DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 04/24/2024, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-13 are elected.
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
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20090209667A1 (‘Thompson’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 8-13, Thompson teaches a method of recovering poly(vinyl butyral) (PVB) (abstract and [0007]), said method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a solvent to a reclamation system ([0024], dissolution);
(b) adding PVB to the solvent and stirring ([0068], agitation) to form a PVB mixture, wherein the PVB mixture comprises a liquid portion comprising dissolved high PVOH PVB resin ([0032], high residual poly(vinyl alcohol) content. [0079], Table 3, Resin B) and plasticizer ([0069], dissolution of poly(vinyl butyral) results in a hazy solution due to non-poly(vinyl butyral) components, including plasticizer, see [0015]), and a solid portion comprising low PVOH PVB solids ([0032], low residual poly(vinyl alcohol) polymers is selectively precipitated and separated. [0079], Table 3, Resin A); and
(c) filtering the PVB mixture to remove the low PVOH PVB solids ([0033-0034], filtration follows dissolution).
Thompson does not teach that the PVB is recycled PVB.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the PVB of Thompson to be recycled PVB in order to significantly reduce the environmental footprint of poly(vinyl butyral) production as recycled poly(vinyl butyral) is less costly to produce than virgin poly(vinyl butyral) (Thompson, [0004]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: the removed low PVOH solids comprise residual high PVOH PVB resin and plasticizer ([0039-0040], precipitated resin is washed, as needed, to remove resident solvent/liquor).
Claims 3-4: a step (d) of separating the residual high PVOH PVB resin and plasticizer from the low PVOH PVB solids, wherein the step (d) separating comprises adding the solvent to the low PVOH PVB resin to further dissolve and remove the high PVOH PVB resin and plasticizer ([0059], plasticizer extraction is repeated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the dissolving and separating steps of Thompson to increase extraction (Thompson, [0059])).
Claim 8: step (b) comprises stirring at a temperature from about 5°C to about 60°C ([0079], Table 3, note solvent and temperature combinations where Resin A is insoluble and Resin B is soluble).
Claim 9: the recycled PVB is in the form of PVB pellets ([0011-0012], granulation. [0027], granules).
Claim 10: the reclamation system to which the recycled PVB is provided in step (a) comprises a batch reactor system ([0024], batch method).
Claim 11: the solvent added during step (a) comprises a mixture of water and alcohol ([0079], Table 3).
Claim 12: the reclamation system to which the recycled PVB is provided in step (a) comprises a continuous reclamation system ([0024], continuous process).
Claim 13: the recycled PVB is added to the solvent in an amount of at least 1 wt.% ([0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: U.S. Publication US20090209667A1 (‘Thompson’) is considered the closest prior art. Thompson does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious a step (e) measuring the level of plasticizer and high PVOH PVB in the low PVOH PVB solids, further comprising repeating the steps (a) to (e), and wherein at least 80% of the high PVOH PVB resin is removed from the recycled PVB. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards the aforementioned claim limitations of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779