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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
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 3, 7 and 19 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.
The terminology “the at least one polymer” within claims 3, 7, and 19 lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim of the claims is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 requires “a plurality of polymers” be dissolved. Dependent claims 3, 7, and 19 use the broader language “at least one polymer”, which is open to the presence of a single polymer. Since claims 3, 7, and 19 expand beyond the limits imposed by claim 1, claims 3, 7, and 19 fail to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 6, and 7, Hanel teaches methods of solvent-based recycling (Abstract) comprising dissolving waste polymer in an initial mass of solvent, thereby generating a dissolved polymer solution, purifying the obtained solution to remove contaminates, and separating the polymer from the solution (¶ 59-65, 321). As contaminates are removed, the obtained polymer is a purified recycled polymer. Hanel teaches after separation, solvent is separated and purified for re-use (¶ 128; Figure 7 “528”). Hanel teaches one or more polymers can be used, such as polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 205).
Regarding Claim 2, Hanel teaches at least 90 wt%, preferably at least 99 wt%, of solvent is removed from the polymer solution (¶ 236), indicating at least 90 wt% of initial mass of solvent is recovered/removed.
Regarding Claim 4, Hanel teaches removal of solids via filtration (¶ 783-784).
Regarding Claim 5, Hanel teaches methods such as evaporation and/or distillation (¶ 128).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Hanel teaches various alcohols and acids can be used, such as acetic acid (¶ 206). Hanel teaches a preference for two or more solvents (¶ 206).
Regarding Claim 17, Hanel teaches embodiments where pigments/dyes are removed during purification (¶ 189).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 7, Walker teaches a solvent based recycling process comprising dissolving polyester in a solvent, purifying the dissolved polyester to remove contaminates, and then recovering solvent to yield purified recycled polymer (Abstract; Figures 1-4; ¶ 106-113). Walker teaches examples with polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 114-115). Combinations of polyesters can be present (¶ 94).
Regarding Claim 4, Walker teaches various purification protocols such as filtration (¶ 46, 97).
Regarding Claim 5, Walker teaches recovering solvent via evaporation or distillation (¶ 47).
Regarding Claims 3, 9, and 10, Walker teaches various solvents such as ethers and esters (¶ 69). Various lactones such as caprolactone is taught (¶ 83). Walker teaches solvent is typically heated at temperatures ranging from 50-150 degrees C so as to maximize amounts and rates of polyester dissolution (¶ 29). Since the same substrates (waste PET), solvents (caprolactone), and temperatures are suggested as those taught by the specification, it stands to reason a certain degree of solvolysis would naturally occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 17, Walker teaches pigments such as carbon black being removed via filtration (¶ 46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling).
Regarding Claim 1, solvent based recycling is not new. Triebert teaches conventional solvent based recycling methods comprise dissolving waste plastics, performing solid-liquid separation / purification, and removing/separating solvent to afford purified recycled plastic material (Figure 2, Page 39).
Triebert teaches various polymers are known to be processable via solvent based recycling (Table 2), but differs from the subject matter claimed in that plurality of polymer types are not described. In this regard, it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960). Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Also, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In this regard, Triebert teaches it was known various polymer types are solvated by the same solvent (Table 3; see for instance HDPE, LDPE, PP, and styrene). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the methods of Triebert to combinations of polymers to predictably afford purified polymer blends where desired.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Triebert teaches solvent recovery can take place via known means, such as distillation, whereby known methods can achieve solvent recovery of 99% (“Solvent Recovery”; Page 44).
Regarding Claim 4, Triebert teaches various solid-liquid separation methods, such as filtration (Page 47).
Regarding Claim 7, Triebert teaches the solvent based recycling of various polymers are known, such as polyethylene terephthalate (Table 3).
Regarding Claim 9, ethers (see THF and diethyl ether) and acid solvents are known (Table 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Triebert teaches materials such as pigments, dyes, and heavy metals can be removed (Page 47).
Regarding Claim 19, blends of solvents including phenol, such as phenol/1,4,6-trichlorophenol and phenol/tetrachloroethane are known (Table 3).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling) in view of Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1).
The discussion regarding Triebert within ¶ 26-33 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Triebert differs from the subject matter claimed in that lactone solvent is not explicitly described. Walker also pertains to solvent-based recycling of polyesters (Abstract) such as PET (¶ 9) whereby waste polyester is treated with first solvent to extract dyes, remaining solid polyester is dissolved in second solvent, the resulting polyester solution is purified, and then the purified polyester is separated from solvent (Figure 1; ¶ 106-109). Walker teaches several polyester dissolution solvents are appropriate for solvent-based recycling (¶ 30-41, 69-89), inclusive of lactones such as caprolactone (¶ 33, 83). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize lactone solvents such as caprolactone for polyester substrates in the methods of Triebert because such solvents are capable of effectively dissolving polyesters for subsequent purification/re-isolation/recycling as taught by Walker. Walker teaches second solvent is typically heated at temperatures ranging from 50-150 degrees C so as to maximize amounts and rates of polyester dissolution (¶ 29). Since the same substrates (waste PET), solvents (caprolactone), and temperatures are suggested as those taught by the specification, it stands to reason a certain degree of solvolysis would naturally occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling) in view of Russin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,145).
The discussion regarding Triebert within ¶ 26-33 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, Triebert differs from the subject matter claimed in that Sb, Ge, Ti, or Co contaminates are not explicitly described. Triebert teaches it was known purifications can remove color pigments, additives, and heavy metals (Page 47). Russin teaches it was known in the art polyesters fibers/films can be produced via various catalyst-inhibitor systems, such as those comprising cobalt, titanium, and/or antimony ions (Col. 2, Lines 38-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the purification methods of Triebert for waste polyesters such as those derived from Russin because doing so would facilitate the removal of additives/metals, such as the catalyst-inhibitor systems taught by Russin.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1) in view of Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1).
Hanel teaches methods of solvent-based recycling (Abstract) comprising dissolving waste polymer in an initial mass of solvent, thereby generating a dissolved polymer solution, purifying the obtained solution to remove contaminates, and separating the polymer from the solution (¶ 59-65, 321). As contaminates are removed, the obtained polymer is a purified recycled polymer. Hanel teaches after separation, solvent is separated and purified for re-use (¶ 128; Figure 7 “528”). Hanel teaches one or more polymers can be used, such as polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 205).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Hanel differs from the subject matter claimed in that lactone solvent is not described. Walker also pertains to solvent-based recycling of polyesters (Abstract) such as PET (¶ 9) whereby waste polyester is treated with first solvent to extract dyes, remaining solid polyester is dissolved in second solvent, the resulting polyester solution is purified, and then the purified polyester is separated from solvent (Figure 1; ¶ 106-109). Walker teaches several polyester dissolution solvents are appropriate for solvent-based recycling (¶ 30-41, 69-89), inclusive of lactones such as caprolactone (¶ 33, 83). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize lactone solvents such as caprolactone for polyester substrates in the methods of Hanel because such solvents are capable of effectively dissolving polyesters for subsequent purification/re-isolation/recycling as taught by Walker. Walker teaches second solvent is typically heated at temperatures ranging from 50-150 degrees C so as to maximize amounts and rates of polyester dissolution (¶ 29). Since the same substrates (waste PET), solvents (caprolactone), and temperatures are suggested as those taught by the specification, it stands to reason a certain degree of solvolysis would naturally occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1) in view of Russin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,145).
Hanel teaches methods of solvent-based recycling (Abstract) comprising dissolving waste polymer in an initial mass of solvent, thereby generating a dissolved polymer solution, purifying the obtained solution to remove contaminates, and separating the polymer from the solution (¶ 59-65, 321). As contaminates are removed, the obtained polymer is a purified recycled polymer. Hanel teaches after separation, solvent is separated and purified for re-use (¶ 128; Figure 7 “528”). Hanel teaches one or more polymers can be used, such as polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 205).
Regarding Claim 18, Hanel differs from the subject matter claimed in that Sb, Ge, Ti, or Co contaminates are not explicitly described. Russin teaches it was known in the art polyesters fibers/films can be produced via various catalyst-inhibitor systems, such as those comprising cobalt, titanium, and/or antimony ions (Col. 2, Lines 38-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the purification methods of Hanel for waste polyesters such as those derived from Russin because doing so would facilitate the removal of additives/metals, such as the catalyst-inhibitor systems taught by Russin.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) in view of Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1).
Walker teaches a solvent based recycling process comprising dissolving polyester in a solvent, purifying the dissolved polyester to remove contaminates, and then recovering solvent to yield purified recycled polymer (Abstract; Figures 1-4; ¶ 106-113). Walker teaches examples with polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 114-115). Combinations of polyesters can be present (¶ 94).
Regarding Claim 2, Walker differs from the subject matter claimed in that a specified amount of solvent recovered is not stated. Hanel also pertains to solvent based polymer recycling (Abstract). Hanel teaches solvent can be separated from purified polymer through various techniques such as filtration or evaporation, whereby recoveries of at least 90 wt% is possible (¶ 277-236). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the solvent recovery protocols of Hanel within the protocols of Walker, thereby facilitating high solvent recovery for re-use.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) in view of Russin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,145).
Walker teaches a solvent based recycling process comprising dissolving polyester in a solvent, purifying the dissolved polyester to remove contaminates, and then recovering solvent to yield purified recycled polymer (Abstract; Figures 1-4; ¶ 106-113). Walker teaches examples with polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 114-115). Combinations of polyesters can be present (¶ 94).
Regarding Claim 18, Walker differs from the subject matter claimed in that Sb, Ge, Ti, or Co contaminates are not explicitly described. Russin teaches it was known in the art polyesters fibers/films can be produced via various catalyst-inhibitor systems, such as those comprising cobalt, titanium, and/or antimony ions (Col. 2, Lines 38-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the purification methods of Walker for waste polyesters such as those derived from Russin because doing so would facilitate the removal of additives/metals, such as the catalyst-inhibitor systems taught by Russin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 6 had no pending anticipation rejections. This is not found persuasive as the claims are anticipated by Hanel and Walker for reasons set forth above.
With respect to Triebert, Applicant argues using combinations of polymers increases the complexity of the method, such that specific solvents would be involved taking into account compatibility between the polymers. Applicant’s argumentation is not found persuasive. Claim 1 does not require any particular solvent, nor does it require any particular blend of polymers. Rather, claim 1 pertains to a well-known conventional solvent-based recycling process (see Figures 1 and 2) of which the only distinguishing feature with respect to Triebert is a “plurality of polymers” is dissolved. As Triebert makes clear, it was known various polymer types are solvated by the same solvent (Table 3; see for instance HDPE, LDPE, PP, and styrene). Thus, recycling plastic materials with mixtures of polymers using an identical solvent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since Triebert teaches the same solvent can be applicable for different polymer types, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant has failed to address the rejections pertaining to Hanel and Walker. Applicant is reminded that in order for a reply to be fully responsive, it must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. MPEP 714.02.
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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights