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 4-5, and 15 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.
Claims 4-5 recite the limitation "the first portion" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes a first portion is first mentioned in claim 3, not claim 2.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear how the sum of diol equivalents is about 100 mole percent and the sum of diacid equivalents is about 100 mole percent, since the quantity of each component of the polyester needs to equal 100 mole percent. If both component mold percents were about 100%, that would equal about 200%. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-12, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble et al. (U.S. Patent 5,298,530). Regarding Claim 1, Gamble et al., hereafter “Gamble 530”, show that it is known to carry out a process for recovering one or more dialkyl terephthalates from a feedstock composition (Abstract), comprising: exposing a feedstock composition comprising one or more polyesters and one or more foreign materials (Column 2, lines 21-22) to one or more glycols and a depolymerization catalyst in a first reaction vessel under depolymerization conditions to provide a first mixture, the first mixture comprising one or more depolymerization products (Column 2, lines 18-20); exposing at least a portion of the first mixture to an alcohol composition and an alcoholysis catalyst under alcoholysis conditions to provide a second mixture, the second mixture comprising one or more dialkyl terephthalates (Column 2, lines 25-27); and isolating at least a portion of the one or more dialkyl terephthalates from the second mixture (Column 2, line 31; Column 4, lines 15-20). Gamble 530 discloses that his reactor is appropriately heated (Column 3, lines 20-25), however he does not disclose the claimed temperatures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the reactor to any appropriate temperature, such as that which is 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 2, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the foreign materials comprise metals (Column 4, lines 55-58).
Regarding Claim 3, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one further comprising removing a first portion of the foreign materials from the first reaction vessel (Column 4, lines 55-58).
Regarding Claim 4, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 2 above, including one wherein the first portion of the foreign materials are removed from the first reaction vessel via a pump (Column 3, lines 12-13; Column 4, lines 55-58).
Regarding Claim 5, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 2 above, including one wherein the first portion of foreign materials comprises polyolefin (Column 4, lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 7, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one comprising exposing at least a portion of the second mixture to distillation conditions (Column 4, lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 8, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 7 above, including one wherein the distillation pot reside comprises a second portion of foreign materials (Column 4, lines 15-30, 61-65).
Regarding Claim 9, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 8 above, including one wherein the second portion of the foreign materials comprises a polyester other than PET (Column 4, lines 18-65).
Regarding Claim 11, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the one or more glycols comprises ethylene glycol (Column 4, lines 15-16).
Regarding Claim 14, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the polyester comprises polyethylene terephthalate (Column 2, lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 16, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the alcohol composition comprises methanol (Column 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding Claim 18, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one comprising dimethyl terephthalate (Column 4, line 15; Example 1: since no further processing is required, the examiner interprets at least 90% pure).
Regarding Claim 19, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including one comprising exposing the second mixture to a solvent dissolution process (Column 3, lines 31-32).
Regarding Claims 6, 10, 12, and 20, Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, including various component amounts and temperatures. Gamble 530 does not specifically disclose the claimed temperatures and quantities of components. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the reactor to any appropriate temperature or include components in specific amounts, such as that which is 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)).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble 530, in view of Gamble et al. (U.S. Patent 5,393,916). Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show using the claimed depolymerization catalyst. Gamble et al., hereafter “Gamble 916” show that it is known to use zinc acetate as a depolymerization catalyst (Column 4, lines 26-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Gamble 916’s zinc acetate as a depolymerization catalyst in Gamble 530’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using zinc acetate in the process of recovering components from polyesters (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble 530, in view of Oakley et al. (U.S. Patent 5,236,959). Gamble 530 shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show using the claimed alcoholysis catalyst. Oakley et al., hereafter “Oakley,” show that it is known to use Na2CO3 as an alcoholysis catalyst (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Oakley’s Na2CO3 as an alcoholysis catalyst in Gamble 530’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using Na2CO3 in the process of recovering components from polyesters (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