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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
First, a polymeric reactant.
Second, an ionized gas plasma.
The species are independent or distinct. For the first species: different types of polymers (e.g. polyethylene, polypropylene, polyurethane, polyamine, polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate) have different chemical and physical properties and respond differently to the same treatment. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. For the second species: different gases also have different chemical and physical properties and will alter a same polymeric reactant in different ways. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1-35 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the distinct chemistries involved in each selection are differently classified and result in different physical properties and effects in compositions and devices in which they are incorporated. The species are mutually exclusive; a search for one will not yield results for another. The breadth of scope of “polymeric reactant” and “ionized gas plasma” is too large because the terms encompass thousands of possibilities.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Emily Tarsis on 6/2/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of polymeric reactant: polyethylene and gas: carbon dioxide/oxygen mixture. These are closed groups; i.e. the polymeric reactant consists of polyethylene, in the election, and the gas consists of carbon dioxide/oxygen, in the election. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11, 14 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 18 and 33 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.
Claims 18 and 33 recite a group that “comprises…and/or”. From this wording it is unclear what is included in the group, if the group could contain other options. An example of proper Markush group wording is “contains at least one selected from the group consisting of…and…and combinations thereof”.
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.
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 21, 22, 24, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210031452 by Sinha.
Sinha describes plasma-treated powders for additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 21, Sinha describes a method of reacting carbon dioxide with a polymeric reactant (optionally oxygen and carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide alone, paragraph 30, 45) and thus removing some amount of carbon dioxide from the gas by its reaction to form epoxide on the surface of the polymer (paragraph 30). Sinha describes polyethylene as the polymer in an embodiment (paragraph 46).
Sinha describes reacting the reactants in a plasma (paragraph 45), which by definition contains ionized gas.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose carbon dioxide and polyethylene because Sinha describes these as embodiments.
Regarding claim 22, Sinha describes oxygen and carbon dioxide in an embodiment (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 24, describes a method of reacting carbon dioxide with a polymeric reactant (optionally oxygen and carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide alone, paragraph 30, 45).
Regarding claims 26, 27 Sinha describes polyethylene as the polymer in an embodiment (paragraph 46).
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 29, 30, 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210031452 by Sinha in view of “Hydrogen from Waste Plastics by Two-Stage Pyrolysis/Low Temperature Plasma Catalytic Processing” by Aminu et al.
Sinha is described above.
Regarding claim 1, Sinha describes a method of decomposing a polymeric reactant comprising:
Reacting the polymeric reactant- optionally polyethylene (paragraph 46)- in an oxygen-containing ionized gas plasma -optionally oxygen and carbon dioxide (paragraph 45)
Sinha is silent as to the temperature or type of plasma and describes plasma quite generically (e.g. paragraph 40); the instant detail is addressed via secondary reference Aminu below.
Regarding the term “decomposing”, the instant specification’s definition (“depolymerizing the polymeric reactant by breaking the covalent carbon-carbon bonds in the polymer to produce smaller parts”) is met by Sinha in that oxygen and carbon dioxide react with polyethylene to form epoxide moieties (Sinha paragraph 47), where the epoxy-functionalization necessarily breaks carbon-carbon bonds in polyethylene.
It would be obvious to choose the elected polyethylene and oxygen/carbon dioxide because Sinha describes them as possibilities.
Aminu describes treating polyethylene with plasma.
Aminu states that low temperature non-thermal plasma is a promising alternative to thermal plasma because it operates at much lower temperature such as about 250C (p.11679 col 2 final paragraph). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Aminu’s non-thermal plasma technique where Sinha is more generic because it operates at a lower temperature than thermal plasma.
Regarding claim 2 and 29, Aminu describes an electric field (p.11681 col 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3 and 30, Aminu describes 20 kV (p.11681 col 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sinha describes a combination of carbon dioxide/oxygen (paragraph 45), where the claim construction of claim 1 “comprising” allows for more than one ionized gas present in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Sinha describes the elected polyethylene (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 18 and 33, Aminu describes non-thermal plasma (p.11679 col 2 final paragraph). Aminu describes high energy electrons, ions, atoms and molecules (p.11680 col 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 19, 20, 34 and 35, Aminu states that the addition of a catalyst has a synergistic effect resulting from interactions of catalyst and plasma to enhance conversion of feedstock, increase energy efficiency of desired product, etc. (p.11680 col 1 paragraph 2). Aminu describes a metal catalyst (p.11680 col 2 paragraph 3). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a metal catalyst where Sinha is silent in order to e.g. increase the energy efficiency of Sinha’s plasma process.
Partial Rejoinder
Claims 4-10, 17, 28, 31 and 32 have been searched for the elected species (see restriction above) and no applicable prior art for the elected species has been found for these claims. Therefore, the search is broadened for these claims only, below. If other claims besides claims 4-10, 17, 28, 31 and 32 are rejected below, it is merely for the purposes of compact prosecution- art found for the broadened search may apply to other claims even though a broadened search is not undertaken for the other claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 4, 6, 11-13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Modification of polyethylene tube surface in dielectric barrier discharge” by Mlotek et al as evidenced by “Studies on cold plasma–polymer surface interaction by example of PP- and PET-films” by Akishev et al.
Mlotek describes improving the hydrophilic properties of polyethylene tubes via plasma treatment.
Regarding claim 1, Mlotek describes a method of treating a polymeric reactant comprising
-reacting the polymeric reactant polyethylene with an oxygen-containing plasma (e.g. air + CO2 p.2398 col 2 final paragraph) at about 25-30C (p.2398 col 2 first paragraph).
Regarding the preamble “decomposing a polymeric reactant”, the instant specification defines decomposition as “depolymerizing the polymeric reactant by breaking the covalent carbon-carbon bonds in the polymer to produce smaller parts” is met by Mlotek because Mlotek describes formation of carbonyl, carboxyl and hydroxyl groups upon treatment with air + CO2 (p.2401 col 2 final paragraph), wherein the incorporation of these into the surface is caused by reaction of the polymer (i.e. breaking the chain) with plasma or plasma-induced species (p.2402 col1 final paragraph). See also “Studies on cold plasma–polymer surface interaction by example of PP- and PET-films” by Akishev p.6 col 2 final paragraph-p.7 col 1 first paragraph, which describes backbone scission in plasma treatment of another saturated hydrocarbon polymer, polypropylene.
Regarding claim 2 and 29, Mlotek describes an electric field (p.2398 col 1 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4 and 31, Mlotek describes a frequency of 6.5 kHz.
Regarding claim 6 and 23, Mlotek describes the presence of hydroxyl groups, i.e. the formation of an alcohol; he also describes the presence of carbonyl and carboxyl groups (reads on carboxylic acid/ester and other carbonyls) (p.2401 col 2 final paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Mlotek describes air (p.2398 col 2 final paragraph).
Regarding claim 12 and 22, Mlotek’s description of air contains oxygen therefore reads on the claim because the claim does not exclude other gases from being present (p.2398 col 2 final paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Mlotek describes a combination of air and carbon dioxide (p.2398 col2 final paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, 16, 26 and 27, Mlotek describes polyethylene (p.2397 col 2 final paragraph, PE).
Regarding claim 21, Mlotek describes a process which results in the removal of carbon dioxide from a gas by:
-reacting the polymeric reactant polyethylene with a carbon dioxide-containing plasma (e.g. air + CO2 p.2398 col 2 final paragraph) at about 25-30C (p.2398 col 2 first paragraph), which results in oxygen-functionalized products (p.2401 col 2 final paragraph).
This reaction results in the removal of some amount of CO2 from the starting plasma material as several reactions with the polymeric surface are expected. See “Studies on cold plasma–polymer surface interaction by example of PP- and PET-films” by Akishev p.6 col 2 final paragraph-p.7 col 1 first paragraph, which describes many different reactions which take place on the surface of related polymer polypropylene upon plasma treatment.
Claims 18 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Modification of polyethylene tube surface in dielectric barrier discharge” by Mlotek et al as evidenced by “Studies on cold plasma–polymer surface interaction by example of PP- and PET-films” by Akishev et al as further evidenced by “Nonthermal Plasma Technology as a Versatile Strategy for Polymeric Biomaterials Surface Modification: A Review” by Desmet et al.
Mlotek is described above.
Regarding claims 18 and 33, Mlotek describes dielectric barrier discharge plasma, which by definition includes electrons, radicals, etc – see Desmet p.2360 col 2 paragraph 3.
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.
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) 1, 2, 5, 12, 15, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040245509 by Liu et al as evidenced by “Studies on cold plasma–polymer surface interaction by example of PP- and PET-films” by Akishev.
