DETAILED ACTION
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 2, 4, 5, 12 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.
Claim 2 uses the language “the first component comprises” a series of possibilities ending with “or” the final possibility. It is unclear from this construction if the group is closed. Correct Markush language is “the first component comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of” ending with “and” the final possibility.
Claim 4 uses the language “the solvent comprises” a series of possibilities ending with “or” the final possibility. It is unclear from this construction if the group is closed. Correct Markush language is “the solvent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of” ending with “and” the final possibility.
Claim 5 uses the language “the strong anti-solvent comprises” a series of possibilities ending with “or” the final possibility. It is unclear from this construction if the group is closed. Correct Markush language is “the strong anti-solvent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of:” ending with “and” the final possibility.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first-component rich fraction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a “first component rich solution” and a “first component precipitate” in claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, but not a “fraction”. It is suspected that claim 12 should depend on claim 11, which does mention a first-component rich fraction, but correction must be made.
Claim 15 recites “carried out in a closed loop system”. The term “closed loop” is used in two different respects in the specification. First, the term is used in reference to a circular economy in which renewable sources are used and used materials lose as little value as possible (publication paragraph 3). Then, the term is used to describe a system “that hardly requires the addition of additional solvent, weak anti-solvent and/or strong anti-solvent” (publication paragraph 44). It is unclear in applicant’s use of the term in claim 15 if applicant intends for the method to merely re-use all products or some products and if so which ones- the polycarbonate? the solvent? both? the first component?
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “the fraction” should be “the polycarbonate-rich fraction”. In the final line “the solution” should be “the first component-rich solution”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “e-waste” should be followed by “(electronic waste)”.
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.
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) 1, 7, 10, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003073499 by Fukushima in view of “Separation of Dissolved Solids” by Sinnott et al.
Fukushima describes separation and recovery of thermoplastic resins.
Regarding claim 1, Fukushima describes a method for separating polycarbonate in an embodiment (paragraph 20) and a first component from plastic waste wherein the method comprises:
-dissolving the thermoplastic (polycarbonate, translation paragraph 20) along with a flame retardant (reads on first component) in a solvent to obtain a solution (paragraph 18)
-adding a solvent which allows the thermoplastic to precipitate (paragraph 19)
-filtering out the precipitated thermoplastic
-Fukushima then describes evaporating the solvent to recover the flame retardant from the solvent/flame retardant solution (step 106) (paragraph 19); secondary reference Sinnott is used to addressed the instant precipitation in lieu of Fukushima’s evaporation below.
Notably Fukushima describes flame retardants which are solid at room temperature, for example tetrabromobisphenol A (paragraph 21).
Sinnott describes separation of dissolved solids.
Sinnott states that precipitation can be used in recovery of large organic molecules (p.580 paragraph 3). Sinnott describes achieving precipitation by adding a suitable solvent (p.580 final paragraph item 2). Sinnott states that precipitation does not require evaporation which comes with more complex equipment (p.581 paragraph 1). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use precipitation via addition of appropriate solvent to solidify the flame retardant instead of Fukushima’s evaporation in order to use simpler equipment.
Regarding claim 7, Fukushima describes separating the polycarbonate precipitate by filtration (paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 10, Fukushima describes separating the polycarbonate precipitate by filtration (paragraph 19), and also describes further washing of the thermoplastic (paragraph 26), which reads on recovering the polycarbonate from the polycarbonate rich fraction.
Regarding claim 11, Sinnott describes a solid-liquid separation device following precipitation (p.581 paragraph 1) which would result in a solid (“first component rich fraction”) and a residue solution.
Regarding claim 15, Fukushima describes reuse of the thermoplastic (paragraph 26), thus the method is part of a closed-loop system. See also 112 rejection above.
Claims 4, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003073499 by Fukushima in view of “Separation of Dissolved Solids” by Sinnott et al in further view of “Method for Efficient Recovery of High-Purity Polycarbonates from Electronic Waste” by Weeden et al.
Fukushima is described above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Fukushima states that the solvents are determined from the type of thermoplastic resin and flame retardant that make up the molded article, but does not exemplify solvents for the polycarbonate/flame retardant mixture.
Weeden describes recovering polycarbonate from waste.
For claim 4, Weeden describes strong solvents for polycarbonate as cyclohexanone, dichloromethane, tetrahydrofuran, chloroform, benzaldehyde, aniline and 1,4 dioxane (p.2427 Fig.3 item C).
For claim 5, Weeden suggests methyl ethyl ketone as a solvent which only allows polycarbonate to precipitate out, i.e. the weak anti-solvent (p.2427 Fig.3 item D). Sinnott describes the strong anti-solvent as methanol, ethanol, acetone (p.580 final paragraph item 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt the solvents suggested by Weeden because the strong solvents dissolve polycarbonate while the weak solvents precipitate polycarbonate, as desired by Fukushima.
Regarding claim 14, Fukushima describes electronic waste for example from televisions (paragraph 26), but is silent as to specifically the source of polycarbonate waste. Weeden states that polycarbonate is widely used in electronic devices and data storage and that PC recycling can help reduce the amount of energy and oil consumed for PC synthesis (p.2425 col 2 final paragraph). Thus it would be obvious to recycle the electronic PC waste described by Weeden where Fukushima is less specific in order to reduce the amount of energy and oil consumed for PC synthesis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003073499 by Fukushima in view of “Separation of Dissolved Solids” by Sinnott et al in further view of CN 103483623 by Zhou et al.
Fukushima is described above.
Regarding claim 12, while Fukushima and Sinnott describe recovering the flame retardant from a solvent (Fukushima paragraph 19; Sinnott p.581 paragraph 1), they are silent as to further treatment of the solid.
Zhou also describes recycling of flame retardants.
Zhou describes washing the recovered flame retardant (paragraph 21). Zhou states that this washing removes excess solvent, DMSO (paragraph 21). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to was the recovered flame retardant in order to remove the excess solvent.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003073499 by Fukushima in view of “Separation of Dissolved Solids” by Sinnott et al in further view of “Waste Solvent Recovery and Recycle” by Manahan et al.
Fukushima is described above.
Regarding claim 13, Fukushima and Sinnott are silent as to if the solvents are recovered.
Manahan states that effective hazardous waste management reduces quantities of wastes (p.575 paragraph 3) and goes on to describe how waste solvent is recovered and reused (p.579 paragraph 2-3), stating that solvents are given a high priority. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to reuse the solvents of Fukushima and Sinnott where they are silent in order to reduce quantities of waste solvent according to Manahan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the claim objection set forth above is attended to.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 describes specific polymeric first components whereas the closest art is JP 2003073499 by Fukushima which describes a flame retardant first component.
Claim 3 describes a polymer blend, but the closest art is JP 2003073499 by Fukushima which does not contemplate a polymer blend, i.e. a blend of more than one polymer.
Claim 6 describes removing a non-soluble fraction from the first solution but is JP 2003073499 by Fukushima does not contemplate the presence of other non-soluble fractions.
Claim 8 describes the purity of specific fractions; these are not contemplated by is JP 2003073499 by Fukushima; Fukushima mentions many possible thermoplastics target recyclates and does not measure the purity of any of them.
Claim 9 describes removing a solvent before adding the anti-solvent; Fukushima does not describe this removal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights