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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115139428A see abstract, page 2 lines 34-37, page 3 lines 21-35, page 4 lines 21-24, and claims 1 page 7 lines 26-37.; in view of CN113039053A see abstract, page 3 lines 7-16 and page 5 lines 4-15.
With regard to claim 1, the closest art of record, CN115139428A, discloses a method for recycling and granulating waste polyester, comprising the following steps: Step 1: selecting, cleaning, pulverizing, drying, mixing waste PET, and then drying and removing moisture to reduce the moisture content of waste polyester; Step 2: melt the dried waste polyester, and extrude the melt after melting; Step 3: add chain extender to the extruded melt to increase the viscosity; Step 4: for Step 3 Filtration of the melt after thickening; Step 5: After filtration, the thick wire is formed by drawing: Step 6: Cooling the wire after Step 5 drawing; Step 7: After cooling, it is pelletized, dehydrated, packaged, and the waste polyester is dried and melted. After reacting with the chain extender, the viscosity and performance of the granulated product are improved, which can meet the processing needs of downstream products. See abstract, page 2 lines 34-37, page 3 lines 21-35, page 4 lines 21-24, and claims 1 page 7 lines 26-37.
CN115139428A does not disclose adding a modifier to the resulting higher viscosity polyester followed by further melt processing to form a modified polyester material.
CN113039053A discloses introducing additives into a recycled polyester melt using a dynamic mixer and static mixer prior to final processing. See page 3 lines 7-16 and page 5 lines 4-15. Note page 5 lines 13-15 states that the properties of the melt can also be adjusted by the method according to the invention and the apparatus according to the invention, so that film extrusion and other applications are also possible.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add modifiers as taught by CN113039053A into the recycled polyester process of CN115139428A since CN113039053A teaches the use of additives prior to the final processing in order to improve material properties and prepare the recycled polyester for further end use. Moreover, melt blending additives into polyester compositions was well known in the art for producing modified polyesters having desired properties. 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. 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 2, 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 elevated processing temperature within the claimed range because CN115139428A discloses
melt processing recycled polyester at overlapping temperatures. See page 3 lines 27-33.
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 employ a first melting treatment temperature within the claimed range because CN115139428A discloses melt processing recycled polyester at overlapping temperatures. See page 3 lines 27-33.
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 provide an intrinsic viscosity of the low-viscosity polyester is 0.5 dL/g to 0.62 dL/g since CN115139428A discloses recycled polyester having IV values overlapping the claimed range. See page 3 lines 34-35.
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 perform surface coating scraping on the recycled release film before the first melting treatment since
CN115139428A discloses cleaning a preparing waste PET prior to processing. See page 2 lines 34-36.
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 filter the low-viscosity polyester after the first melting treatment since CN115139428A discloses multiple filtration stages during recycling. See page 4 lines 1-8, page 5 lines 13-18 and page 6 lines 3-8.
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 claimed invention to provide a process wherein the polymerization treatment comprises liquid- state thickening since CN115139428A discloses increasing polyester viscosity through chain extension treatment. See page 2 lines 37 and page 3 lines 21-33.
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 provide a process wherein an intrinsic viscosity of the high-viscosity polyester is 0.7 dL/g to 0.86 dL/g since CN115139428A discloses polyester having increased IV values overlapping the claimed range. See page 3 lines 34-35 and page 4 lines 21-24.
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 add the claimed modifier comprising a glass fiber, a flame retardant, a toughening agent, a nucleating agent, a weather-resistant modifier, an antioxidant, and/or a lubricant since CN115139428A discloses incorporating additives including reinforcing agents and performance enhancing additives into recycled polyester compositions prior to final process. See page 3 lines 7-16 and page 5 lines 4-15.
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 employ a second melting treatment is 240°C to 275°C since CN115139428A discloses melt processing recycled polyester at overlapping temperatures. See page 3 lines 27-33.
With regard to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cleaned and the high-viscosity polyester comprises polyethylene terephthalate of more than 99% purity since CN115139428A discloses cleaning and preparing waste PET prior to processing. See page 2 lines 34-36.
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 subject the polyester modified material to a granulation treatment after the second melting treatment to form polyester modified particles since CN115139428A discloses pelletizing and granulating recycled polyester products after processing. See page 4 lines 25-29, page 5 lines 19-23 and page 6 lines 13-16.
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.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18465986.
The claims are not patently distinct because both are directed to methods where a polyester material having a relatively low intrinsic viscosity is treated to increase intrinsic viscosity and is subsequently combined with modifying components to form a modified polyester composition material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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