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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-12 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the limitations "the anodic side", “the cathodic side” and “the electrolytic cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As to claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the electric current". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 10, it is unclear as to specifically what is meant by the limitation “the percentage of electronic efficiency of the recovery”.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,093,528 to Wynkoop et al. (Wynkoop) in view of US 2011/0240484 A1 to Pendleton et al. (Pendleton).
As to claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 12, Wynkoop teaches a process for obtaining terephthalic acid and recovering sodium hydroxide from a sodium terephthalate solution produced form reused PET, the method comprising platin a sodium terephthalate solution obtain from a PET hydrolysis process on an anodic side of an electrolysis cell, placing a sodium hydroxide solution on a cathodic side of the electrolytic cell, and recovering terephthalic acid and sodium hydroxide simultaneously (Abstract; Column 1, Line 56 to Column 2, Line 57; Column 3, Line 64 to Column 4, Line 9; Figures 1 and 2). However, Wynkoop teaches that the sodium hydroxide solution is a water based solution and fails to further teach that it comprises an alcohol.
However, Pendleton also discusses the electrolytic production of sodium hydroxide from water solution but also teaches that by providing methanol for the solution sodium methoxide can be produced (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that by utilizing a combination of water and methanol a combination of sodium hydroxide and sodium methoxide can be produced as valuable products.
AS to claim 4, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 3. Wynkoop further teaches that the molarity of the sodium hydroxide in the solution is, for example, 0.6 to 0.7 (Column 3, Line 64 to Column 4, Line 9).
As to claim 5, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 1. Wynkoop further teaches that the electrolytic cell has a membrane between the anodic side and the cathodic side (Column 1, Line 56 to Column 2, Line 57; Figures 1 and 2).
As to claim 6, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 1. Wynkoop further teaches that electrolytic current is supplied to the cell at 0.1 to 0.5 Amperes/cm2 (100 to 500 Amperes/ft2) (Column 3, Line 64 to Column 4, Line 9).
As to claim 8, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 7. Wynkoop further teaches that the solution on the anode side is filtered (Column 1, Line 56 to Column 2, Line 57).
As to claim 10, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 7. Wynkoop further teaches that the conversion in view of overall efficiency is 60 to 70%, thus considered to read on “the percentage of electronic efficiency of the recovery of terephthalic acid” (Column 3, Line 64 to Column 4, Line 9).
As to claim 11, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 7. The combination fails to specifically teach the concentration of the sodium methoxide; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the methanol concentration and operating conditions in order to achieve the desired volume of sodium methoxide produce produced.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 5,095,145 to Rosen (Rosen).
As to claim 9, the combination of Wynkoop and Pendleton teaches the method of claim 7. Wynkoop teaches that the terephthalic acid is washed (Column 1, Line 56 to Column 2, Line 57; Figure 1), but fails to specifically discuss any product drying after washing. However, Rosen also discusses the production of terephthalic acid and teaches that after washing the terephthalic acid should be dried to remove any remaining impurities (Column 5, Lines 7 to 13). Rosen teaches that this drying occurs at elevated temperature of, for example, 100C, thus the drying considered to be oven drying. Rosen fails to specifically contemplate drying at a temperature of 125 to 135C; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the temperature in order to optimize the drying speed in view of other efficiency considerations such as the cost of drying (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights