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 § 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) 1,3 and 5 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1as being anticipated by DE102016015199 See page 2 lines 34-35, page 5 lines 5-8 and page 9 lines 1-32.
Applicants’ claim 1 is directed to a solvent-based recycling process for recycling waste polymer material (1), the waste polymer material (1) comprising at least one polyolefin (2), the process comprising the steps of
a) obtaining the waste polymer material (1) comprising the at least one polyolefin (2);
b) contacting the waste polymer material (1) with at least one dissolving solvent (3) yielding a slurry stream (4) of polymer solution (5) and undissolved solids (6);
c) screening the slurry stream (4) yielding the undissolved solids (6) and a stream of the polymer solution (5);
d) vapor-liquid separating the stream of polymer solution (5) into a polymer-lean vapor stream (9) and a polymer-rich condensed stream (10);
e) recovering the at least one polyolefin (2) from the polymer-rich condensed stream (10); wherein the at least one dissolving solvent (3) has a boiling point temperature at 1 bar of equal to or more than 70oC
DE102016015199 discloses a solvent recycling process for waste polymer material containing polyolefins. Specifically DE102016015199 discloses a waste mixture containing polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) together with impurities. See page 2 lines 34-35 and page 9 lines 1-4. DE102016015199 further discloses contacting the waste polymer material with methylcyclohexane solvent to form a suspension or slurry. See page 9 lines 3-5. The reference also teaches heating the suspension wherein polyethylene dissolves in the solvent while polypropylene and other solids remain undissolved. See page 9 lines 15-18. DE102016015199 also teaches transferring the suspension to a separation station including a gas tight centrifuge where the undissolved plastic and solids are centrifuged out of the suspension. See page 9 lines 19-22. The remaining polymer solution is given to a solvent separation stage. See page 9 lines 23-24.
Moreover, the reference further teaches removing solvent from the polymer solution by flashing the polymer solution causing the solvent to rapidly evaporate. See page 9 lines 24-30. The evaporated solvent is condensed while the recovered polymer remains separated from the solvent. See page 9 lines 29-32.
Lastly, the reference teaches the use of methylcyclohexane solvent having a boiling temperature of approximately 99C and ranges of about 80C to below 120c. see page 9 lines 7-10 and page 5 lines 5-8.
In view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference 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 novel and accordingly is unpatentable.
Claim 3 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 2, wherein step c) comprises the step of solid-liquid separating the undissolved solids (6) from the polymer solution (5).
DE102016015199 discloses transferring the suspension to a separation station including a gas tight centrifuge wherein the undissolved plastic and remaining solids are centrifuged out of the suspension. See page 9 lines 19-22. The reference further teaches that the remaining polymer solution is forwarded to a solvent separation stare on page 9 lines 23-24.
Claim 5 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 1, wherein the process further comprises subsequently to step a) and preceding step b) the step of: a') extracting the waste polymer material (1) with at least one extracting solvent (3e) or melting the waste polymer material (1).
DE102016015199 discloses contacting waste polymer material comprising PE and PP with methylcyclohexane solvent to dissolve at least one plastic component and form a suspension containing polymer solution. See page 9 lines 3-18.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016015199 See page 2 lines 34-35, page 5 lines 5-8 and page 9 lines 1-32.
Applicants’ claim 1 is directed to a solvent-based recycling process for recycling waste polymer material (1), the waste polymer material (1) comprising at least one polyolefin (2), the process comprising the steps of
a) obtaining the waste polymer material (1) comprising the at least one polyolefin (2);
b) contacting the waste polymer material (1) with at least one dissolving solvent (3) yielding a slurry stream (4) of polymer solution (5) and undissolved solids (6);
c) screening the slurry stream (4) yielding the undissolved solids (6) and a stream of the polymer solution (5);
d) vapor-liquid separating the stream of polymer solution (5) into a polymer-lean vapor stream (9) and a polymer-rich condensed stream (10);
e) recovering the at least one polyolefin (2) from the polymer-rich condensed stream (10); wherein the at least one dissolving solvent (3) has a boiling point temperature at 1 bar of equal to or more than 70oC.
DE102016015199 discloses a solvent recycling process for waste polymer material containing polyolefins. Specifically DE102016015199 discloses a waste mixture containing polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) together with impurities. See page 2 lines 34-35 and page 9 lines 1-4. DE102016015199 further discloses contacting the waste polymer material with methylcyclohexane solvent to form a suspension or slurry. See page 9 lines 3-5. The reference also teaches heating the suspension wherein polyethylene dissolves in the solvent while polypropylene and other solids remain undissolved. See page 9 lines 15-18. DE102016015199 also teaches transferring the suspension to a separation station including a gas tight centrifuge where the undissolved plastic and solids are centrifuged out of the suspension. See page 9 lines 19-22. The remaining polymer solution is given to a solvent separation stage. See page 9 lines 23-24.
Moreover, the reference further teaches removing solvent from the polymer solution by flashing the polymer solution causing the solvent to rapidly evaporate. See page 9 lines 24-30. The evaporated solvent is condensed while the recovered polymer remains separated from the solvent. See page 9 lines 29-32.
Lastly, the reference teaches the use of methylcyclohexane solvent having a boiling temperature of approximately 99C and ranges of about 80C to below 120c. see page 9 lines 7-10 and page 5 lines 5-8. However, to the extent that the boiling point limitation is not exactly disclosed, 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 by selecting a solvent having a suitable boiling point since it is a matter of routine optimization. See page 4 lines 38-45 and page 5 lines 5-8. One would have been motivated to employ particular parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 2 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 1, wherein the process further comprises subsequently to step c) and preceding step d) the step of: c") liquid-liquid separating the stream of the polymer solution (5) into a polymer- lean stream (7) and a polymer-rich stream (8), wherein the polymer-rich stream (8) is fed to step d).
In view of the discussion of claim 1 above, 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 as claimed as a known process optimization. See page 3 lines 15-23.
Claim 3 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 2, wherein step c) comprises the step of solid-liquid separating the undissolved solids (6) from the polymer solution (5). \
DE102016015199 discloses a solvent recycling process for waste polymer material containing polyolefins and transferring the suspension to a separation station including a gas tight centrifuge where the undissolved plastic and solids are centrifuged out of the suspension. See page 9 lines 19-22. The remaining polymer solution is given to a solvent separation stage. See page 9 lines 23-24.Use of the claimed solid liquid separation would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claim 4 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 1, the process further comprising a homogenization step c') carried out subsequently to step c) a preceding step c") receiving the polymer solution (5) and yielding a homogenized polymer solution (5'), wherein the homogenized polymer solution (5') is fed to step c").
In view of the discussion of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to homogenize the polymer solution before the liquid separation step in order to improve uniform feed stream to the separation process.
Claim 5 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 1, wherein the process further comprises subsequently to step a) and preceding step b) the step of: a') extracting the waste polymer material (1) with at least one extracting solvent (3e) or melting the waste polymer material (1).
DE102016015199 teaches solvent extraction of polymers from waste material. See page 9 lines 3-18.
Claim 6 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 5, wherein the step a') is melting the waste polymer material (1) yielding a molten waste material (1a).
In view of the discussion of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to melt the waste polymer material prior to solvent contact since melting is a conventional preparation step.
Claim 7 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 6, wherein in step a') the molten waste material (1a) is mixed with the dissolving solvent (3) in a mixing device.
In view of the discussion of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since such equipment is routinely used to promote polymer solvent contact.
Claim 8 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 1, wherein step c") is carried out at least twice so that the polymer-lean stream (71) of a first step c “i) is fed to a second step c"2).
In view of the discussion of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the liquid liquid separation step to improve purification and recovery efficiency.
Claim 9 is directed to the solvent based recycling process according to claim 1, wherein step d) is carried out at least twice in that the polymer-rich condensed stream (10) of a first step d') is fed to a second step d").
In view of the discussion of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform multiple vapor liquid separation stages to increase solvent removal and polymer recovery.
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