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 .
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.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/065635 12/30/2021; PCT/US2021/ 065635 has PRO 63/132,959 12/31/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 09/19/24 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, Claims 1-8, drawn to a mixture.
Group II, Claims 9-20, drawn to a method.
6. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The common technical feature in all groups is the mixture of claim 1. This element cannot be a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2 because the element is shown in the prior art. Quillen (US 2004/0249113) discloses a mixture comprising PCR-PET flake and chelant such as phosphoric acid, wherein the chelant in physical contact with at least a portion of the PCR-PET flake (para [0071]-[0072], [0075], [0113]-[0115], table 1B, claims 21-22).
7. This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Applicant must elect:
i) one chelant
Each combination of the above species results in a distinct product having distinct properties. Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: 1-6, 9-14, 17-20.
8. REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
WHEN CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF INVENTIONS
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the
claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
9. During a telephone conversation with Michael Sambrook on 01/23/26 a provisional election was made without traverse for claims 9-20 and the species: phosphoric acid. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant’s in replying this Office action.
10. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 9-20 are examined below.
11. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
12. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
13. The examiner has required restriction between product claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product, and all product claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 9-13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quillen (US 2004/0249113).
Regarding claims 9, 15-16, 20, Quillen discloses a method of treating post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PCR-PET) flake for its use in making a thermoplastic article by at least one subsequent melt-processing step (para [0013], [0026], [0075]), the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing the PCR-PET flake, (b) providing chelant such as phosphoric acid, and (c) placing the chelant in physical contact with at least a portion of the PCR-PET flake, wherein steps (a), (b), and (c), each occurs prior to the at least one subsequent melt-processing step (para [0071]-[0072], [0075], [0113]-[0115], table 1B, claims 21-22), meeting the requirement of claims 9, 15-16, 20.
Regarding claims 10-12, Quillen discloses PCR-PET flake has a surface and the chelant is present only at the surface of the PCR-PET flake, wherein transition metal ions are present on the surface and the chelant such as phosphoric acid is bonded to, and forms coordination complexes with, at least a portion of the transition metal ions such as copper, silver, gold, palladium platinum, or iron, wherein the chelant is bonded to, and forms coordination complexes with, substantially all of the transition metal ions (same compound, same property; para [0048], [0071]-[0072], [0075], [0088], [0113]-[0115], table 1B, claims 21-22).
Regarding claim 13, Quillen discloses the amount of chelant such as phosphoric acid in an amount of about 10 to 100 ppm (para [0113]), fall into instant claim range of from about 1 to 1000 ppm.
Regarding claims 17-18, Quillen discloses the physical contact for a period of 5 minutes (para [0115], table 1B, stage 4), fall into instant claim 17 range of from 1 second to about 25 minutes or instant claim 18 range of from 1 second to about 5 minutes.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quillen as applied to claim 9 above.
Quillen includes the features of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 14, Quillen discloses the amount of chelant such as in an amount of about 10 to 100 ppm (para [0113]), overlapping the instant claim range of from about 50 to 500 ppm.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the method, wherein Quillen discloses the amount of chelant such as phosphoric acid in an amount of about 10 to 100 ppm, overlapping the requirement of claim 14. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quillen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fredl (US 6436322).
Quillen includes the features of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, Quillen discloses adding chelant such as phosphorus containing compounds, e.g. phosphoric acid to prevent metal compounds present in the reaction mixture in trace amounts as impurities from forming color bodies (para [0048], [0072]). Quillen does not disclose at least a portion of the transition metal ions is removed from the surface of the PCR-PET flake prior to the melt-processing.
However, Fredl discloses a method of treating post-consumer recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PCR-PET) flake for its use in making a recycled PET flake by at least one subsequent melt-processing step, wherein before melt-processing step the PCR-PET flake is washed and separated, and any metal contaminant components being removed from the mixture (column 3, lines 22-33, claims). Quillen and Fredl are pertinent to a method of treating PCR-PET flake for its use in making a PET products by at least one subsequent melt-processing step.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Quillen by removing metal from the mixture, as taught by Fredl. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Fredl that to do so would help to get rid of metal contaminants before the melt-processing step.
Conclusion
References Dou (CN 110643104) and Reid (US 2019/0270684) were cumulative in nature to the above rejection and thus not set forth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST).
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 P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights