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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP3912534 col. 2 line s12-68 and col. 3 lines 1-52.in view of USPub20050028556 paragraphs [0027]-[0033], [0037]-[0040], [0047]-[0054 and [0084].
With regard to claim 1, USP3912534 discloses a method of recycling laminated glass comprising crushing laminated glass into fragments, heating the fragments to separate organic interlayer material from the glass, burning away residual organic material and recovering reusable glass cullet. The reference USP3912534 does not disclose recovering at least one metal component selected from lithium, indium , rhodium, ruthenium, tungsten, nickel, tin, or oxides thereof, or recovering an organic electrolyte component from the broken glass article.
USPub20050028556 discloses processing waste glass materials by pulverizing the glass and contacting the glass with an acid solution to dissolve and remove nonsilicon oxide components including metal containing constituents from the waste glass. See paragraphs [0027]-[0033], [0037]-[0040], [0047]-[0054 and [0084].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of USP3912534 by recycling metal-containing constituents from the broken glass materials as taught by USPub 20050028556 because USPub20050028556 teaches that valuable components present in waste glass may be separated and re overed during recycling processes.
With regard to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the organic electrolyte comprises at least one of a redox dye, a salt, a chlorine-containing compound, and a fluorine-containing compound because these were conventionally present in electrochromic devices and are recognized recoverable components of electrochromic systems.
With regard to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover at least a portion of the at least one of the redox dye, the salt, the chlorine-containing compound, and the fluorine containing compound from the organic electrolyte since recovery of dissolved constituents from a processing liquid is taught in USPub20090209667 see paragraphs [0021]-[0044].
With regard to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat said pieces using a medium comprising an organic solvent to remove a component of the organic electrolyte since it is taught in USPub20090209667 see paragraphs [0021]-[0024], [0069]-[0069], and claim 1.
With regard to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover the component from the organic solvent since USPub20090209667 discloses recovering dissolved materials from solvent solutions through filtration, precipitation, washing and isolation processes. See paragraphs [003321]-[0044], and claim 1.
With regard to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover a portion of the organic solvent since USPub20090209667 discloses removal and processing of solvent streams following extraction and dissolution. See paragraphs [0022]-[0024],.
With regard to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to heat the broken pieces to a temperature lower than the glass transition temperature of the coated glass to incinerate remaining organic components and produce ash, and then recovering at least one metal since USP3912534 discloses heating crushed laminated glass scrap to burn away organic interlayer materials and leave recoverable inorganic residue.
With regard to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat at least one of the broken pieces and ash in an acidic solution having a pH of less than 3 to dissolve a portion of the one or more of the metals since it is well known in the art in the recovery and recycling art...
With regard to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover at least one metal from the acidic solution since recovery of dissolved meals from leach solutions was a known and conventional metal recovery technique.
With regard to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover at least a portion of the acidic solution since recovery and reuse of process liquids was a conventional practice in chemical and recycling processes.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP3912534 col. 2 lines12-68 and col. 3 lines 1-52 in view of USPub20090209667 paragraphs [0015]-[0044], [0047-[0049], [0086] and claims 1, 15, 16, and 18.
With regard to claim 11, USP3912534 discloses a method of recycling laminated glass comprising crushing laminated glass into fragments, heating the fragments to separate organic interlayer material from the glass, burning away residual organic material and recovering reusable glass cullet. See col. 2 line s12-68 and col. 3 lines 1-52. The reference USP3912534 does not disclose recovering at least a portion of an organic electrolyte component selected from a redox dye, salt , chlorine-containing compound or fluorine-containing compound.
USPub20090209667 discloses recycling laminated glass by granulating laminated glass, contacting the granulated laminated glass with liquid solvents, dissolving organic interlayer materials, filtering impurities, precipitating recovered organic material from solution, and recovering the organic material for reuse. See paragraphs [0015]-[0044], [0047-[0049], [0086] and claims 1, 15, 16, and 18.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recycling process of USP3912534 by recovering organic components from the broken glass material using solvent extraction and recovery techniques as taught by USPub20090209667 since it show that valuable organic materials associated with laminated glass structures can be separated, recovered and reused through solvent processing.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove at least one component of the organic electrolyte in a liquid composition since USPub20090209667 discloses dissolving and extracting organic constituents from laminated glass materials in to a solvent stream for later recovery. See paragraphs [0021]-[0025], [0039]-[0044] and claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover the component from the liquid composition since USPub20090209667 discloses recovering dissolved constituents from a solvent through filtration, precipitation washing and isolation processes. See [0033]-[0044] and claim 1.
With regard to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an organic solvent since USPub20090209667 discloses the use of organic solvents including methanol, ethanol, propanol, n-butanol, methyl acetate, cyclohexanone, or diacetone alcohol for the dissolution and recovery processes as shown in paragraphs [0021]-[0023] and claim 5. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ water since USPub20090209667 discloses the use of water in [0039]-[0044] and claim 13. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
With regard to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to break the electrochromic glass window or mirror into pieces having an average size of less than 100 cm² since USP3912534 discloses crushing laminated glass into fragments prior to recovery operations and reducing particle size helps the separation process.
With regard to claim 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover at least one of the metals since USP3912534 discloses recovery of valuable constituent from processed glass waste streams.
With regard to claim 18, USP3912534 discloses a method of recycling laminated glass comprising crushing laminated glass into fragments, heating the fragments to separate organic interlayer material from the glass, burning away residual organic material and recovering reusable glass cullet. See col. 2 line s12-68 and col. 3 lines 1-52. The reference USP3912534 does not disclose recovering an organic electrolyte component by contacting the broken pieces with a liquid composition.
USPub20090209667 discloses contacting granulated laminates glass with a first solvent to extract organic materials, contain the material with a second solvent to dissolve additional organic materials, filtering impurities, and recovering the dissolved organic material from the liquid composition. See paragraphs [0015]-[0039] and claims 1 and 18.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of USP3912534 by contacting the broken glass material with a liquid composition as taught by USPub20090209667 since the reference teaches that liquid extraction techniques effectively recover organic materials associated with laminated glass structures.
With regard to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover at least one component from the liquid composition since USPub20090209667 discloses recovering dissolved materials from solvent streams in [0033]-[0044] and claim 1.
With regard to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover at least a portion of the liquid composition since USPub20090209667 discloses recovering and reuse of solvent streams in [0020, [0039]-[0044] and claim 1.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights