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 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites that the degradation agent is added in an amount of 0.75 mol to 3.0 mol per 1 mol of dibasic acid in the polyester. It is unclear what is meant by ‘per 1 mol of dibasic acid in the polyester.” Specifically, the claim does not make clear whether the molar amount of dibasic acid refers to the stoichiometric amount of dibasic acid u nits present in the polyester polymer prior to depolymerization, the amount of dibasic acid generated after depolymerization, or some other reference basis.
Because the claim does not clearly define the bases for calculating the molar ratio of degradation agent relative to the polymer, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20200099200A see paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0035]-[0038] in view of USPub20010001792A1 see abstract, paragraph [0025], and Table 1, Example 12, and claims 5, 22 and 34.
Claim 1 is directed to A method of depolymerizing a polyester, comprising adding a degradation agent including an alkali, an acid, a salt thereof, a mono-alcohol, a polyhydric alcohol, or a mixture thereof to the polyester, and contacting the polyester with superheated water vapor.
KR20200099200A discloses a method of producing one or both of cellulose and terephthalic acid (TPA) from a waste fabric raw material comprising cotton or cotton/polyester blend material. The method comprises treating the waste fabric raw material in a subcritical water reactor at a temperature of about 105 to 190°C, a pressure of about 40 to 300 psi, or both for about 0 to 90 minutes.
The reference discloses recycling polyester-containing waste material and describes decomposing polyester fibers to recover monomers including terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. In the Abstract, the reference describes recycling cotton/polyester waste and producing terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. The Description further discloses decomposing polyester fibers using subcritical water conditions to produce terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. See paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0035-0038. These paragraphs teach depolymerizing polyester to recover monomer compounds.
However, KR20200099200A does not disclose contacting the polyester with superheated water vapor. Instead, the reference discloses depolymerizing under subcritical water conditions.
Note USPub20010001792A1 discloses depolymerizing polymer waste material by contacting the polymer waste with superheated steam. The abstract describes contacting multi-component waste material with super-heated steam. In paragraphs [0012-[0014], the reference discloses contacting the multi-component waste material with Superheated Steam at a temperature of about 250 C. to about 400° C. and at a pressure within the range of about 1 atm to about 100 atm and substantially less than the saturated vapor pressure of water at the temperature wherein a caprolactam-containing Vapor Stream is formed. Note also paragraph [0021].
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyester depolymerization process to include contacting the polyester with superheated steam as taught by in order to provide a high-temperature steam environment capable of helping polymer depolymerizing.
With regard to claim 2, wherein a temperature of the superheated water vapor is 250 *C to 450 *C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed parameters since USPub20010001792A1 discloses contacting polymer waste with superheated steam with temperatures within or overlapping claimed ranges and optimization of reaction conditions to obtain effective depolymerization would have been routine experimentation. See paragraph [0025], and Table 1, Example 12, and claim 5, claim 22 and claim 34. Further the claimed range represents with a value within or an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable disclosed in the prior art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
With regard to claim 3, wherein the superheated water vapor is applied with an injection pressure of 0.1 bar to 2 bar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed parameters since USPub20010001792A1 discloses contacting polymer waste with superheated steam with pressures within or overlapping claimed ranges and optimization of reaction conditions to obtain effective depolymerization would have been routine experimentation. See paragraph [0025], and Table 1, Example 12, and claim 5, claim 22 and claim 34.
With regard to claim 4, wherein the depolymerizing is performed for 1 minute to 120 minutes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed parameters since USPub20010001792A1 discloses contacting polymer waste with superheated steam with reaction time within or overlapping claimed ranges and optimization of reaction conditions to obtain effective depolymerization would have been routine experimentation. See paragraph [0025], and Table 1, Example 12, claim 5, claim 22 and claim 34.
With regard to claim 5, wherein the alkali includes sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, ammonia, or a mixture thereof. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ agents since alkalis, acids, salts and alcohols are commonly used reagents in polymer depolymerization and hydrolysis reactions to facilitate cleavage of polymer chains and generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 6, wherein the acid includes hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, carbonic acid, phosphoric acid, acetic acid, hypochlorous acid (HCIO), or a mixture thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ agents since alkalis, acids, salts and alcohols are commonly used reagents in polymer depolymerization and hydrolysis reactions to facilitate cleavage of polymer chains and generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d
197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 7, wherein the salt includes carbonate, hydrogen carbonate, phosphate, sulfate, sulfite, nitrate, silicate, hypochlorites, formate, acetate, citrate, oxalate, or a mixture thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ agents since alkalis, acids, salts and alcohols are commonly used reagents in polymer depolymerization and hydrolysis reactions to facilitate cleavage of polymer chains and generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 8, wherein the mono-alcohol includes methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, or a mixture thereof, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ agents since alkalis, acids, salts and alcohols are commonly used reagents in polymer depolymerization and hydrolysis reactions to facilitate cleavage of polymer chains and generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 9, wherein the polyhydric alcohol includes ethylene glycol, n-propylene glycol, isopropylene glycol, diethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, 1,3-butanediol, 1,4-butanediol, glycerine, benzyl alcohol, polypropylene glycol, pentaerythritol, trimethylolpropane, or a mixture thereof. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ agents since alkalis, acids, salts and alcohols are commonly used reagents in polymer depolymerization and hydrolysis reactions to facilitate cleavage of polymer chains and generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 10, wherein the degradation agent is added at 0.75 mol to 3.0 mol per 1.0 mol of dibasic acid in the polyester, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed amount of degradation agent since adjusting reagent concnetration to achieve effective depolymerization is a routine optimization parameter in chemical depolymerization processes.
With regard to claim 11, wherein the method of depolymerizing the polyester further includes, the performing solid-liquid separation of liquid-phase alkylene glycol and a solid-phase dibasic salt from the depolymerization product obtained in the depolymerizing, dissolving the solid-phase dibasic salt in water, neutralizing an aqueous solution of the dibasic salt with an acid to precipitate a dibasic acid crystal, and performing solid-liquid separation of the dibasic acid crystal from a precipitation product, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such separation, neutralization, crystallization and purification steps since KR20200099200A discloses recovering terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol from decomposed polyester materials, and such downstream processing steps are well known techniques used to recover and purify monomers in polyester recycling processes.
With regard to claim 12, wherein the method of depolymerizing the polyester further includes removing impurities from the aqueous solution of the dibasic salt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such separation, neutralization, crystallization and purification steps since KR20200099200A teaches recovering terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol from decomposed polyester materials, and such downstream processing steps are well known techniques used to recover and purify monomers in polyester recycling processes.
With regard to claim 13, wherein the method of depolymerizing the polyester further includes recrystallizing the dibasic acid crystal, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such separation, neutralization, crystallization and purification steps since KR20200099200A teaches recovering terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol from decomposed polyester materials, and such downstream processing steps are well known techniques used to recover and purify monomers in polyester recycling processes.
With regard to claim 14, the claim is directed to a composition for polymerizing recycled polyester, comprising a dibasic acid and an alkylene glycol, obtained by the method of depolymerizing the polyester of claim 1. Thus, the claim is a product-by-process and is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps of claim 1, only the structure of the implied by the steps.
As such, note KR20200099200A discloses depolymerizing polyester materials and recovering terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol from decomposed polyester materials, and such downstream processing steps are well known techniques used to recover and purify monomers in polyester recycling processes. The reference further discloses decomposing polyester fibers under subcritical water conditions to produce terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. See paragraphs [0030]-[0038].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recovered dibasic acid and alkylene glycol as a composition for polymerizing recycled polyester since terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol are well known monomers used to produce polyester and the recovery of such monomers from polyester depolymerization processes is a known objective in polymer recycling.
With regard to claim 15, directed to a recycled polyester prepared using the composition for polymerizing polyester of claim 14, the claim is a product-by-process and thus the claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps of claim 14, only the structure of the implied by the steps, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare polyester from the recovered dibasic acid and alkylene glycol since terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol are convention monomers used to produce polyester.
With regard to claim 16, directed to the recycled polyester of claim 15, wherein a color of the recycled polyester has an L-value of 60 or higher, the claim is dependent upon a product-by-process and thus the claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps of claim 14, only the structure of the implied by the steps, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain such a color value since the color properties of recycled polyester are affected by purification and polymerization conditions and therefore represent a result-effective variable.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference
between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not
specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention
cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765