Liu describes a method for processing polymeric materials.
Regarding claim 1, Liu describes a process in which a polymeric reactant HDPE (high density polyethylene) is placed in a plasma (paragraph 22) including oxygen in an embodiment (paragraph 20, 22). Liu describes oxygenated products (paragraph 23).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to select oxygen from Liu’s short list of reactive gases because Liu describes oxygen as a possibility.
Liu meets the preamble “a method of decomposing a polymeric reactant” because the instant specification defines decomposition as “depolymerizing the polymeric reactant by breaking the covalent carbon-carbon bonds in the polymer to produce smaller parts”. The paper “Studies on cold plasma–polymer surface interaction by example of PP- and PET-films” by Akishev p.6 col 2 final paragraph-p.7 col 1 first paragraph describes backbone scission in plasma treatment of another saturated hydrocarbon polymer, polypropylene; any amount of backbone scission reads on “decomposition”.
Liu describes achieving the plasma through non-thermal means (paragraph 22 “the radio frequency power generator is switched on to generate plasma”) without melting the plasma (paragraph 22) and does not describe applying heat, thus one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the temperature to be about room temperature, 23C.
Regarding claim 2, Liu describes applying an electric field (“radio frequency power generator…40w-80w” paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 5, Liu describes a plasma treatment time of 1-10 minutes (paragraph 22). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Liu describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Liu describes oxygen (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 15, 16, Liu describes HDPE (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 18, Liu describes plasma which by definition comprises energetic electrons, for example.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112898631 by Zhang et al.
Zhang describes liquefying polyethylene.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang describes decomposing polyethylene by reacting the polyethylene with plasma in a vessel which is not purged of air (translation paragraph 75-79); i.e. the air contains oxygen and reads on the claim. Zhang describes a reaction taking place at as low as 204C for a first stage and 445C for the second stage (paragraph 78, 79). Zhang describes oxygen-containing products (paragraph 85, 86).
In the case where the claimed temperature ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Zhang describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang describes an electric field (paragraph 78, 79).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang describes a total processing time of 14-30 minutes (paragraph 78, 79).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang describes glycols and diols (alcohols) (paragraph 85, 86).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang does not describe purging the vessel of air therefore air is present in the plasma (paragraph 78, 79).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang meets the claim where the air in the plasma contains oxygen; the claim structure does not prevent other gases from being present.
Regarding claim 13, air -see rejection of claim 11 above- contains carbon dioxide and therefore reads on this claim.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Zhang describes polyethylene (paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang describes wax and liquid products (paragraph 83).
Regarding claim 18, plasma by definition contains energetic electrons, etc.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang describes a catalyst (paragraph 9).
Claims 21-24, 26-29, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112898631 by Zhang et al as evidenced by “Polymer Powder Treatment in Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactor” by Oberbossel et al.
Zhang is described above.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang describes decomposing polyethylene by reacting the polyethylene with plasma in a vessel which is not purged of air (translation paragraph 75-79); i.e. the air contains carbon dioxide and reads on the claim. Oberbossel demonstrates that when CO2 is present in the plasma treating polyethylene, that the polyethylene is altered by the CO2 presence. This is demonstrated by the change in BACA (benzyl alcohol contact angle) in Fig.9 on p.291. Since CO2 in the plasma reacts with polyethylene and Zhang describes oxy-products coinciding with products of CO2 and polyethylene degradation (alcohols paragraph 85, 86), some amount of CO2 would be removed from the plasma in producing the polyethylene degradation products in Zhang’s procedure.
Regarding claim 22, air also comprises oxygen.
Regarding claim 23, Zhang describes glycols and diols (alcohols) (paragraph 85, 86).
Regarding claim 24, air contains carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 26 and 27, Zhang describes polyethylene (paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 28, Zhang describes wax and liquid products (paragraph 83).
Regarding claim 29, Zhang describes an electric field (paragraph 78, 79).
Regarding claim 32, Zhang describes a total processing time of 14-30 minutes (paragraph 78, 79).
Regarding claim 33, plasma by definition contains energetic electrons, etc.
Regarding claim 34, Zhang describes a catalyst (paragraph 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are 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.
The closest art is CN 112898631 by Zhang et al. Zhang does describe “a first state and a second state in sequence” (paragraph 54) but does not state that the first state is heating as required by claim 7.
Claims 11, 14 and 25 remain withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights