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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ACHILIAS, D.S. , "Chemical recycling of polymers from waste electric and electronic equipment", Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2009, A1, 212-221 in view of JP 2007-146045 A.
With regard to claim 1, the claim is directed to:
A method for screening a solvent for extracting an acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene copolymer, comprising: screening a solvent for extracting an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer from a waste including the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer using the following Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
ABS solubility score = x1Log10MolecularWeight+xzIAC_Mean
wherein Molecular Weight is a molecular weight of the solvent, IAC_Mean is an average information by an atomic number, and xi and x2 are each a real number from 0 to 5.
ACHILIAS, D.S. et al. discloses recovering acrylonitrile butadiene styrene or ABS/PABS from waste electrical and electronic equipment using dissolution and reprecipitation techniques and teaches selecting solvent and nonsolvent based on polymer solvent compatibility. See abstract, page 213, 215 and Figure 2 and Tables II-III and pages 216-217.
ACHILIAS, D.S. et al. does not disclose the claimed mathematical equation.
JP 2007-146045 A discloses selecting good solvents and poor solvents using mathematical relationships based on Hansen solubility parameters, such as dispersion, polar and hydrogen bonding components and numerical solvent compatible relationships. See page 2 lines 11-24, page 3 lines 4-39 and page 4 lines 1-31
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ACHILIAS, D.S. et al. by applying the mathematical solvent screening approach of JP 2007-146045 A since both references are trying to identity suitable solvents for polymer dissolution and recovery while reducing experimental trial and error. The particular selection of: x1Log10MolecularWeight+xzIAC_Mean would have been a routine selection and optimization of known molecular parameters for carrying out the known mathematical solvent screening technique in JP 2007-146045 A in the ABS process of ACHILIAS, D.S. et al.
With regard to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select two or more solvent with a first ABS solubility score value of 5.5 or more according to Equation 1 as a good solvent for the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene since selecting a cutoff point for distinguishing a good solvent from a nonsolvent would have been a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since selecting the difference between the good solvent and nonsolvent scores would have been a matter of routine experimentation to improve the separation of the ABS from waste.
With regard to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the solvents toxicity is a known consideration when selecting a solvent for a recycling process.
With regard to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since selecting the weighting values for the equation would have been a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since ACHILIAS, D.S. discloses extracting ABS from waste by dissolving the ABS in a solvent and recovering it by precipitation. . See pages 215-217.
With regard to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since ACHILIAS, D.S discloses contacting the waste with a good solvent to dissolve ABS and contacting the solution with a nonsolvent to precipitate the ABS. See pages 215-217. JP 2007-146045 A discloses . See page 3 lines 9-19 and page 4 lines 12-18 and page 4 lines 19-28.
With regard to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since removing insoluble material before recovering the Abs is a conventional separation step.
With regard to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since washing the revered Abs to remove residual solvent is a conventional purification step.
With regard to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the recycled ABS is the expected product of the obvious extraction process.
With regard to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since recycled Abs obtained from waste would reasonably be expected to contain additives present in the waste.
With regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since ACHILIAS, D.S discloses recovering recycled acrylonitrile butadiene styrene copolymer from waste and JP 2007-146045 A discloses selecting good solvents and nonsolvent for the recovery process. See also the discussion for claim 1 aobve.
With regard to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since selecting the recited score difference would have been a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since solvent toxicity is a known consideration when selecting the good solvent and nonsolvent.
With regard to claim15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the recited solvents were known solvents for dissolving and recovering polymers and selecting one would have been a matter of routine selection.
With regard to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since selecting the amount of the main solvent and the auxiliary solvent would have been a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the recited main solvents were known solvents and selecting one would have been a matter of routine selection.
With regard to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the recited auxiliary solvents were known solvents and selecting one would have been a matter of routine selection.
With regard to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the recited nonsolvent were known nonsolvent for polymer precipitation and selecting one would have been a matter of routine selection.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights