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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005330444A see abstract, page 3 lines 20-35; page 4 lines 1-5, page 8 lines 10-48 and page 9 lines 1-10; in view of TWI781761B see page 4 lines 35-43, page 5 lines 15-44 and page 6 lines 17-43 further in view of KR20220037999A see page 25 line 4.
Claim 1 is directed to a chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics, comprising: performing extraction the polyester fabrics using a composite solvent and performing filtration, so as to obtain a decolored polyester fabric, the composite solvent contains alcohol ether and phenyl ether, and the decolored polyester fabric contains the composite solvent; and adding ethylene glycol to the decolored polyester fabric for depolymerization into ethylene terephthalate monomers thylene glycol.
JP2005330444A discloses a chemical recycling method for polyester materials comprising contacting colored polyester with an ethylene glycol extractant to remove coloring components, spearing the extracted polyester, and adding ethylene glycol to the extracted polyester to depolymerize the polyester into ester monomers. The reference also teaches that the removal of coloring components prior to glycolysis helps in the recovery and purification of the resulting ester monomers. See abstract, page 3 lines 20-35; page 4 lines 1-5, page 8 lines 10-48 and page 9 lines 1-10.
JP2005330444A does not disclose performing the extraction using a composite solvent containing an alcohol ether and phenyl ether.
TWI781761B discloses extracting dyes from polyester fabrics using a composite solvent including an alcohol ether, such as propylene glycol methyl ether, followed by filtration to obtain decolored polyester fabric prior further treatment steps. The reference also teaches that the extraction removes dyes and contaminants before further processing steps occur. See page 4 lines 35-43, page 5 lines 15-44 and page 6 lines 17-43. However the reference does not explicitly state that the ether is phenyl ether. Note however, that KR20220037999A shows that usable polar aprotic solvents include methyl phenyl ether and ethyl phenyl ether. The reference further teaches that substituting anisole or methyl phenyl ether as the solvent increases the depolymerization rate during PET methanolysis. See page 25 lines 3-7.
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 extraction process of JP2005330444A by using the alcohol ether composite solvent taught by TWI781761B and incorporating a phenyl ether solvent as taught by KR2022003799A. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the known solvent to improve decolorization and depolymerization while maintaining the recycling process of JP2005330444A. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition or process, 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).
Claim 2 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein alcohol ether includes ethylene glycol methyl ether, ethylene glycol ethyl ether, ethylene glycol propyl ether, ethylene glycol butyl ether, ethylene glycol phenyl ether, propylene glycol methyl ether, propylene glycol ethyl ether, propylene glycol propyl ether, propylene glycol butyl ether, propylene glycol phenyl ether or combinations thereof , phenyl ether includes anisole, phenethyl ether, phenylpropyl ether, butyl ether, methyl anisole, methyl phenethyl ether, methyl phenyl ether, methyl phenyl ether or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since TWI781761B discloses the use of an alcohol ether solvent for polyester decolorization, KR 2022003799A discloses that methyl phenyl ether, ethyl phenyl ether, and anisole are suitable solvents for polyester depolymerization, and selecting known solvent species from these recognized solvent classes would have been routine optimization to obtain predictable solvent performance.
Claim 3 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the composite solvent to the polyester fabric is 3:10 to 10:10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the amount of composite solvent to the polyester fabric affects the extraction efficiency and optimizing the solvent /fabric ratio through routine experimentation would have predictable results.
Claim 4 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein the extraction is performed at a temperature of 110°C to 150°C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since TWI781761B discloses performing the extraction within a temperature range including the claimed range and thus obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claim 5 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein an extraction time ranges from 10 minutes to 60 minutes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since extraction time is optimized to cause a sufficient dye removal while minimizing processing time.
Claim 6 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein the extraction is performed 2 times to 6 times. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since repeated extraction cycles were known to improve contaminant removal, and selecting two to six extraction cycles would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to increase extraction efficiency.
Claim 7 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein in the composite solvent, a weight ratio of alcohol ether to phenyl ether is 1:9 to 9:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the relative amounts of the alcohol ether and phenyl ether are known to be adjustable, and optimizing the solvent ratio to achieve the desired extraction and depolymerization performance would have been within the ordinary skill of the art through routine experimentation.
Claim 8 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of ethylene glycol to the decolored polyester fabric is 2:1 to 6:1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the amount of ethylene glycol relative to the polyester material influences the depolymerization efficiency and optimizing the ethylene glycol /polyether ratio through routine experimentation would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 9 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein catalysts for depolymerization include organic metals and ionic liquids, the organic metals include zinc acetate, organic titanium, organic antimony or organic aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since JP2005330444A discloses depolymerizing polyester using ethylene glycol and selection of known depolymerization catalysts, including organic metal catalyst and ionic liquids, would have been an obvious matter of routine
Claim 10 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 9, wherein a weight ratio of the catalysts for depolymerization to the decolored polyester fabric is 0.5:100 to 10:100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since JP2005330444A discloses depolymerizing polyester using ethylene glycol, and selection known depolymerization catalysts, including organic metal catalysts and ionic liquids, would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to improve depolymerization efficiency and monomer recovery.
Claim 11 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein a temperature of depolymerization is 140℃ to 190℃.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since selection of a depolymerization temperature within the claimed range to obtain an efficient depolymerization while keeping product quality.
Claim 12 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 1, wherein a time of depolymerization is 1.5 hours to 5 hours.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the depolymerization time to obtain the degree of depolymerization while minimizing unnecessary processing time with expected results.
Claim 13 is directed to the chemical recycling method for polyester fabrics according to claim 9, wherein the ionic liquids include 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexa-fluoro-phosphate (BMI-PF6) and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetra-fluoro-borate (BMI-BF4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since ionic liquids were known depolymerization catalysts and selecting one known ionic liquid catalyst would have been a matter of routine optimization to obtain depolymerization.
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