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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes phrases that can be implied such as “The present invention is directed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs 1 graph does not have units of measurement on Y axis. 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guemard et al. (US 2020/0190279 A1) (“Guemard” herein) and further in view of Schupp. et a.(US 2359878 A) (“Schupp” herein)
Claim 1
Guemard discloses a method for recovering polyamide material from waste for enzymatic depolymerization comprising: [0002, 013-0141]
a. supplying waste containing polyamide material; [0002, 0029, 0033-0034, 0054]
b. placing said waste containing polyamide material in a solvent comprising; [0055, 0097-0099] c. precipitating [0046]
d. subjecting said polyamide material to enzymatic depolymerization. [0138-0141]
Guemard however does not explicitly discloses the polyamide material in said waste selectively dissolving with said methanol- calcium chloride solvent; material from said methanol-calcium chloride solvent a precipitating a particle size of 20 nm to 100 µm.
Schupp teaches the above limitation (See Page 1, 2nd Col. 38-44; Page 2, 1st Col. 19 +; Page 2, 2nd Col. 31-47 → Schupp teaches this limitation in that dissolving the polyamides in solutions of metal salts in alcohol, preferably lower aliphatic alcohol, and then effecting precipitation, or precipitation followed by redispersion, of the polyamide, according to the procedure hereinafter described. Production of dispersible polyamide particles from the alcohol-salt-polyamide solutions in accordance with the invention is effected by diluting the said solutions with a nonsolvent for the polyamide, thus causing precipitation of the latter. A preferred nonsolvent for use in the accomplishment of this objective is an excess of the same alcoholic medium as that used in forming the said solution. he dilution of the alcohol-salt-polyamide solution with the nonsolvent medium-preferably in large amount-advantageously is accompanied with vigorous stirring; after which the precipitated polyamide is separated and used as such, e. g., as a substitute for vitreous frits. The precipitated finely divided polyamide can also be re-dispersed by vigorous mechanical dispersing means, e. g. in a coloid mill, in a nonsolvent which ordinarily should be neutral or inert with respect to the material to which it may be intended to apply the dispersion, for coating or impregnating purposes. Usually it is desirable to filter and wash the precipitated polyamide, prior to the setting up of the dispersion. It may be observed that while the mechanical dispersing means operates to break up any agglomerates of the polyamide Particles that may exist, there characteristically is no need for it to effect any size reduction in the individual particles per se. The salts employed in the practice of the invention are metal salts which are alcohol soluble and substantially inert to the polyamide. A mixture comprising 10 parts of polyhexa- methylene adipamide fiber, 22.5 parts of anhydrous calcium chloride, and 67.5 parts of methanol is placed in a ball mill, warmed to 450 C., and milled for several hours. A very viscous solution results, which is stable at 250 C. This solution is atomized into 450 parts of rapidly agitated methanol. Polyhexamethylene adipamide separates in finely divided form and is removed from the liquid by centrifuging. It then is washed with water until free of calcium chloride. The centrifuged cake, consisting of finely divided polyamide particles, next is dispersed in water, e. g., by milling in a colloid mill. Thia particles of dispersed polyamide have an average diameter of 4 microns or less but may be somewhat flocculated.) for the purpose of transforming the polyamides into other forms, particularly readily dispersible solid particles or dispersions. (Page 1, 2nd Col. 17-19)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guemard, with the above limitation, as taught by Schupp, in order to transform the polyamides into other forms, particularly readily dispersible solid particles or dispersions.
Claim 3
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1. Guemard however does not explicitly disclose wherein said waste containing polyamide is placed in said solvent comprising methanol containing calcium chloride at a loading level in the range of 0.1% (wt.) to 25.0 % (wt.). (Same as claim 1)
Claim 4
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1. Guemard however does not explicitly disclose wherein said methanol containing calcium chloride comprises a 1.5 M to 2.5 M solution of calcium chloride in methanol. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 5
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1. Guemard however does not explicitly disclose wherein said waste containing polyamide material is placed in said solvent comprising methanol containing calcium chloride and mixed for a period of time of 0.5 hours to 24.0 hours at a temperature of 25 °C to 55 °C. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 6
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1. Guemard however does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1 wherein said precipitation of said polyamide material comprises adding water to said methanol-calcium chloride solvent. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 7-9
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1. Guemard however does not explicitly disclose e method of claim 1 wherein said precipitated particle size of polyamide material is in the range of 20 nm to 10.0 µm or in the range of 20 nm to 5.0 µm or in the range of 20 nm to 1.0 µm. (Same as claim 1)
Claim 11
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1 wherein said enzymatic depolymerization comprises subjecting said polyamide to treatment with protease. [0138-0141]
Claim 13
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1 wherein said enzymatic depolymerization comprises subject said polyamide to treatment with cutinase. [0138-0141]
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guemard, Schupp, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maille et al. (US 2017/0114205 A1) (“Maille” herein).
Claim 2
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1. Guemard however does not explicitly disclose wherein said waste material comprises carpet material,
Maille teaches the above limitation (See paragraphs 0016 & 0024→ Maille teaches this limitation in that the additional component constituting the mixed PET plastic article(s) is selected from polymers, as polyesters, polyamides, polyolefins and vinyl polymers, metal compounds, mineral compounds, fibers, paper, glass compounds, wood, wood compounds as lignin, cellulose or hemi-cellulose, starch, and derivatives thereof. In the context of the invention, the term “mixed PET plastic article” refers to any item or product or material (such as plastic sheet, tube, rod, profile, shape, massive block, fiber, etc.) comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and at least one additional component. In the context of the invention, mixed PET plastic article encompasses all kind of plastic articles composed of polyethylene terephthalate polymers and further component(s) arranged relative to each other in such a way that they cannot be easily separated. Preferably, the mixed plastic article is a manufactured product like packaging, agricultural films, disposable items or the like, carpet scrap, fabrics, textiles etc.) for the purpose of recycling mixed PET plastic articles, such as waste plastics, containing polyethylene terephthalate polymers and at least one additional constituent. [0001]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guemard, with the above limitation, as taught by Maille, in order to recycle mixed plastics.
Claim 10
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1 wherein said step of precipitating said polyamide material [0046] Guemard however does not explicitly disclose said methanol-calcium chloride solvent (Same as claim 1)
Guemard however does not explicitly disclose precipitating includes sonicating while precipitating.
Maille teaches this limitation in that (See paragraph 0104 → Maille teaches this limitation in that Alternatively, the mixed PET plastic article may be mechanically ground, granulated, pelleted, etc. by cutting, impact, crushing, grinding, fractionation, cryogenic grinding, or the like, to reduce the shape and size of the material prior to be added to a liquid medium containing the microorganisms and/or enzymes. The mechanical pretreatment can also be a sonication, a centrifugation, a shear, a collisop, a high-pressure homogenizer, a maceration or a liquefaction with a rotary drum, a screw press, a disc screen shredder, or a piston press.) for the purpose of having in order to physically change its structure, so as to increase the surface of contact between the polymers and the enzymes and/or to decrease the microbial charge coming from wastes. [0104]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guemard with the above limitation, as taught by Maille, in order to increase the surface of contact between the polymers and the enzymes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guemard, Schupp, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Boisart et al. (US 2015/0290840 A1) (“Boisart” herein – provided by applicant).
Claim 12
Guemard discloses the method of claim 1 wherein said enzymatic depolymerization comprises subjecting said polyamide to treatment with peoxidase. [0138-0141]
Guemard however does not explicitly discloses the peoxidase as a manganese peoxidase
Boisart teaches the above limitation (See paragraph 0056, 0064 → Boisart teaches this limitation in the plastic product to recycle is contacted with the degrading enzyme, which may be natural or synthetic. That Aspergillus fumigatus NKCM1706, Bionectria ochroleuca BFM-X1 may be used for degrading a plastic product containing PBS. Thermomonospora fusca K13g and K7a-3, Isaria fumosorosea NKCM1712 may be used for degrading a plastic product containing PBAT. Bjerkandera adusta producing a manganese peroxidase may be used for degrading a plastic product containing PA.) for the purpose of recycling at least one plastic product, comprising depolymerizing at least one polymer of the plastic product to monomers using an enzyme and recovering the resulting monomers. [0009]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Guemard, with the above limitation, as taught by Boisart, in order to recycle at least one plastic product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsukada et al. (US 2008/0131520 A1) BIODEGRADABLE BIOPOLYMERS, METHOD FOR THEIR PREPARATION AND FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS CONSTITUTED BY THESE BIOPOLYMERS teaches A biodegradable biopolymer material consists of silk fibroin from domesticated silkworm; silk fibroin from wild silkworm; a composite material comprising silk fibroin from domesticated silkworm and silk fibroin from wild silkworm; or a composite material comprising either silk fibroin from domesticated silkworm or silk fibroin from wild silkworm and at least one secondary substance selected from the group consisting of cellulose, chitin, chitosan, chitosan derivatives, keratin from wool and polyvinyl alcohol. The material may be prepared by, for instance, casting an aqueous solution of domesticated silkworm silk fibroin on the surface of a substrate and then cast drying the applied solution. The biodegradable biopolymer material is effectively used as, for instance, a metal ion-adsorbing material, a sustained release substrate for a useful substance such as a medicine, a biological cell-growth substrate and a biodegradable water-absorbing material, Thinon et al. (US 2022/0127416 A1) METHOD FOR PRODUCING A POLYESTER TEREPHTHALATE INCORPORATING A DEPOLYMERIZATION METHOD teaches The invention relates to a process for producing a terephthalate polyester from at least one feedstock of polyester to be recycled, integrating a process of depolymerization, advantageously by glycolysis, of the polyester to be recycled in order to produce a diester intermediate compatible with the specifications of the polymerization steps and comprising an optimized system for recycling the streams, and Sarian (US 5849804 A) Recovery Of Polyamides From Composite Articles teaches A process for recovering polyamide from composite articles that contain polyamide involves (a) subjecting at substantially nondepolymerizing conditions the composite article to a solvent for polyamide for a time sufficient to dissolve substantially all of the polyamide and leaving an insoluble fraction; (b) separating insoluble fraction of the composite article from the dissolved polyamide; and (c) precipitating the dissolved polyamide with appropriate precipitants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/SILVANA C RUNYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 02/05/2026