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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 9/2/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application
Election/Restrictions
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-6, drawn to a monomer composition for synthesizing recycled plastic.
Group 2, claim(s) 7-18, drawn to a method for preparing a monomer composition for synthesizing recycled plastic.
Group 3, claim(s) 19-20, drawn to a recycled plastic or molded plastic.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The method of Group 2 clearly lacks a special technical feature being obvious over Takemoto-3 (JP 2006-022183 A, pub date 1/26/2006, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24, the English translation is used herein), in view of Takemoto-2 (JP 2005-179460 A, pub date 7/7/2005, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24, the English translation is used herein), further in view of Takemoto (JP 2005-162675 A, pub date 6/23/2005, the English translation is used herein) (also see the 103 rejection below).
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Bumrae Cho on 6/19/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 2, claims 7-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
As a result, claims 7-18 are being examined in this Office Action.
Priority
The applicant claims benefit as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 7-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of Park (US 12,655,266, pub date 6/16/2026).
The claims of Park (US 12,655,266) and the instant application have overlapping scope directed to monomer compositions for synthesizing recycled plastic and methods for preparing the same by recovering an aromatic diol compound from a polycarbonate-based resin.
Park (US 12,655,266) claims a monomer composition comprising an aromatic diol compound, wherein the monomer composition is a recovered product from a polycarbonate-based resin, and further claims a method for preparing the monomer composition comprising depolymerizing a polycarbonate-based resin, adjusting the pH of the depolymerization reaction product, separating a carbonate precursor, and recovering an aromatic diol compound.
The instant claims are similarly directed to a method for preparing a monomer composition for synthesizing recycled plastic comprising depolymerizing a polycarbonate-based resin, separating a carbonate precursor from the depolymerization reaction product, and purifying the depolymerization reaction product from which the carbonate precursor has been separated.
Although the conflicting claims are not absolutely identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are drawn to recovering an aromatic diol compound, such as bisphenol A, from a polycarbonate-based resin for use as a monomer composition for synthesizing recycled plastic.
The instant claims merely recite additional purification conditions, such as adding a hydrophilic reducing agent, adding an adsorbent, removing the adsorbent, washing, reduced pressure distillation, and recrystallization. These purification steps are routine and obvious steps for improving the color, purity, and impurity content of the recovered aromatic diol compound.
Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of Park (US 12,655,266).
Claims 7-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-14 of copending Application No. 18/038,189.
The claims of copending Application No. 18/038,189 and the instant application have overlapping scope directed to methods for preparing a monomer composition for synthesizing recycled plastic by recovering an aromatic diol compound from a polycarbonate-based resin.
Copending Application No. 18/038,189 claims a method comprising depolymerizing a polycarbonate-based resin, adding acid to adjust the pH of the depolymerization reaction product, removing impurities, and separating a carbonate precursor from the depolymerization reaction product.
The instant claims are similarly drawn to depolymerizing a polycarbonate-based resin, separating a carbonate precursor from the depolymerization reaction product, and purifying the depolymerization reaction product from which the carbonate precursor has been separated.
Although the conflicting claims are not absolutely identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed methods recover and purify the same type of aromatic diol compound from the same type of polycarbonate-based resin starting material. The instant claims further recite the use of a hydrophilic reducing agent, sodium dithionite, an adsorbent, washing, reduced pressure distillation, and recrystallization. These limitations are obvious purification and optimization steps for improving color, purity, and removal of impurities in the recovered aromatic diol compound.
Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of copending Application No. 18/038,189.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 of this title, 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 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto-3 (JP 2006-022183 A, pub date 1/26/2006, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24, the English translation is used herein), in view of Takemoto-2 (JP 2005-179460 A, pub date 7/7/2005, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24, the English translation is used herein), further in view of Takemoto (JP 2005-162675 A, pub date 6/23/2005, the English translation is used herein)
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Takemoto-3 teaches a method for obtaining an alkaline aqueous solution of a purified aromatic dihydroxy compound from waste aromatic polycarbonate. Takemoto-3 teaches decomposing waste aromatic polycarbonate through transesterification in the presence of a C1-4 alcohol, a chlorinated compound organic solvent, and an alkali metal hydroxide; adding an aqueous acid solution to the reaction solution after the decomposition reaction; separating the reaction solution into an organic solvent phase and an aqueous solution phase; recovering the organic solvent phase; separating the organic solvent, a dialkyl carbonate, and an aromatic dihydroxy compound from the organic solvent phase by distillation to obtain an aromatic dihydroxy compound; and dissolving the obtained aromatic dihydroxy compound in an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution and bringing the alkaline aqueous solution of the aromatic dihydroxy compound into contact with activated carbon. (Takemoto-3, pages 1-2, Abstract and claim 1; page 6, [0009]).
Takemoto-3 teaches the same general process as applicant’s claim 7. The waste aromatic polycarbonate corresponds to applicant’s polycarbonate-based resin. The decomposition/transesterification reaction corresponds to applicant’s depolymerization reaction. The dialkyl carbonate separated by distillation corresponds to applicant’s carbonate precursor. The aromatic dihydroxy compound/bisphenol A corresponds to applicant’s aromatic diol compound recovered in the depolymerization reaction product. (Takemoto-3, pages 1-2, Abstract and claim 1; pages 8-12, [0019]-[0036]).
Takemoto-3 teaches that, in step c, the organic solvent, dialkyl carbonate, and aromatic dihydroxy compound are separated by distillation from the organic solvent phase recovered in step b to obtain the aromatic dihydroxy compound. Takemoto-3 teaches that the distillation operation is carried out under reduced pressure or normal pressure, and that the distillation temperature is preferably 100°C or lower to suppress thermal decomposition of the aromatic dihydroxy compound. Thus, Takemoto-3 teaches separating the carbonate precursor from the depolymerization reaction product and also teaches the reduced pressure distillation of claim 16. (Takemoto-3, page 12, [0034]-[0035]).
Takemoto-3 further teaches that the aromatic dihydroxy compound obtained by the distillation operation contains trace amounts of impurities such as pigments, dyes, heat stabilizers, and mold release agents. Takemoto-3 teaches removing these impurities by dissolving the obtained aromatic dihydroxy compound in an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution and bringing the alkaline aqueous solution of the aromatic dihydroxy compound into contact with activated carbon. Takemoto-3 teaches that these additives are adsorbed on the activated carbon and removed. Thus, Takemoto-3 teaches adding an adsorbent and removing impurities by adsorption purification. (Takemoto-3, pages 12-13, [0036]-[0040]).
Takemoto-3 teaches that the aromatic dihydroxy compound produced during the decomposition reaction is easily oxidized under basic conditions, and therefore it is preferable to add an antioxidant to the reaction solution. Takemoto-3 teaches sodium bisulfite, sodium sulfite, and sodium hydrosulfite as examples of the antioxidant. Sodium hydrosulfite is also known as sodium dithionite. Takemoto-3 teaches that the antioxidant is preferably used in an amount of 0.05 to 4.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the aromatic polycarbonate. (Takemoto-3, pages 10-11, [0030]-[0032]).
Takemoto-3 Example 1 teaches adding sodium hydrosulfite as an antioxidant during the depolymerization reaction. Example 1 further teaches that, after methylene chloride, methanol, and dimethyl carbonate are removed to obtain solid content containing bisphenol A, 133 parts of the obtained solid content, 10 parts methylene chloride, and 0.27 parts hydrosulfite are added to an aqueous alkali solution and dissolved to prepare a bisphenol A alkaline aqueous solution. Four parts of activated carbon are then added, the mixture is stirred for 1 hour, and the activated carbon is removed by filtration. Thus, Takemoto-3 teaches adding hydrosulfite/sodium dithionite, adding activated carbon, and removing the activated carbon after removal of the dialkyl carbonate/carbonate precursor. (Takemoto-3, pages 16-17, [0055]-[0058]).
With regard to claim 9, Takemoto-3 Example 1 teaches adding 0.27 parts hydrosulfite to 133 parts of the obtained bisphenol A solid content after methylene chloride, methanol, and dimethyl carbonate are removed. This is about 0.20 wt% hydrosulfite based on the recovered solid content and falls within applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 7 wt% based on the depolymerization reaction product from which the carbonate precursor is separated. (Takemoto-3, pages 16-17, [0056]-[0058]).
Takemoto-3 teaches that the alcohol having 1 to 4 carbon atoms used for decomposition of the aromatic polycarbonate includes methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, 2-methyl-1-propanol, and t-butyl alcohol. Thus, Takemoto-3 teaches the depolymerization reaction in the presence of a solvent including ethanol as recited in claim 15. (Takemoto-3, page 8, [0021]).
