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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 refers to a process involving dissolving a composite material containing a different resin to form a solution and then precipitating a different resin component containing the different resin. On its face, the claim apparently requires that different resin be dissolved in the solvent and then precipitated from solution. However, the discussion of ¶ 43-47 appears to indicate the different resin can be insoluble over the course of dissolution; suggesting that merely dissolving cyclic olefin polymer without dissolving different resin constitutes precipitation. ¶ 47 indicates different resin “may be dissolved” in some embodiments when solvent is heated.
Thus, it appears claim 1 is using the terms “dissolution” / “precipitation” in a manner not consistent with their ordinary meaning in the art since, ordinarily, “dissolving” refers to the uptake of solids into a liquid solution and “precipitation” refers to a process whereby a dissolved substrate forms solid particles that fall out of solution. The intended scope of the claim is indefinite as it is uncertain whether different resin dissolution/precipitation is actually being required or if protocols involving merely treating composite material to selectively dissolve cyclic olefin polymer is intended.
As claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
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) 1-7, 10-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obara (JPH11-291247A). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 7, and 15, Obara teaches methods of removing foreign materials from cyclic olefin resins via dissolution/liquefying and then filtration (Abstract; Examples). Foreign materials are inclusive of various different polymer resins different from the cyclic olefin resin (¶ 29-30). Polymeric fibers are also noted (¶ 48). Thus, Obara anticipates a process whereby composite materials of cyclic olefin resin and different resin are treated with solvent such that cyclic olefin is dissolved and polymeric foreign material remains, which is seen to constitute “precipitation” in light of the specification at ¶ 43-47, after which foreign materials is removed via filtration to obtain a filtrate comprising cyclic olefin resin. Obara teaches examples where substrate is crushed/pulverized to a predetermined size prior to dissolution (¶ 55, 131). Examples are taught where filtrate is dried to obtain recycled cyclic olefin polymer (¶ 131).
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12, Obara teaches examples where the recovered alicyclic resin is melted/pelletized (¶ 131). Solvents such as cyclohexane are described as suitable solvents for removing foreign materials (¶ 131).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Obara teaches resins such as ethylene, polyester, and polyamide resins (¶ 30).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Obara teaches embodiments where solvent mixture is heated/stirred at 40 degrees C (¶ 132).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Obara teaches the recovered cyclic olefin resin can be re-used to create various articles such as shrink films (¶ 122), construed as heat-shrinkable films.
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) 8-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara (JPH11-291247A) in view of Muta (JP2020-026104A). As the cited JP publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to.
Obara teaches methods of removing foreign materials from cyclic olefin resins via dissolution/liquefying and then filtration (Abstract; Examples). Foreign materials are inclusive of various different polymer resins different from the cyclic olefin resin (¶ 29-30). Polymeric fibers are also noted (¶ 48). Thus, Obara anticipates a process whereby composite materials of cyclic olefin resin and different resin are treated with solvent such that cyclic olefin is dissolved and polymeric foreign material remains, which is seen to constitute “precipitation” in light of the specification at ¶ 43-47, after which foreign materials is removed via filtration to obtain a filtrate comprising cyclic olefin resin. Obara teaches examples where substrate is crushed/pulverized to a predetermined size prior to dissolution (¶ 55, 131). Examples are taught where filtrate is dried to obtain recycled cyclic olefin polymer (¶ 131).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17, Obara teaches a variety of molded articles can be recycled inclusive of films (¶ 24-26), but differs from the subject matter claimed in that multilayered films are not described.
Muta teaches multilayer films with a first layer of cyclic olefin resin and a second layer of different resin are known, particularly suitable as heat-shrinkable laminated films (¶ 11-13; Examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subject used films of Muta to the recycling protocol of Obara, thereby predictably affording cyclic olefin resins for re-use in accordance with the teachings of Obara.
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Obara teaches the recovered cyclic olefin resin can be re-used to create various articles such as shrink films (¶ 122). To the extent Obara differs from the subject matter claimed with respect to the creation of heat shrinkable films, Muta teaches it was known in the art cyclic olefin resins are useful as layers within multilayer heat-shrinkable films (¶ 11-13; Examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the recycled materials of Obara in creating the heat-shrinkable films of Muta, thereby facilitating re-use of otherwise discarded materials.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nauman (U.S. Pat. No. 5,198,471) describes the purification / recycling of a polymeric blends via selective dissolution.
Chang (CN 114133618A) describes methods of purifying/recycling cyclic olefin from blends with other polymers. Specifically, Chang describes treating the blends with solvent to selectively dissolve other polymer, after which undissolved cyclic olefin polymer material is filtered.
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