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.
Claims 4-6 and 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 4 requires an acid equivalent of an acid solution with respect to a mixture of dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid and paraffin oil. The scope of the claim is unclear as the particular metric/method for determining the acid equivalency is undefined.
Claim 5 requires an alkali equivalent of an alkali solution with respect to a 7-13 wt% sodium hydroxide aqueous solution. The scope of the claim is unclear as the particular metric/method for determining the alkali equivalency is undefined.
As claim 6 depends from claim 5, claim 6 is rejected for the same reason discussed above.
Claim 6 recites 50°C~70°C. The “~” symbol can potentially be understood to mean “approximately”. It is unclear whether the recitation is meant to be 50 to 70 degrees C or if approximate values are intended (e.g. about 50°C to 70°C). Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 10 pertains to a method of “using” a recycled/reproduced polyester, but does not specify any required process steps associated with the use. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is actually practiced.
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, 3, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (KR2013-0121387A). As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claim 1, Hong teaches methods of disposing/recycling waste polyester-containing release films (Pages 1-4) whereby release film comprising polyester substrate and silicone release layer is immersed in alkali to remove release layer and obtaining polyester (Example 1 of ¶ 34; ¶ 23), construed as alkali washing step.
Regarding Claim 3, Hong teaches the resulting first solid matter containing polyester can be subjected to a neutralizing bath comprising acid over the course of obtaining polyester (¶ 23, 28).
Regarding Claim 10, Hong teaches the recovered polyester can be processed into a recycled raw material for other uses (¶ 3).
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obe (JP2021-187870A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Obe teaches methods of treating/recycling release films comprising polyester base material layer and silicone release layer comprising treating with an aqueous alkali treatment liquid for removing the release layer and obtaining solid matter comprising polyester (Abstract; ¶ 13; Examples). The recovered polyester can be re-used in various applications (¶ 68).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Obe teaches embodiments where release layer is formed from aqueous release agent comprising hydrophilic silicone (¶ 75).
Regarding Claim 9, Obe teaches embodiments where no volatile organics are used (¶ 76).
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR2013-0121387A). As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Hong teaches methods of disposing/recycling waste polyester-containing release films (Pages 1-4) whereby release film comprising polyester substrate and silicone release layer is immersed in alkali to remove release layer and obtaining polyester (Example 1 of ¶ 34; ¶ 23), construed as alkali washing step.
Regarding Claim 4, Hong teaches the resulting first solid matter containing polyester can be immersed in a neutralizing bath comprising acid over the course of obtaining polyester (¶ 23, 28-29). Hong teaches the acid bath is composed of 1-20 wt% acetic acid in water mixture (¶ 28), corresponding to roughly 0.2-3.3 M acetic acid. 20:80 to 30:70 wt/wt dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid to paraffin oil is roughly 0.65-1.1 M (based on molecular weight of 326.5 for dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid and a density of ~ 0.85 for paraffin oil). Therefore, Hong is seen to suggest overlapping ranges. 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 Hong suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Hong. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding Claim 5, Hong teaches 1-20 wt% of potassium hydroxide in ethoxyethanol solvent (¶ 21), equivalent to roughly 0.2-4.5 M. A 7-13 wt% aqueous mixture of sodium hydroxide is roughly 1.9-3.7 M. Therefore, Hong is seen to suggest overlapping ranges. 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 Hong suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Hong. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR2013-0121387A) in view of Lee (US 2005/0118443 A1). As the cited KR publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Hong teaches methods of disposing/recycling waste polyester-containing release films (Pages 1-4) whereby release film comprising polyester substrate and silicone release layer is immersed in alkali to remove release layer and obtaining polyester (Example 1 of ¶ 34; ¶ 23), construed as alkali washing step.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Hong teaches the films comprise layers of polyester and silicone (¶ 1-2), but differs with the subject matter claimed in that it is not indicated that the silicone layer is formed from aqueous release agent.
Lee teaches silicone release polyester films derived from aqueous release agent are conventionally known in the art (Abstract; ¶ 11-15). Lee teaches specific coatings that exhibit good adhesiveness with low silicone transfer (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the aqueous silicone release agent coatings of Lee because doing so would provide good adhesiveness with low silicone transfer as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obe (JP2021-187870A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Obe teaches methods of treating/recycling release films comprising polyester base material layer and silicone release layer comprising treating with an aqueous alkali treatment liquid for removing the release layer and obtaining solid matter comprising polyester (Abstract; ¶ 13; Examples). The recovered polyester can be re-used in various applications (¶ 68).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Obe teaches the alkali treating agent can be aqueous sodium hydroxide (¶ 25) whereby concentrations of 0.5-60 wt% can be used (¶ 27). Contact can be via immersion (¶ 24; Examples). Obe further teaches temperatures such as 70 degrees C to 150 degrees C (¶ 27). Accordingly, Obe teaches overlapping ranges. 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 Obe suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Obe. See MPEP 2123.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obe (JP2021-187870A) in view of Hong (KR2013-0121387A). As the cited JP and KR publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to.
Obe teaches methods of treating/recycling release films comprising polyester base material layer and silicone release layer comprising treating with an aqueous alkali treatment liquid for removing the release layer and obtaining solid matter comprising polyester (Abstract; ¶ 13; Examples). The recovered polyester can be re-used in various applications (¶ 68).
Regarding Claim 3, Obe teaches washing the layers after alkali treatment with water (¶ 37). Obe differs from the subject matter claimed in that washing with acidic water is not described. Hong also pertains to methods of treating release films with alkali to recycle polyester (Pages 1-4). Hong teaches it was known in the art acidic mixture such as 1-20 wt% acetic acid in water can be used to wash/neutralize the resulting alkali via immersion (¶ 23-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wash/neutralize the release films of Obe with a 1-20 wt% acetic acid in water mixture because doing so would facilitate neutralization and recovery of the resulting polyester films as taught by Hong.
Regarding Claim 4, Hong teaches the resulting first solid matter containing polyester can be immersed in a neutralizing bath comprising acid over the course of obtaining polyester (¶ 23, 28-29). Hong teaches the acid bath is composed of 1-20 wt% acetic acid in water mixture (¶ 28), corresponding to roughly 0.2-3.3 M acetic acid. 20:80 to 30:70 wt/wt dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid to paraffin oil is roughly 0.65-1.1 M (based on molecular weight of 326.5 for dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid and a density of ~ 0.85 for paraffin oil). Therefore, Hong is seen to suggest overlapping ranges. 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 Hong suggests the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Hong. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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