Takemoto-3 teaches dissolving the obtained bisphenol A solid content in ion-exchanged water, aqueous sodium hydroxide solution, methylene chloride, and hydrosulfite before the activated carbon treatment. Thus, Takemoto-3 teaches performing a redissolution step including a mixture of aqueous solvent and organic solvent before the hydrophilic reducing agent/activated carbon purification. (Takemoto-3, page 17, [0057]).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Takemoto-3 is deficient in the sense that it does not expressly teach applicant’s claimed mixture ratio of 15 wt% to 50 wt% organic solvent and 50 wt% to 85 wt% aqueous solvent based on the total weight of the mixture, as recited in claim 11.
However, Takemoto-3 teaches using a mixture of aqueous solvent and organic solvent for redissolving the recovered bisphenol A solid content before hydrosulfite/activated carbon purification. (Takemoto-3, page 17, [0057]).
Takemoto-3 is further deficient in the sense that it does not expressly teach the exact washing step of claim 14, including washing with a first washing solvent at a temperature of 10°C to 30°C and washing with a second washing solvent at a temperature of 40°C to 80°C.
However, Takemoto-2 teaches a method for obtaining an alkaline aqueous solution of a purified aromatic dihydroxy compound by dissolving waste aromatic polycarbonate resin in an organic solvent and decomposing the polycarbonate resin in the organic solvent solution in the presence of an aqueous solution of alkali metal hydroxide, wherein the alkaline aqueous solution after decomposition is contacted with activated carbon. Takemoto-2 teaches that the recovered alkaline aqueous solution of the aromatic dihydroxy compound is brought into contact with activated carbon, and additives such as pigments, dyes, heat stabilizers, and mold release agents present in the alkaline aqueous solution are adsorbed on the activated carbon and removed. (Takemoto-2, pages 1-2, Abstract and claims 1-5; pages 5-6, [0009]-[0015]; pages 10-12, [0032]-[0036]).
Takemoto-2 further teaches activated carbon having a specific surface area of 500 to 2500 m2/g and teaches that the APHA/Hazen color number of the alkaline aqueous solution after activated carbon treatment is preferably 10 or less. Takemoto-2 Example 1 teaches adding 4 parts of zinc chloride-activated carbon to an aqueous alkaline bisphenol A solution, stirring for 1 hour, and removing the activated carbon by filtration, wherein the APHA after activated carbon treatment was 5. (Takemoto-2, pages 11-12, [0036]-[0044]; page 16, [0064]-[0067]).
Additionally, Takemoto teaches a method for obtaining an aromatic dihydroxy compound from waste aromatic polycarbonate. Takemoto teaches depolymerizing waste aromatic polycarbonate in the presence of an organic solvent and an aqueous metal hydroxide solution, adding water to dissolve deposited solids, separating the organic solvent phase and aqueous metal hydroxide solution phase, adding acid to precipitate and filter the aromatic dihydroxy compound, and washing the obtained aromatic dihydroxy compound with organic solvent and/or water, followed by removing the washings using a centrifugal separator or filter. (Takemoto, pages 1-2, Abstract and claims 1-2; pages 5-6, [0009]-[0011]; pages 11-12, [0035]-[0044]).
Furthermore, Takemoto teaches that the obtained aromatic dihydroxy compound contains impurities such as end terminator, additives such as colorant, carbonate derived from polycarbonate, and neutral salt. Takemoto teaches removing these contaminants by washing the obtained aromatic dihydroxy compound with organic solvent and/or water. Takemoto teaches that the organic solvent and water may be added simultaneously or separately, that washing with organic solvent followed by washing with water is preferable, that the order of using organic solvent and water may be reversed, and that each washing may be performed twice or more. (Takemoto, pages 12-14, [0043]-[0058]).
Also, Takemoto teaches that, in the case of washing with an organic solvent, the washing temperature is preferably 5°C to 40°C, and in the case of washing with water, the washing temperature is preferably 5°C to 80°C. These ranges overlap and encompass applicant’s first washing solvent temperature of 10°C to 30°C and second washing solvent temperature of 40°C to 80°C. Therefore, Takemoto teaches or suggests the washing step of claim 14. (Takemoto, pages 13-15, [0049]-[0058]).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Takemoto-3’s method with Takemoto-2’s activated carbon purification because both references are directed to recovering purified aromatic dihydroxy compounds, such as bisphenol A, from waste aromatic polycarbonate resin, and both references recognize that dyes, pigments, heat stabilizers, mold release agents, and other organic impurities from waste polycarbonate products adversely affect the quality, hue, and thermal stability of the recovered aromatic dihydroxy compound and resulting polycarbonate.
Takemoto-2 provides additional express teaching that activated carbon adsorption removes these impurities and improves the APHA/Hazen color number of the recovered alkaline aqueous bisphenol A solution.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to optimize the organic solvent/aqueous solvent ratio in Takemoto-3’s redissolution step in order to dissolve the recovered bisphenol A solid content, adjust phase behavior, improve contact with the hydrosulfite/sodium dithionite and activated carbon, and remove impurities. Takemoto-3 already teaches redissolving the recovered bisphenol A solid content in an aqueous alkali solution with methylene chloride and hydrosulfite before activated carbon purification. The exact ratio of organic solvent to aqueous solvent would have been a result-effective variable because it affects dissolution, impurity removal, and purification efficiency. Applicant has not shown any unusual and/or unexpected results for the claimed solvent ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Takemoto-3 with the washing teachings of Takemoto because Takemoto teaches that the recovered aromatic dihydroxy compound contains impurities such as end terminator, colorant, carbonate derived from polycarbonate, and neutral salt, and that these impurities can be removed by washing with organic solvent and/or water. Takemoto teaches overlapping washing temperature ranges and teaches that the order of organic solvent and water washing may be reversed. Thus, selecting applicant’s washing temperatures and order would have been an obvious optimization of known washing conditions for removing impurities from the recovered aromatic dihydroxy compound.
Accordingly, Takemoto-3 teaches the core depolymerization, carbonate precursor separation, hydrosulfite/sodium dithionite treatment, activated carbon adsorption, activated carbon removal, ethanol, antioxidant, and reduced pressure distillation limitations. Takemoto-2 further supports activated carbon adsorption purification for removing dyes, pigments, heat stabilizers, and mold release agents from recovered aromatic dihydroxy compound solutions. Takemoto teaches the washing step and overlapping washing temperature ranges.
Therefore, the cited art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 7-16.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto-3 in view of Takemoto-2 and Takemoto, as applied above, and further in view of Kissinger (US 5,434,316, issue date 7/18/1995).
The discussion regarding Takemoto-3, Takemoto-2, and Takemoto above is incorporated herein by reference.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Takemoto-3, Takemoto-2, and Takemoto differ from the subject matter of claims 17-18 to the extent that they do not expressly teach the recrystallization step after adsorbent removal and the claimed amount of recrystallization solvent.
However, Kissinger teaches purification of bisphenol-A by recrystallization from aqueous dispersions. Kissinger teaches melting contaminated bisphenol-A in an aqueous mixture, crystallizing bisphenol-A from the aqueous mixture, separating the crystals from the resulting aqueous mixture, and washing the crystals with water. Kissinger teaches that the amount of water included in the mixture with bisphenol-A is in the range of about 20 percent by weight to 60 percent by weight of the total mixture, preferably 30 to 50 percent. Kissinger further teaches examples using 400 grams of crude BPA feed and 250 grams of water, 300 grams of BPA crude feed and 200 grams of water, and 400 grams of crude BPA feed and 400 grams of water. (Kissinger, col. 1, lines 1-3; col. 2, lines 7-15 and 31-42; Examples 1-3; claims 1-3).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Takemoto-3, Takemoto-2, and Takemoto with the recrystallization purification of Kissinger because Kissinger teaches that bisphenol-A can be purified by aqueous recrystallization to remove contaminants and obtain purified bisphenol-A.
The references are directed to the same type of compound, namely bisphenol-A/aromatic dihydroxy compound, and the same purpose of obtaining purified material suitable for polycarbonate production.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Kissinger’s recrystallization purification after the activated carbon purification/removal step in order to further improve purity of the recovered bisphenol-A/aromatic dihydroxy compound.
Even if Kissinger does not teach the exact amount of recrystallization solvent recited by applicant, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of recrystallization solvent in order to dissolve impurities, crystallize the aromatic dihydroxy compound, improve purity, and recover the desired bisphenol-A product. The amount of recrystallization solvent is an art recognized result-effective variable in recrystallization, and applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the claimed amount.
Accordingly, Takemoto-3, Takemoto-2, and Takemoto teach recovering and purifying an aromatic dihydroxy compound, such as bisphenol A, from waste aromatic polycarbonate by depolymerization, carbonate precursor separation, hydrosulfite/sodium dithionite treatment, activated carbon adsorption, activated carbon removal, washing, and impurity removal. Kissinger teaches recrystallization purification of bisphenol-A from aqueous dispersions.
Therefore, the cited art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 17-18.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Jennifer Cho Sawyer
Patent Examiner
Art Unit: 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights