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 2-3 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.
It is unclear if applicant intends for the parenthetical phrases to be considered as required for the invention. For purposes of examination, they will not be considered as required for the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh et al. (U.S. Patent 5,326,791). Regarding Claim 1, Saleh et al., hereafter “Saleh,” show that it is known to carry out a separation and recovery method of separating and recovering, from a mixture containing at least a resin layer 1 containing a hydrolyzable polymer A as a main component and a resin layer 2 containing a nonhydrolyzable polymer B as a main component, at least one hydrolytic component a of the hydrolyzable polymer A and the nonhydrolyzable polymer B, the method comprising: a decomposition and separation step of subjecting the mixture to a hydrothermal reaction treatment to hydrolyze and separate the hydrolyzable polymer A in the mixture, and to separate the nonhydrolyzable polymer B in the mixture while a molecular weight of the nonhydrolyzable polymer B is maintained; wherein the hydrothermal reaction treatment is performed under atmospheric conditions with water (Column 2, lines 26-68). Saleh describes that pressures and water details are known to be varied (Column 2, lines 26-39), but he does not specifically describe the particularly-claimed atmospheric conditions or water quantities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate atmospheric conditions and water quantities, such as those claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including that process temperature and time are variable (Column 2, lines 14-39), but he does not disclose the particularly-claimed temperature and time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate temperature and process times, such as those claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the hydrolytic component a of the hydrolyzable polymer A is transferred to an aqueous phase (Column 2, lines 52-59).
Regarding Claim 5, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the
nonhydrolyzable polymer B is separated from an aqueous phase (Column 2, lines 52-59).
Regarding Claim 6, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the
mixture to be subjected to the hydrothermal reaction treatment is obtained by removing a solid component from a melt of the mixture (Column 2, lines 4-59).
Regarding Claim 7, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including general discussions of ingredient molecular weight (Column 1, lines 27-42), but he does not disclose the particularly-claimed molecular weight relationship. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any appropriate ingredient molecular weights, such as those claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 8, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the hydrolytic component a contains ethylene glycol (Column 2, lines 49-56).
Regarding Claim 9, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the nonhydrolyzable polymer B is polypropylene (Column 1, lines 66-68).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show an additional heating step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an additional heating step in Saleh’s process in order to appropriately prepare the material for the heat of the actual separation process.
Regarding Claim 16, Saleh shows the method of claim 14 above, including one wherein a mechanical treatment is applied to the mixture to be subjected to the water absorption treatment (Column 3, lines 5-10: cutting).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saleh, in view of Wilson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0227940).
Regarding Claim 10, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not describe the material as a laminate. Wilson et al., hereafter “Wilson,” show that it is known to carry out a method of separation and recovery, wherein the hydrolysable and nonhydrolyzable materials are arranged as a laminate (0120, 0125). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Wilson’s laminate as the material in Saleh’s process because there is art recognized suitability for recovering materials from laminates of these compositions (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 11, Saleh shows the method of claim 10 above, but he does not describe the material as a laminate with two or more layers. Wilson shows that it is known to carry out a method of separation and recovery, wherein the hydrolysable and nonhydrolyzable materials are arranged as a laminate of two or more layers (0129). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Wilson’s laminate as the material in Saleh’s process because there is art recognized suitability for recovering materials from laminates of these compositions (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 12, Saleh shows the method of claim 10 above, but he does not describe the material as a laminate with a coating and adhesive layer. Wilson shows that it is known to carry out a method of separation and recovery, wherein the laminate includes at least a coating layer and an adhesive layer (0129-0131: adhesive~attachment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Wilson’s laminate as the material in Saleh’s process because there is art recognized suitability for recovering materials from laminates of these compositions (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 13, Saleh shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not disclose the specific composition amounts. Wilson shows that it is known to carry out a method of separation and recovery, wherein the laminate includes a hydrolysable polymer A contained in the resin layer of 1-100%, and the hydrolytic component is recovered in a molar ratio of 70% or more (0024, 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Wilson’s laminate as the material in Saleh’s process because there is art recognized suitability for recovering materials from laminates of these compositions (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights