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, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, and 24 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 4-6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, and 24 recite “the second chamber”, which lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, these claims are treated as if they stated “the chamber”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (WO 2022/235051 A1) as evidenced by Castro (Journal of Chromatography A, 2010, 1217, 2383-2389). As the cited WO document is in a non-English language, the English equivalent, US 2024/0360292 A1 has been utilized in place of the WO document. All citations are made with respect to the above-mentioned US document.
Regarding Claim 1, Cho describes methods of extracting colorants from polyester via continuously refluxing extracting solvent via a Soxhlet extractor containing a round-bottom flask of boiling solvent connected to an extractor containing polyester (“chamber”), which in turn is connected to a condenser on top so as refluxed extractant is kept in continuous contact with polyester material (¶ 167-169), so as to obtain polyester in the chamber free of colorant material (¶ 170, Table 4; Figure 8, ¶ 229). As evidenced by Castro, Soxhlet extraction involving the vertical arrangement described by Cho intrinsically operates via heating the boiling vessel to vaporize solvent, which travels into the condenser to form condensate, which in turn is directed into a chamber to extract material, after which the solvent/extracted material blend returns into the boiling vessel (Figure 1; Section 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Cho teaches polyesters such as PET (¶ 3).
Regarding Claim 4, as Cho uses a Soxhlet extractor where boiling flask, extractor, and condenser are combined in a vertical fashion, it is implied the condensate is directed toward the extractor via gravity.
Regarding Claim 6, Cho teaches the treated polyester is removed and then dried (¶ 169). Cho teaches the decolored polyester can be re-used as raw material for plastic or resin products (¶ 50).
Regarding Claim 7, Cho teaches the extractant can be recovered/re-used after separation via evaporation/distillation (¶ 39, 47). The recovered colorants can be used for expressing colors in different materials (¶ 45).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2015/0059103 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Liu teaches methods where solvent is placed in boiling vessel coupled to condenser, the solvent is heated to produce vapor that travels into condenser to form condensed fluid, which is directed toward a dyed polyester fiber to dissolve/extract dye from polyester, and then dye-containing solution is separated from fibers into the boiling vessel via gravity; creating a continuous extraction loop that results in decolorized fibers (¶ 13-19, 40). Liu teaches the dyed polyester fiber and solvent pool can be disposed in one tank or in different tanks (¶ 32), reading on a chamber containing polyester fibers coupled to condenser and boiling vessel.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Liu describes examples where xylene is used as extraction solvent with PET fibers (¶ 50-52).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu teaches the decolorized polyester fibers are removed from the chamber and dried (¶ 52). The polyesters can be used to create new polyester products (¶ 3-6).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu teaches the solvent in the dye-containing solution can be recycled/re-used to form fresh vapors (¶ 37, 40), implying separation via evaporation.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO 2022/235051 A1) in view of Castro (Journal of Chromatography A, 2010, 1217, 2383-2389).
Cho describes methods of extracting colorants from polyester via continuously refluxing extracting solvent via a Soxhlet extractor containing a round-bottom flask of boiling solvent connected to an extractor containing polyester (“chamber”), which in turn is connected to a condenser on top so as refluxed extractant is kept in continuous contact with polyester material (¶ 167-169), so as to obtain polyester in the chamber free of colorant material (¶ 170, Table 4; Figure 8, ¶ 229). As evidenced by Castro, Soxhlet extraction involving the vertical arrangement described by Cho intrinsically operates via heating the boiling vessel to vaporize solvent, which travels into the condenser to form condensate, which in turn is directed into a chamber to extract material, after which the solvent/extracted material blend returns into the boiling vessel (Figure 1; Section 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho differs from the subject matter claimed in that a pump feeding condensate to extractor chamber is not described. Castro teaches it was well known in the art various Soxhlet extraction devices are known, inclusive of extractors where condensate is directed toward extractor chambers using gravity (Figure 1) or pumps, such as where microwave-assisted heating is performed (Figure 4; Section 6.2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art either gravity or pump means can be used to direct condensate to an extractor chamber, thereby achieving the predictable result of continuous extraction of substrate with solvent in view of Castro.
Regarding Claims 8, 11, and 13, Cho describes methods of extracting colorants from polyester via continuously refluxing extracting solvent via a Soxhlet extractor containing a round-bottom flask of boiling solvent connected to an extractor containing polyester (“chamber”), which in turn is connected to a condenser on top so as refluxed extractant is kept in continuous contact with polyester material (¶ 167-169), so as to obtain polyester in the chamber free of colorant material (¶ 170, Table 4; Figure 8, ¶ 229). As evidenced by Castro, Soxhlet extraction involving the vertical arrangement described by Cho intrinsically operates via heating the boiling vessel to vaporize solvent, which travels into the condenser to form condensate, which in turn is directed into a chamber to extract material, after which the solvent/extracted material blend returns into the boiling vessel (Figure 1; Section 2). Cho teaches the extractant can be recovered/re-used after separation via evaporation/distillation (¶ 39, 47). The recovered colorants can be used for expressing colors in different materials (¶ 45).
To the extent Cho differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to an express disclosure of a side arm connecting boiling vessel with condenser, Castro teaches conventional Soxhlet extractors rely on a side arm connecting a boiling/distillation flask with a condenser, whereby vaporized solvent travels into the condenser via side arm, forms condensate that enters into the extractor chamber via first open end, the solvent extracts within the extractor to form mixture, and then the mixture is directed into the boiling vessel via gravity (Figure 1; Section 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conventional Soxhlet extractors of Castro within the protocols of Cho, thereby predictably affording workable continuous extraction of polyester substrates.
Regarding Claim 10, Cho teaches polyesters such as PET (¶ 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Cho teaches the treated polyester is removed and then dried (¶ 169). Cho teaches the decolored polyester can be re-used as raw material for plastic or resin products (¶ 50).
Claim(s) 5, 8-13, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0059103 A1) in view of Castro (Journal of Chromatography A, 2010, 1217, 2383-2389).
Liu teaches methods where solvent is placed in boiling vessel coupled to condenser, the solvent is heated to produce vapor that travels is condenser to form condensed fluid, which is directed toward a dyed polyester fiber to dissolve/extract dye from polyester, and then dye-containing solution is separated from fibers into the boiling vessel via gravity; creating a continuous extraction loop that results in decolorized fibers (¶ 13-19, 40). Liu teaches the dyed polyester fiber and solvent pool can be disposed in one tank or in different tanks (¶ 32), reading on a chamber containing polyester fibers coupled to condenser and boiling vessel.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu differs from the subject matter claimed in that a pump feeding condensate to extractor chamber is not described. Castro teaches it was well known in the art various Soxhlet extraction devices are known, inclusive of extractors where condensate is directed toward extractor chambers using gravity (Figure 1) or pumps, such as where microwave-assisted heating is performed (Figure 4; Section 6.2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art either gravity or pump means can be used to direct condensate to an extractor chamber, thereby achieving the predictable result of continuous extraction of substrate with solvent in view of Castro.
Regarding Claims 8-11, 13, 22, 23, and 25, Liu teaches methods where solvent is placed in boiling vessel coupled to condenser, the solvent is heated to produce vapor that travels is condenser to form condensed fluid, which is directed toward a dyed polyester fiber to dissolve/extract dye from polyester, and then dye-containing solution is separated from fibers into the boiling vessel via gravity; creating a continuous extraction loop that results in decolorized fibers (¶ 13-19, 40). Liu teaches the dyed polyester fiber and solvent pool can be disposed in one tank or in different tanks (¶ 32), reading on a chamber containing polyester fibers coupled to condenser and boiling vessel. Liu describes examples where xylene is used as extraction solvent with PET fibers (¶ 50-52). Liu teaches the solvent in the dye-containing solution can be recycled/re-used to form fresh vapors (¶ 37, 40), implying separation via evaporation.
To the extent Liu differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to an express disclosure of a side arm connecting boiling vessel with condenser, Castro teaches conventional Soxhlet extractors rely on a side arm connecting a boiling/distillation flask with a condenser, whereby vaporized solvent travels into the condenser via side arm, forms condensate that enters into the extractor chamber via first open end, the solvent extracts within the extractor to form mixture, and then the mixture is directed into the boiling vessel via gravity (Figure 1; Section 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conventional Soxhlet extractors of Castro within the protocols of Liu, thereby predictably affording workable continuous extraction of polyester substrates.
Regarding Claims 12 and 24, Liu teaches the decolorized polyester fibers are removed from the chamber and dried (¶ 52). The polyesters can be used to create new polyester products (¶ 3-6).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0059103 A1) in view of Petrick (J. Forensic Sci., 2006, 51(4), 771-779).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Liu teaches methods where solvent is placed in boiling vessel coupled to condenser, the solvent is heated to produce vapor that travels is condenser to form condensed fluid, which is directed toward a dyed polyester fiber to dissolve/extract dye from polyester, and then dye-containing solution is separated from fibers into the boiling vessel via gravity; creating a continuous extraction loop that results in decolorized fibers (¶ 13-19, 40). Liu teaches the dyed polyester fiber and solvent pool can be disposed in one tank or in different tanks (¶ 32), reading on a chamber containing polyester fibers coupled to condenser and boiling vessel. Liu describes examples where xylene is used as extraction solvent with PET fibers (¶ 50-52).
Liu teaches various solvents are known for extraction, such as those with a solubility parameter ranging from 17-40 (¶ 30). Liu differs from the subject matter claimed in that toluene is not described. Petrick probed the extraction of colorants from polyester fibers using various solvents (Abstract) and notes acetonitrile mixtures are effective toward disperse dyes (Pages 773-774). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize acetonitrile mixtures within the protocols of Liu because doing so would facilitate the extraction of colorant materials such as disperse dyes in accordance with the teachings of Petrick.
Regarding Claim 16, Liu teaches the decolorized polyester fibers are removed from the chamber and dried (¶ 52). The polyesters can be used to create new polyester products (¶ 3-6).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu teaches the solvent in the dye-containing solution can be recycled/re-used to form fresh vapors (¶ 37, 40), implying separation via evaporation.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0059103 A1) in view of Peng (Anal. Chem. 2021, 93, 14837-14843).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Liu teaches methods where solvent is placed in boiling vessel coupled to condenser, the solvent is heated to produce vapor that travels is condenser to form condensed fluid, which is directed toward a dyed polyester fiber to dissolve/extract dye from polyester, and then dye-containing solution is separated from fibers into the boiling vessel via gravity; creating a continuous extraction loop that results in decolorized fibers (¶ 13-19, 40). Liu teaches the dyed polyester fiber and solvent pool can be disposed in one tank or in different tanks (¶ 32), reading on a chamber containing polyester fibers coupled to condenser and boiling vessel. Liu describes examples where xylene is used as extraction solvent with PET fibers (¶ 50-52).
Liu teaches various solvents are known for extraction, such as those with a solubility parameter ranging from 17-40 (¶ 30). Liu differs from the subject matter claimed in that toluene is not described. Peng probed the extraction of additives from polymer materials such as polyester and notes the efficiency of such is dependent on the polymer substrate and solubility parameter of the solvent; noting toluene has high extraction efficiency for polyesters (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize toluene as an extracting solvent within the protocols of Liu because such solvents have high extraction efficiency as taught by Peng.
Regarding Claim 20, Liu teaches the decolorized polyester fibers are removed from the chamber and dried (¶ 52). The polyesters can be used to create new polyester products (¶ 3-6).
Regarding Claim 21, Liu teaches the solvent in the dye-containing solution can be recycled/re-used to form fresh vapors (¶ 37, 40), implying separation via evaporation.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) in view of Castro (Journal of Chromatography A, 2010, 1217, 2383-2389).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 18, 19, 21-23, and 25, Walker teaches methods comprising extracting dyes from polyesters, whereby dyes are separated using first solvent in first step and then second solvent is used to dissolve polyester for further purification/re-use (Abstract; ¶ 115). Complete dissolution is preferable (¶ 58, 115). Walker teaches the extraction of dyes can be done as a batch process or continuous process, the latter being preferred and performed via Soxhlet extraction whereby a continuous stream of solvent is passed through a column of dyed polyester until no further dye is leeched from polyester (¶ 101). Examples are taught where PET is extracted (¶ 115). Xylene and toluene are suitable extraction solvents (¶ 62, 65). The resulting dye/solvent mixture can be collected, separated via vacuum extraction (i.e. evaporation), the solvent re-used in the extraction process, and the colorant re-used in the manufacture of new clothes (¶ 99).
To the extent Walker differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to a particular Soxhlet extractor, Castro teaches conventional Soxhlet extractors rely on a side arm connecting a boiling/distillation flask with a condenser, whereby vaporized solvent travels into the condenser via side arm, forms condensate that enters into an extractor chamber via first open end, the solvent extracts within the extractor to form mixture, and then the mixture is directed into the boiling vessel via gravity (Figure 1; Section 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conventional Soxhlet extractors of Castro within the protocols of Liu, thereby predictably affording workable continuous extraction of polyester substrates.
Regarding Claim 5, Castro teaches it was well known in the art various Soxhlet extraction devices are known, inclusive of extractors where condensate is directed toward extractor chambers using gravity (Figure 1) or pumps, such as where microwave-assisted heating is performed (Figure 4; Section 6.2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art either gravity or pump means can be used to direct condensate to an extractor chamber, thereby achieving the predictable result of continuous extraction of substrate with solvent in view of Castro.
Regarding Claims 6, 12, 20, and 24, Walker teaches embodiments where polyester free of color is re-dissolved in solvent, removed from the vessel, purified, dried, and then recycled for re-use (¶ 2-3, 7-8, 97-98, 101).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) in view of Castro (Journal of Chromatography A, 2010, 1217, 2383-2389) and Petrick (J. Forensic Sci., 2006, 51(4), 771-779).
Regarding Claims 14, 15, and 17, Walker teaches methods comprising extracting dyes from polyesters, whereby dyes are separated using first solvent in first step and then second solvent is used to dissolve polyester for further purification/re-use (Abstract; ¶ 115). Complete dissolution is preferable (¶ 58, 115). Walker teaches the extraction of dyes can be done as a batch process or continuous process, the latter being preferred and performed via Soxhlet extraction whereby a continuous stream of solvent is passed through a column of dyed polyester until no further dye is leeched from polyester (¶ 101). Examples are taught where PET is extracted (¶ 115). Xylene and toluene are suitable extraction solvents (¶ 62, 65). The resulting dye/solvent mixture can be collected, separated via vacuum extraction (i.e. evaporation), the solvent re-used in the extraction process, and the colorant re-used in the manufacture of new clothes (¶ 99).
To the extent Walker differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to a particular Soxhlet extractor, Castro teaches conventional Soxhlet extractors rely on a side arm connecting a boiling/distillation flask with a condenser, whereby vaporized solvent travels into the condenser via side arm, forms condensate that enters into an extractor chamber via first open end, the solvent extracts within the extractor to form mixture, and then the mixture is directed into the boiling vessel via gravity (Figure 1; Section 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conventional Soxhlet extractors of Castro within the protocols of Liu, thereby predictably affording workable continuous extraction of polyester substrates.
Walker differs from the subject matter claimed in that acetonitrile is not described as solvent. Petrick probed the extraction of colorants from polyester fibers using various solvents (Abstract) and notes acetonitrile mixtures are effective toward disperse dyes (Pages 773-774). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize acetonitrile mixtures within the protocols of Liu because doing so would facilitate the extraction of colorant materials such as disperse dyes in accordance with the teachings of Petrick.
Regarding Claim 16, Walker teaches embodiments where polyester free of color is re-dissolved in solvent, removed from the vessel, purified, dried, and then recycled for re-use (¶ 2-3, 7-8, 97-98, 101).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights