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 .
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 are 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 contains the limitation to a film removal device connected with the fine crusher and is configured to remove second film debris of the optical film debris from the fine particles of the liquid crystal panel debris. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether by reference to a “second” film debris but being dependent on claim 2 and not claim 3, the claim scope includes or does not include a “first” film debris separated before the second film debris. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear on infringement when a film debris is removed without removing a “first” film debris. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 4 is interpreted as removing “the optical film debris” instead of “second film debris of the optical film debris”.
Claim 5 contains the limitation to a film removal device connected with the fine crusher and is configured to remove second film debris of the optical film debris from the fine particles of the liquid crystal panel debris. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether by reference to a “third” film debris but being dependent on claim 2 and not claim 3 or 4, the claim scope includes or does not include a “first” and “second” film debris separated before the third film debris. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear on infringement when a film debris is removed without removing a “first” and “second” film debris. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 5 is interpreted as removing “the optical film debris” instead of “third film debris of the optical film debris”.
Claim 6 contains the limitation to the vibration screener is connected with a mixture and is configure to remove fourth film debris of the optical film debris. This claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether by reference to a “fourth” film debris but being dependent on claim 2 and not claim 3 or 4, the claim scope includes or does not include a “first”, “second”, and “third” film debris separated before the fourth film debris. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear on infringement when a film debris is removed without removing a “first”, “second”, and “third” film debris. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 5 is interpreted as removing “the optical film debris” instead of “fourth film debris of the optical film debris”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 have been cancelled in the amendment filed 6/3/2026
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (TW 2013/09619 citations from the Machine Translation provided by the Office) and in further view of Chen et al (CN 114798688 citations from the Machine Translation provided by the Office).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a system for recycling liquid crystal-containing waste LCD glass, the system comprising:
A crushing device configured to crushing a waste liquid crystal glass from display;
A screen for separating waste film from the liquid crystal glass;
A liquid crystal remover that heats and decomposes and volatilizes the liquid crystal in the liquid crystal glass sand to obtain glass sand granules (see (1) Granulation Process, (2) Liquid crystal removal process, and Example).
Lu does not teach a system comprising a liquid-crystalline glass separation module configured to separate the glass-liquid crystal mixture into glass sand and a liquid crystal mixture by using a solvent, wherein the liquid crystal mixture includes the solvent.
Chen teaches a method for recycling waste liquid crystal panel and separating the polarizer (i.e., the polarizer film), glass substrate and liquid crystal, the method comprising:
Crushing the waste LCD panel in a first crusher;
Extracting liquid crystal by liquid crystal agent obtaining a mixed solution;
Processing and recycling the mixed solution to obtain liquid crystal;
After separating the liquid crystal, conveying the crushed panel to a second crusher and collecting glass and polarizing film (see Page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the apparatus as taught by Lu to comprise a module for separating the glass-liquid crystal mixture is separated by solvent extraction as taught by Chen so that liquid crystal can also be recovered and recycled as suggested by Chen instead of being burned off.
Regarding claim 2, Lu teaches a primary crusher configure to crush into coarse particles and a fine crusher to form fine particles and a screen to separate the film from the liquid crystal glass mixture. Chen also discloses a process where crushing comprises a first and second crusher and where the second crusher is fixedly connected with a vibration sorting machine for vibration sieving (i.e., a vibrating screener).
Regarding claim 3, Lu teaches a system where waste film is separated from coarse particles of the first crusher.
Regarding claims 4, Lu teaches a system comprising a fine crusher and a screen to separate the film from the liquid crystal glass mixture.
Regarding claims 5, as applied above, Chen discloses a process where crushing comprises a first and second crusher and where the second crusher is fixedly connected with a vibration sorting machine for vibration sieving (i.e., a vibrating screener). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to make the vibration screener connected (i.e., integral) with the film removal device since its purpose is to remove film debris.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a system where the material crushed is conveyed to the liquid crystal extracting device and extracting liquid crystal by the liquid crystal extraction agent obtains a mixed solution (i.e., where the liquid crystal extraction device comprises a liquid storage tank configured to store the solvent; and a mixer connected with the liquid storage tank configured to mix the solvent and the glass-liquid crystal mixture). An artisan would therefore recognize that the liquid crystal extracting device
Chen teaches a liquid crystal extracting device 4 communicating with an extracting device 5, the extracting device 5 is provided with an extraction agent liquid crystal and liquid crystal extracting agent mixed solution for extracting and separating by extracting agent crystal into the extraction agent liquid crystal extracting agent (i.e., a liquid storage tank configured to store the solvent and a mixer connected with the liquid storage tank, and is configured to mix the solvent and the glass-liquid crystal mixture, so that the solvent separates the glass-liquid crystal mixture into the glass sand and the liquid crystal mixture).
Regarding claim 8, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.III. Here, Chen teaches an extracting device where the mixed solution of extraction agent and liquid crystal can be directed to a distillation device to separate the extracting agent from the liquid crystal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an apparatus comprising a sensor and controller as the mere addition of means for automation of a manual activity already accomplished in Chen.
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches a liquid crystal extracting device comprising windows (see Figure 1, 4).
Regarding claim 10, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.III. Here, Chen teaches an extracting device where the mixed solution of extraction agent and liquid crystal can be directed to a distillation device to separate the extracting agent from the liquid crystal and the extracting device comprising windows. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an apparatus comprising control valves and a controller configured to control the valves to the distiller as the mere addition of means for automation of a manual activity already accomplished in Chen.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu and Chen as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Tsujiguchi et al (JP 2011245379 citations from the Machine Translation provided by the Office).
As applied to claim 2, Lu and Chen teach a waste liquid-crystalline glass recycling system comprising a liquid-crystalline glass film removing module comprising the crushing device and vibrating screener, and a liquid-crystalline glass separation module as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Lu and Chen do not teach the vibrating screener connected with a mixer and the mixture configured to perform a wet removal process on the fine particles of the liquid crystal panel debris.
Tsujiguchi teaches a method for recycling of a liquid crystal panel by safely separating the material, the method comprising crushing the glass substrate and separating comprising mixing glass substrate fragments with an aqueous solution of alkali or alcohol that improves the releasability of organic substances from the glass substrate so that organic substances for example color filter and insulating film formed between the glass and ITO (i.e., liquid crystal) are peeled and/or decomposed (i.e., a mixer configured to perform a wet film removal process) (see Page 7, Bottom). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the recycling system as taught by Lu and Chen to further comprise a mixer for wet film removal process as taught by Tsujiguchi to further remove attached film from the crushed material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu and Chen as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Aisaka et al (JP 2012125693).
As applied to claim 1, Lu and Chen teach a waste liquid-crystalline glass recycling system comprising a liquid-crystalline glass film removing module, and a liquid-crystalline glass separation module as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Lu and Chen do not teach an optical film treatment module connected with the liquid-crystalline glass film removing module, and configured to calcine the optical film debris.
Aisaka teaches a separation recovery apparatus of glass in which from a waste liquid crystal panel is recycled, where a liquid crystal panel is crushed and a separation means catches an optical film which sieves the crushed matter recovering glass substrate and optical film (see Abstract). Aisaka teaches that the separated optical film can be heat recovered. Aisaka further teaches an apparatus comprising a gas burner to oxidize and decompose optical film components (see Examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the recycling system as taught by Lu and Chen to further comprise a burner to oxidize and decompose recovered optical film so that the optical film can be heat recovered as taught by Aisaka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights