt, i.e. that it is still in “solid textile form” after extrusion. The idea that the melt extrusion does not melt appears to not be intended - dependent claim 92 describes pellets produced from the extrusion, for example. For the purposes of compact prosecution it will be assumed that the “solid textile form” is not maintained after melt extrusion.
Claims 91 and 95 are further rejected under 112(b) as being indefinite because they state “further comprising densifying…via melt extrusion”. It is not clear if this melt extrusion is the same or different than the melt extrusion already present in claims 71 or 89, upon which they depend. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim will be treated such that any extrusion which densifies the melt counts towards claims 91 or 95, even if that same melt extrusion also reads on the melt extrusion in claims 71 or 89.
Claims 79, 92-98 are further rejected for the term “purified undissolved textile material” because “textile” in this context is misleading; it appears that the target material is provided melted form, i.e. is no longer a textile. Referring to the material as “textile” when it is not is confusing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection in the previous action of claims 71, 72, 74-77, 80-87, 89, 90 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2528494 by Walker is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 71 and 89 narrowing the claims to require the target polymer remain in undissolved textile form.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 71-78, 80-84, 86, 89, 90 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110790980 by Xing et al is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claims 71 and 89 narrowing the claims to require melt extrusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 71-78, 80-84, 86, 87, 89-92, 95 and 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110790980 by Xing et al in view of CN 106398134 by Chen et al.
Xing describes separating impurities from a waste polyester fiber product.
Regarding claims 71 and 89, Xing describes a method comprising:
a) providing a feedstock of polyester (reads on claim 89) 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. Notably the PET textile remains intact throughout this process.
Xing does not specifically describe the treatments which happen to the PET after the textile impurities have been removed.
Chen describes preparing recycled PET plastic pellets from waste fabrics.
Chen describes washing the waste fabric (e.g. NaOH solution) and melt extruding the PET fabric (translation paragraph 10) to particles for downstream use (paragraph 22).
Chen states that old fabrics can be abandoned (translation paragraph 4) and that his method recycles them not to low-value added on products (paragraph 5) but to PET plastic particles (paragraph 9, 22). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to subject Xing’s isolated PET fabric to Chen’s extrusion because it results in a recycled product which is not low value.
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).
Regarding claim 87, Chen describes disinfecting with steam at 100C (paragraph 29), which evaporates at least some water in the composition.
Regarding claims 91 and 95, Chen describes melt extrusion of fibers, adding optionally nominal amounts of additives (paragraph 13), thus densifying- i.e. removing the air in between the PET fibers by melting them together- the target polymer.
Regarding claims 92 and 96, Chen describes producing particles, i.e. pellets (paragraph 10), from the densified (melted) material.
Claims 71-84, 86, 90, 91, 93, 95 and 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110790980 by Xing et al in view of US 5919717 by Wallick as evidenced by “Dictionary of Chemical Engineering” ed. by Schaschke.
Xing is described above.
Regarding claims 71 and 89, Xing describes a method comprising:
a) providing a feedstock of polyester (reads on claim 89) 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. Notably the PET textile remains intact throughout this process.
Xing does not specifically describe the treatments which happen to the PET after the textile impurities have been removed.
Wallick describes recycled fiber yarn.
Wallick describes shredding polyester textiles into fibers then extruding the polyester and forming a yarn (col 2 ln 1-13). Wallick states that her invention recovers polyester fibers into useful forms from textile waste (col 1 ln 55-58). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to treat Xing’s recovered textile polyester to Wallick’s method in order to recover polyester fibers in a useful form. Wallick’s “extrusion” meets the instant “melt extrusion” because the definition of extrusion is “a process in which a soft material is forced under pressure through a restricted orifice or opening to produce a continuous flow of material” (Schaschke p.138).
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 79, Wallick describes creating a polyester fiber after extrusion (col 2 ln 1-13).
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).
Regarding claim 91 and 95, Wallick describes extrusion (col 2 ln 1-13), which by definition (see Schaschke) softens the polyester textile and creates a continuous stream, i.e. the air in the polyester is removed and the polyester is densified.
Regarding claim 93 and 97, Wallick describes creating yarn after extrusion (item h col 2 ln 10-13).
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110790980 by Xing et al in view of CN 106398134 by Chen et al in further view of “Understanding the role of molar mass and stirring in polymer dissolution” by Valois et al.
Xing is described above.
Regarding claim 85, Xing describes contacting the polymeric textile with a solvent but is silent as to stirring to achieve dissolution (Xing example 2).
Valois describes how stirring affects polymer dissolution.
Valois states that it is well known that stirring efficiently decreases the dissolution time of polymer powders (p.8150 col 1 penultimate paragraph). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to stir the solution described by Xing to efficiently decrease the dissolution time of the polymers Xing describes dissolving.
Claims 87, 94, 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110790980 by Xing et al in view of CN 106398134 by Chen et al in further view of WO 2004106025 by Fredl et al.
Xing and Chen are described above.
Regarding claims 87, 94 and 98 Xing is not specific about downstream processing after removing impurities from PET fabric. Chen describes motivation to extrude the fabric and describes a step which reads on instant claim 87 due to the claim’s breadth (see rejection above, Chen’s steam treatment). However Xing and Chen are silent as to specifically a drying step and a vacuum step.
Fredl describes extrusion of recycled PET.
Regarding claim 87, Fredl states that adding a drying step before extrusion “ensures that a constant input moisture is guaranteed for the subsequent process steps, so that these subsequent process steps can be adjusted or optimized to this input moisture, which in turn leads to a higher quality per se and also to a constant homogeneous quality of the recycled material” (translation p.3 paragraph 7). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to add a drying step before Chen’s extrusion because it leads to higher quality products.
Regarding claims 94 and 98, Fredl describes subjecting recycled PET to a post-condensation step after extrusion (p.2 final paragraph-p.3 paragraph 1). Fredl describes reduced pressure for this process and states that it removes contaminants and increases intrinsic viscosity (p.3 paragraph 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt this post-condensation step in order to reduce contaminants in Xing and Chen’s process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 88 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest art is CN 110790980 by Xing, used above in rejection of other claims. Xing describes a solvent treatment but not solvent exchange with the solvents listed in claim 88. Motivation to adopt this step was not found in related art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.9 of Remarks submitted 6/9/26 has been considered and is persuasive- the rejections over GB 2528494 by Walker are withdrawn above.
Applicant’s argument p.10 has been considered but is not fully persuasive. Applicant states that Xing does not anticipate claims 71 and 89. While this statement is true, motivation has been found to add the newly claimed material in claims 71 and 89 to Xing’s invention. See new 103 rejections 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 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