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
NPL Ref Cite 10 and 11 have been lined through in the IDS received 9/10/2026 because copies of the cited document have not been submitted. 37 CFR 1.98(a) requires a legible copy of each foreign patent document.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites “consisting a of piston press”. Recitation of “consisting of a piston press” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
In Claim 19, the terminology “the adsorbent material” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 19 is treated as if it depended from claim 18.
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) 1-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachez-Rivera (Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2023, 197, 107086).
Sachez-Rivera lists additional authors other than those set forth within the instant application and is therefore treated as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1). MPEP 2153.01(a). The reference itself admits others were involved in conceptualizing, investigating, and writing the disclosure (Authorship contribution statement at Page 10).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-10, Sachez-Rivera teaches methods of recovering polymers whereby colored plastic waste is contacted with solvent at a given time/temperature such that a polymer solution is formed, the polymer solution is subjecting to filtration to separate undissolved material, and then the polymer is precipitated to yield polymer having reduced colorant content (Section 2.3; Figure 3). Particular examples are taught where multilayer films comprising polyethylene (target plastic) and various pigments is treated with dodecane at a 10:1 solvent:film ratio at 95 degrees C for 30 minutes to selectively dissolve polyethylene, the resulting solution filtered to remove insolubles, and then the polyethylene precipitated (Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of supporting information). The resulting polyethylene is substantially similar in color with virgin polyethylene (Table 1 and Figure 3), implying a substantial absence of colorants within the polymer solution. Since the same protocol, same solvents, and same plastics are seen to be taught by Sachez-Rivera, the polyethylene solutions described are seen to intrinsically possess the light absorbance criteria in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Sachez-Rivera teaches the precipitated polyethylene is filtered and then dried (Section 2.3). The solvent is recycled (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Sachez-Rivera teaches various pigments such as phthalocyanine pigments (Section 2.1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sachez-Rivera teaches if Ra/Ro for a solvent is less than 1, the solvent can dissolve the polymer (Page S2). Since the solvent of Sachez-Rivera, effectively dissolves the polyethylene, it intrinsically has a Ra/Ro less than 1.
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) 11, 16, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachez-Rivera (Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2023, 197, 107086) in view of Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling).
Sachez-Rivera teaches methods of recovering polymers whereby colored plastic waste is contacted with solvent at a given time/temperature such that a polymer solution is formed, the polymer solution is subjecting to filtration to separate undissolved material, and then the polymer is precipitated to yield polymer having reduced colorant content (Section 2.3; Figure 3). Particular examples are taught where multilayer films comprising polyethylene (target plastic) and various pigments is treated with dodecane at a 10:1 solvent:film ratio at 95 degrees C for 30 minutes to selectively dissolve polyethylene, the resulting solution filtered to remove insoluble, and then the polyethylene precipitated (Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of supporting information). The resulting polyethylene is substantially similar in color with virgin polyethyelene (Table 1 and Figure 3), implying a substantial absence of colorants within the polymer solution. Since the same protocol, same solvents, and same plastics are seen to be taught by Sachez-Rivera, the polyethylene solutions described are seen to intrinsically possess the light absorbance criteria in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Sachez-Rivera teaches the precipitated polyethylene is filtered and then dried (Section 2.3). The solvent is recycled (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Sachez-Rivera teaches filtering the precipitated polymer/solvent mixture to remove insolubles, but differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular means of solid/liquid separation are not described. Triebert teaches it was well known in the art various means of filtering precipitated mixtures was known in the context of solvent-based recycling, inclusive of centrifugation or filtration (Page 44). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize centrifugation to separate precipitates from the mixtures of Sachez-Rivera thereby predictably affording recycled dissolved resins in accordance with the teachings of Triebert.
Regarding Claim 16, Sachez-Rivera teaches filtering the dissolved polymer/solvent mixture to remove insolubles, but differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular means of solid/liquid separation are not described. Triebert teaches it was well known in the art various means of filtering solvent/polymer mixtures was known in the context of solvent-based recycling, inclusive of centrifugation or filtration (Page 47). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize centrifugation to separate insolubles from the mixtures of Sachez-Rivera thereby predictably affording recycled dissolved resins in accordance with the teachings of Triebert. The use of a centrifuge apparatus is seen to be no different in structure than a “dewatering centrifuge” indicated within the claims.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Sachez-Rivera teaches filtering the dissolved polymer/solvent mixture to remove insolubles, but differs from the subject matter claimed in that passing the dissolved mixture through an adsorbent bed is not described. Triebert teaches it was well known in the art various means of purifying solvent/polymer mixtures was known in the art in the context of solvent-based recycling, inclusive of solid phase extraction via adsorbents such as carbon black or zeolites (Abstract; Page 47). Use of adsorbents is useful in circumstances where ordinary solid-liquid separation is not completely sufficient, particularly for small particles/liquids (Page 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pass the dissolved polymer/solvent mixtures of Sachez-Rivera through adsorbent beds of materials such as carbon black or zeolites, because doing so would facilitate the removal of impurities such as small particles/liquids as taught by Triebert.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachez-Rivera (Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2023, 197, 107086) in view of Mao (EP 3824985 A1).
Sachez-Rivera teaches methods of recovering polymers whereby colored plastic waste is contacted with solvent at a given time/temperature such that a polymer solution is formed, the polymer solution is subjecting to filtration to separate undissolved material, and then the polymer is precipitated to yield polymer having reduced colorant content (Section 2.3; Figure 3). Particular examples are taught where multilayer films comprising polyethylene (target plastic) and various pigments is treated with dodecane at a 10:1 solvent:film ratio at 95 degrees C for 30 minutes to selectively dissolve polyethylene, the resulting solution filtered to remove insoluble, and then the polyethylene precipitated (Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of supporting information). The resulting polyethylene is substantially similar in color with virgin polyethyelene (Table 1 and Figure 3), implying a substantial absence of colorants within the polymer solution. Since the same protocol, same solvents, and same plastics are seen to be taught by Sachez-Rivera, the polyethylene solutions described are seen to intrinsically possess the light absorbance criteria in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Sachez-Rivera teaches the precipitated polyethylene is filtered and then dried (Section 2.3). The solvent is recycled (Figure 3).
Regarding Claims 11-13 and 15, Sachez-Rivera teaches filtering the precipitated polymer/solvent mixture to remove insolubles, but differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular means of solid/liquid separation are not described. Mao teaches press filters are known in the art to be useful for solid-liquid separations, capable of improving filtration of massive amounts of material on an industrial scale and realizing no residue between batches (Abstract; ¶ 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the press filters of Mao to isolate the precipitated polymers of Sachez-Rivera because doing so would facilitate scale to industrial levels while improving filtration as taught by Mao.
The apparatus of Mao contains a superimposed filter section for primary filtration and a press filter section for secondary filtration (¶ 5-6; Figure 1). The press filter section comprises mechanical pistons dimensioned and configured to compress solid slurries to yield compressed solid cake (¶ 10; Figures). In operation, a knife valve seals the press filter and compression commences whereby solvent is outflowed to a liquid outlet but not solids (¶ 77). The press filter can be a vertical, temperature controlled column (Figure 4; ¶ 50). The claims do not appear to require that actual precipitation occur within the tank, but rather that the tank be “dimensioned and configured” toward precipitation. Sachez-Rivera teaches precipitation is induced via cooling (Section 2.3) and Mao teaches the press filter section is temperature controlled via heating or cooling (¶ 50). Thus, Mao’s press filter is seen to be capable of further induction of precipitation. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Claim 14, while not providing exact quantitative metrics in terms of length to diameter ratios, case law holds where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Since the press filter of Mao and those instantly claimed essentially function as a means of solid/liquid filtration and the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the device of Mao is not seen to be patentably distinct from that of Mao in the absence of evidence showing the ratio to be critical.
Regarding Claim 16, Sachez-Rivera teaches filtering the dissolved polymer/solvent mixture to remove insolubles, but differs from the subject matter claimed in that particular means of solid/liquid separation are not described. Mao teaches press filters are known in the art to be useful for solid-liquid separations, capable of improving filtration of massive amounts of material on an industrial scale and realizing no residue between batches (Abstract; ¶ 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the press filters of Mao to isolate the remove insolubles within the mixtures of Sachez-Rivera because doing so would facilitate scale to industrial levels while improving filtration as taught by Mao.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachez-Rivera (Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2023, 197, 107086) in view of Weiss (US 2024/0051186 A1).
Sachez-Rivera teaches methods of recovering polymers whereby colored plastic waste is contacted with solvent at a given time/temperature such that a polymer solution is formed, the polymer solution is subjecting to filtration to separate undissolved material, and then the polymer is precipitated to yield polymer having reduced colorant content (Section 2.3; Figure 3). Particular examples are taught where multilayer films comprising polyethylene (target plastic) and various pigments is treated with dodecane at a 10:1 solvent:film ratio at 95 degrees C for 30 minutes to selectively dissolve polyethylene, the resulting solution filtered to remove insoluble, and then the polyethylene precipitated (Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of supporting information). The resulting polyethylene is substantially similar in color with virgin polyethyelene (Table 1 and Figure 3), implying a substantial absence of colorants within the polymer solution. Since the same protocol, same solvents, and same plastics are seen to be taught by Sachez-Rivera, the polyethylene solutions described are seen to intrinsically possess the light absorbance criteria in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Sachez-Rivera teaches the precipitated polyethylene is filtered and then dried (Section 2.3). The solvent is recycled (Figure 3).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Sachez-Rivera differs from the subject matter claimed in that passing recycled solvent through an adsorption bed is not described. Weiss also pertains to solvent-based recycling of plastics (Abstract). Weiss teaches it was known in the art recycled solvent can be purified prior to re-use in dissolution, using methods such as distillation, extraction, or adsorption (¶ 119). Various common adsorbents are known in the art for purification, inclusive of activated carbon or silica (¶ 101). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pass the recycled solvents of Sachez-Rivera through adsorbents such as activated carbon or silica, thereby predictably affording purified solvents for re-use as taught by Weiss.
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