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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1, 3, and 4 are in a non-English language. An English language translation of the drawings must be provided together with a statement that the translation is accurate. See 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1)(ii). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the photographs/illustrations within the table of Figure 4 are not of sufficient resolution so as to be discernable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 5-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 23 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.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 5, 6, and 7 refer to “the electrodes”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the intended scope of the claims is unclear.
Claims 10 and 11 recite “a polymer based on” substances such as poly(methyl methacrylate). It is unclear what is meant to implied by “based on”. For instance, in the case of poly(methyl methacrylate), is the polymer simply meant to comprise poly(methyl methacrylate)? Accordingly, the intended scope of the claims is unclear.
Claim 11 refers to an average molar mass of a polymer material, but fails to indicate whether the average is a number average or weight average value. Since an identical polymer material can exhibit substantially different number/weight average molecular weight values, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the liquid medium corresponds to a dielectric liquid comprising…”. It is unclear what is meant to implied by “corresponds to”. Is the dielectric liquid meant to comprise one or more of the listed materials? Is it supposed to exhibit some unrecited property/characteristic exhibited by one of the listed materials? Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 14 refers to an energy of less than 80 MJ/kg, but MJ themselves are units of energy. It is unclear what mass is being referred to / used in calculating the associated values (the “kg” denominator). Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the separation method comprises a prior step of pretreating the polymeric article”. The scope of the claim is unclear as there is no indication of what “prior step” is in relation to. For instance, the contact step of claim 1 can be seen as being a pretreatment step prior to the application of pulsed electric fields. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 17 recites “the constituents of the polymeric article”. The terminology lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 19 refers to a ratio of impact strength to thickness of the polymer material. The scope of the claim is indefinite. The required units for impact strength (e.g. kJ/m2, ft lb/inch, J/m) and thickness (inch, feet, meters, miles) is unspecified. The particular measurement protocol for impact strength (ASTM D256 or ISO 180? Temperature? Notched or un-notched?) is not specified. The ratios themselves lack units, which also renders the scope of the claim unclear; particularly since impact strength and thickness cannot have equivalent units.
Further with respect to claim 19, the scope of the claim is indefinite as a particular ratio of impact strength to thickness for thermoplastic polymer is being required, but the claim fails to indicate whether this corresponds to before or after shockwave treatment, especially since other claims indicate treatment liberates fibers or dissolves polymer.
Further with respect to claim 19, the phrases "with preference" and “preferably less” render the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 23 requires sorting via separation, of which can be done “by particle size analysis” or “spectroscopic detection”. Such detection methods do not separate/sort materials, but rather are analytical detection methods. Accordingly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 23 recites “by spectroscopic detection (infrared, Ramen spectroscopy, X-ray analysis, etc.)”. The further limitations in parentheses renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "etc." renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 6, 9, and 22 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 5 requires the creation of an electric arc. Claim 6, which depends on claim 5, recites the electric field is high enough to exceed the breakdown voltage of the liquid medium. Since an electric arc is created, the breakdown voltage of the liquid is necessarily exceeded. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the polymeric article comprises one or more interfaces… between the at least one thermoplastic polymer and the at least one other constituent and in that the pulsed field is configured to target this or these interfaces”. Claim 1 already requires an interface between thermoplastic polymer and other constituent. Claim 1 already requires the generated shockwaves divide the article at the interface. Therefore, claim 9 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 recites “wherein said treatment method additionally comprises a step of treating the other constituent of the polymeric article”. The treatment protocol claims already treats the article / other constituent via shockwaves. Therefore, claim 22 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 16-18, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubois (WO 2019/207260 A1) as evidenced by Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2021/0115216 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 9, Dubois teaches methods of separating thermoplastic polymer P1 resin from fibrous reinforcement (construed as other constituent) in a polymeric composite article via bring polymeric article into contact with a liquid water medium and applying a pulsed electric field to the medium to generate electric arcs so as to cause fragmentation within thermoplastic polymer chains without thermally degrading the fibrous reinforcement, so as to facilitate fibrous material recovery (¶ 71, 76, 81-92, 144, 150). As is taught by Beckmann, the creation of electric arcs in a dielectric medium creates shockwaves, which can hit fibers within plastic composites causing release (¶ 6-8). As Dubois treats plastic composite materials with a generated pulsed electric field so as to generate arcs, the position is taken that shockwaves are necessarily created that are able to divide the polymeric article at an interface between thermoplastic polymer and fibrous material in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Dubois teaches electric pulses are applied so as to partially depolymerize thermoplastic polymer into corresponding base monomers (¶ 79, 91), whereby reduced molecular weight polymers dissolve within the monomers (¶ 17, 140, 151). Thus, Dubois is seen to suggest embodiments where the liquid medium would comprise base monomers over the course of applying electric pulses, whereby the resulting thermoplastic polymer oligomers are dissolved within the monomers.
Regarding Claims 5-7, Dubois teaches electric pulses are applied such that an electric arc is created between submerged electrodes (¶ 81-83, 89-90, 144-145). Since electric arcs are created, the electric field between the electrodes is high enough to exceed the breakdown voltage of the liquid medium.
Regarding Claim 10, Dubois teaches the use of polymethyl methacrylate or polystyrene (¶ 19-20).
Regarding Claim 12, Dubois teaches the presence of fluid such as water (¶ 144). Dubois also teaches liquid base monomer is formed over the course of electric pulses (¶ 79, 91).
Regarding Claim 16, Dubois teaches contacting the article with water prior to applying pulsed electric fields (¶ 144), reading on pretreatment.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Dubois teaches after dissolution of thermoplastic oligomer in generated monomer, the resulting insoluble materials/fibers can be separated via filtration (¶ 150), reading on “sorting” the constituents and “eliminating” the liquid medium from the insoluble materials.
Regarding Claim 20, Dubois teaches embodiments where reinforcement fibers are contained in amounts of more than 50 wt% (¶ 73).
Regarding Claims 21-23, Dubois teaches electric pulses are applied so as to partially depolymerize thermoplastic polymer into corresponding base monomers (¶ 79, 91), whereby reduced molecular weight polymers dissolve within the monomers (¶ 17, 140, 151), reading on thermal depolymerization.
Dubois teaches after dissolution of thermoplastic oligomer in generated monomer, the resulting insoluble materials/fibers can be separated via filtration (¶ 150), reading on “sorting” the dissolved thermoplastic and insoluble fibrous material by filtration and “eliminating” the liquid medium from the insoluble materials.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1). As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 9, Beckmann teaches methods for separating composite polymer articles comprising thermoplastic polymer and fibrous reinforcement via contacting the article with dielectric fluid medium and then applying a pulsed field to the liquid medium to generate shock waves to divide the polymeric article along an interface between the thermoplastic polymer and fibrous material (¶ 4, 6-8, 13).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Beckmann teaches electric pulses are applied such that an electric arc is created between submerged electrodes (¶ 8). Since electric arcs are created, the electric field between the electrodes is high enough to exceed the breakdown voltage of the liquid medium.
Regarding Claim 12, Beckmann teaches embodiments where caprolactam is used as dielectric fluid (¶ 16), construed as organic solvent. Water / aqueous solutions are also taught (¶ 14).
Regarding Claim 13, Beckmann teaches embodiments where the voltage used is 14 kV (¶ 25).
Regarding Claim 16, Beckmann teaches treating granules/particulates of composite material (¶ 8), implying a pretreatment step involving granulation.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Beckmann teaches embodiments where after separation matrix material floats in the liquid and fibrous material sink (¶ 13), reading on sorting. Beckmann teaches fibers can be removed from the fluid by decantation (¶ 15), reading on eliminating the liquid medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dubois (WO 2019/207260 A1) as evidenced by Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2021/0115216 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Dubois teaches methods of separating thermoplastic polymer P1 resin from fibrous reinforcement (construed as other constituent) in a polymeric composite article via bring polymeric article into contact with a liquid water medium and applying a pulsed electric field to the medium to generate electric arcs so as to cause fragmentation within thermoplastic polymer chains without thermally degrading the fibrous reinforcement, so as to facilitate fibrous material recovery (¶ 71, 76, 81-92, 144, 150). As is taught by Beckmann, the creation of electric arcs in a dielectric medium creates shockwaves, which can hit fibers within plastic composites causing release (¶ 6-8). As Dubois treats plastic composite materials with a generated pulsed electric field so as to generate arcs, the position is taken that shockwaves are necessarily created that are able to divide the polymeric article at an interface between thermoplastic polymer and fibrous material in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 13, Dubois teaches voltages between 20-200 kV. The range is deemed to be of sufficient specificity so as to anticipate the claimed range of “less than 200 kV”. Alternatively, to the extent the range of Dubois includes 200 kV exactly and such is excluded by the claims, the range of Dubois overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Dubois suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Dubois. See MPEP 2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (WO 2019/207260 A1) as evidenced by Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2021/0115216 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Dubois teaches methods of separating thermoplastic polymer P1 resin from fibrous reinforcement (construed as other constituent) in a polymeric composite article via bring polymeric article into contact with a liquid water medium and applying a pulsed electric field to the medium to generate electric arcs so as to cause fragmentation within thermoplastic polymer chains without thermally degrading the fibrous reinforcement, so as to facilitate fibrous material recovery (¶ 71, 76, 81-92, 144, 150). As is taught by Beckmann, the creation of electric arcs in a dielectric medium creates shockwaves, which can hit fibers within plastic composites causing release (¶ 6-8). As Dubois treats plastic composite materials with a generated pulsed electric field so as to generate arcs, the position is taken that shockwaves are necessarily created that are able to divide the polymeric article at an interface between thermoplastic polymer and fibrous material in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 11, Dubois teaches the weight average molecular weight of the thermoplastic resin is preferably greater than 50,000 g/mol (¶ 63), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Dubois suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Dubois. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 14, while not providing quantitative numbers associated with energy applied, Dubois teaches the methods provides significant energy savings (¶ 73) whereby the energy used is selected so as to control heating via pulsed electric fields leading to polymer chain fragmentation (¶ 84-90). Thus, the energy applied is a result effective variable because changing it would clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal or workable energies within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable efficiencies in polymer fragmentation characteristics.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois (WO 2019/207260 A1) in view of D’Amore (Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology) as evidenced by Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2021/0115216 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Dubois and Beckmann within ¶ 56-58 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, Dubois teaches the use of glass or carbon fibers (¶ 76, 162). Dubois differs from the subject matter claimed in that polymer is not described as reinforcing material. D’Amore teaches various fibers are known to be used for composites, and teaches carbon, glass, and aramid fibers are common (Page 1; Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the protocols of Dubois to polymer/aramid composites, because doing so would facilitate the disposal/recyclability of such composites. Aramids are polymer fibers.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1). All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Beckmann teaches methods for separating composite polymer articles comprising thermoplastic polymer and fibrous reinforcement via contacting the article with dielectric fluid medium and then applying a pulsed field to the liquid medium to generate shock waves to divide the polymeric article along an interface between the thermoplastic polymer and fibrous material (¶ 4, 6-8, 13).
Regarding Claim 14, while not providing quantitative numbers in terms of energy used, Beckmann nonetheless notes voltage should be high enough so as to generate arcs and the number/degree of pulses can be adjusted/set so as to effect separation (¶ 8). Thus, the energy applied is a result effective variable because changing it would clearly affect the type of product obtained. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimal or workable energies within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desirable separation characteristics.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1) in view of Sain (Advanced Materials Research, 2013, 747, 387-390). All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Beckmann within ¶ 63-64 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 8, 10, 11, and 20, Beckmann teaches the use of glass or carbon fibers (¶ 2). Beckmann differs from the subject matter claimed in that specified PMMA composites are not described. Sain teaches composites such as those with PMMA as matrix and cellulose nanofibers as dispersed phase are known in the art (Abstract). Beckmann teaches the shockwave protocol provides a means for separating fibers from matrix to faciliate recycling (¶ 2-4). It wouls have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the protocols of Beckmann toward the composites of Sain because doing so would provide an effective means of separating matrix and fiber materials to faciliate recycling as taught by Beckmann. Cellulose is a polymer. Sain teaches the PMMAs have average molecular weights less than 1,000,000 (Tables 2 and 3). Sain teaches embodiments where 10 wt% of cellulose is used (Page 388).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann (EP 3006178 A1) in view of Beckmann-2 (EP 3000516 A1). All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document. As the cited EP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
The discussion regarding Beckmann within ¶ 63-64 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 15, Beckmann differs from the subject matter claimed in that a preferred temperature range associated with shockwave treatment is not specified. Beckmann-2 also pertains to comminuting/separating solids via shockwave treatment (¶ 21-22). Beckmann-2 teaches shockwaves can be produced/applied at a wide range of temperatures, inclusing greater than 10 degrees C (¶ 31). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize temperatures greater than 10 degrees C in the protocols of Beckmann, because doing so woul facilitate the formation/application of shockwaves as taught by Beckmann-2. The disclosed range overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Beckmann-2 suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Beckmann-2. See MPEP 2123.
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The separation / comminuting of materials using electrically produced shockwaves is widely known in the art. See Hofmann (U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,650), Kappeler (US 2018/0006468 A1), Bittner (WO 2017/037129 A1), and Roux (High Performance Thermoplastic Composite Processing and Recycling).
Conclusion
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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