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.
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 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.
The limitation of “the plastic feed comprises less than 20wt.% carbon black” recited in claim 2 is unclear and confused because the plastic feed is a precursor of carbon black. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Plasma Chem Plasma Process, 2010, 30, 75-90, applicants submitted in IDS), and in view of Wang et al. (CN 103540172 B, Machine-generated English translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Guo et al. teach synthesis of ultrafine carbon black by pyrolysis of polymers including polystyrene (PS), polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)(Abstract, pages 75-76).
Although Guo et al. do not specifically teach the washings steps as per applicant claim 1, Wang et al. regenerating carbon black from a pyrolytic carbon (the claimed plastic pyrolytic char) of waste of rubber plastic products comprising pyrolysis reaction to obtain pyrolytic carbon; reacting with an acid, using water to wash the pyrolytic carbon, discharging and filtering, removing the soluble salt; alkali reaction; 2nd acid washing step and followed by water washing, filtration to obtain the regenerated carbon black ([0006]-[0015]). It is known rubber polymer contains polystyrene (PS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the washing steps taught by Wang et al. in the process taught by Guo et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, motivated by the fact that the ash content in the pyrolytic carbon taught by Wang et al. is greatly reduced, so the waste rubber plastic product is recycled (abstract).
Since both of Guo et al. and Wang et al. teach synthesis of carbon black from polymers containing polystyrene (rubber), one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Although the process taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. is carried out the acid wash prior to a water wash, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP section 2144.04(C).
“There is nothing in the instant record which indicates that the particular order of steps produces results differing in any way from those which would be brought about if another order of steps were followed.” In re Hampel 162 F.2d 483, 485—86 (CCPA 1947); see also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946) (“Appellant contends that the references taken singly or together do not teach his characteristic four steps which are new in the art and which are necessary to obtain the desired result. There is no merit in the point here in the absence of any proof in the record that the order of performing the steps produces any new and unexpected results.”); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 976 (CCPA 1930) (“It is conceded that the patent to McIntyre discloses the same constituents used in substantially the same proportions. The only claimed difference between appellant and McIntyre is the process or order in which the constituents are put together. . . . We think the proper sequence of adding the three ingredients to obtain the most satisfactory mixture of three constituents is within the expected skill and judgment of a mechanic and such choice of sequence does not involve invention in making a mix of the constituents named in McIntyre.”
Regarding claims 2-3, the input of polyethylene taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. is 30-g (100%) (Guo et al. Table 2). The starting polymers (the instant claimed a plastic feed) taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. do not disclose carbon black, therefore, it is considered the starting polymers contains <20%wt. of carbon black as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. do not disclose PVC as the instant claim (Guo et al. Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. teach water washing the pyrolytic carbon ([0009]).
Although, Guo et al. is silent as to the reaction temperature, it would be obvious to perform this at room temperature, which reads on the conditions. There are no indications that this process is occurring at other than standard temperature.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. teach HCl as the instant claims (Wang et al., [[0009]).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, the hydrochloric acid taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. is determined according to the ash content and ash content in the pyrolytic carbon test ([0056]).
Although the combined references of Guo et al and Wang et al. do not specifically disclose the amount of the acid relative to an amount of water as per applicant claim 8, this is a case of prima facie obviousness, as one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, given the general conditions taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the acid washing step taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al is performed at a temperature 120-151 0C which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges (claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. teach water washing prior to the base -washing step ([0009]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, the base taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. comprises NaOH as the instant claim ([0013]).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, the NaOH taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al. is determined according to the ash content and ash content in the pyrolytic carbon test ([0056]).
Although the combined references of Guo et al and Wang et al. do not specifically disclose the amount of the base relative to an amount of water as per applicant claim 13, this is a case of prima facie obviousness, as one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, given the general conditions taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, the base washing step taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al is performed at a temperature 70-100 0C which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges ([0014]).
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, the process taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al comprises water washing after the base-washing the pyrolytic carbon as the instant claim ([0022]).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, the process taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al comprises crushing to particle size <45 µm prior 2nd acid washing as the instant claim ([0022]).
Regarding claim 18, the carbon black taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al is 85wt % with the best quality and purity as the instant claim (Abstract, Table 2).
Regarding claim 19, the process taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al produces the best quality and purity of the carbon black (Guo et al. page 75).It is considered the purity of the resulting carbon black is greater than 95wt. %.
Although the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al do not specifically disclose the total metal content <50, 000 mg/Kg (5 wt. % impurity of metal) in the carbon black, the combined references teach all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making high purity of carbon black, the physical properties of the resulting composition (i.e., total metal content <50, 000 mg /Kg) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II).[1]
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, the ash content in carbon black taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al is 1-2% which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges (Wang et al., [0025]).
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above, the surface area (BET) of the resulting carbon black taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al is 120-142.5 m2/g which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges (Guo et al., Table 3, page 88).
Regarding claim 22, as discussed above, the surface area of the resulting carbon black taught by the combined references of Guo et al. and Wang et al is 0.13-0.25 cm3/g which is encompassed by the instant claimed ranges (Guo et al., Table 3, page 88).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
[1][1] “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).