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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 and 20 allowable. The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11-05-2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). Claims 13-19 previously withdrawn from consideration are rejoined for examination in view of the allowability of the elected invention. Claims 13-19 and 20 are examined below on the merits.
Withdrawal of Prior At Rejection
The prior rejection of claims 1-12 and 20 under 35 USC §103 is withdrawn in view of Applicants amendments and arguments filed 8-3-26.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
The term “substantially free” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 20 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear how much plasticizer may remain in the recovered PVB polymer and still be considered “substantially free of plasticizer.”
Moreover, claim 1, on which it depends, uses the recited terms “substantially insoluble” which does not define the plasticizer limitation of claim 1 but appears to refer to the PVB solids with a loss of resin less than about 2 wt%. Claim 1 does not state how much plasticizer may remain while the recovered PVB is ‘substantially free of plasticizer.” Note also that claim 3 expressly recited a measurable plasticizer content of ‘no more than about 2wt%. Claim 20 does not include that limitation.
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) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB20090209667, see [0027]. [0047]-[0049], [0052],[0058], [0077],[0086].
With regard to claim 13 the claim is a product-by-process and thus the claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps of claim 1, only the structure of the implied by the steps. As such, note USPUB20090209667 discloses recycled PBV resin recovered from laminated glass and suitable for reuse in place of or in combination with virgin PVB resin and does not show that the resulting recycled PVB is different from the recycled PVB of the prior art reference. See [0047]-[0049],[0086].
With regard to claim 14 USPUB20090209667 discloses forming recycled PVB resins into polymer laminating sheets or resin layers. See [0052], [0077]. Thus,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a resin layer comprising the recycled PVB of claim 13.
With regard to claim 15 USPUB20090209667 discloses interlayers comprising recycled PVB and processing recycled PVB into a polymer sheet for use in laminated glass. See [0052],[0058], [0077]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an interlayer comprising the resin layer of claim 14.
With regard to claim 16 USPUB20090209667 discloses multiple layers of PVB interlayers in paragraph [0027]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an additional resin layer in the multilayer interlayer.
With regard to claim 17 USPUB20090209667 discloses multiple layers of PVB interlayers in paragraph [0027]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the resin layers with a core layer between two additional resin layers.
With regard to claim 18 USPUB20090209667 discloses in paragraphs [0048]-[0049] that mixtures containing recycled PVB resin include mixtures of recycled and virgin PVB resin.
With regard to claim 19 USPUB20090209667 discloses processing recycled PVB into polymer sheets and laminating the sheets between two panes of glass to form a laminated glass panel. See [0077].
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
Allowable Subject Matter with regard to Claims 1-7,9-12
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant(s) claimed invention is directed to:
A method of recovering poly(vinyl butyral) (PVB), said method comprising the steps of:(a) providing a solvent to a reclamation system, wherein the solvent comprises a mixture of ethanol and water, and the water is present in an amount of about 30 to about 40 wt.%;(b) adding recycled PVB to the solvent and stirring to form a PVB mixture comprising PVB solids and plasticizer, wherein the stirring extracts plasticizer from the recycled PVB while the PVB solids remain substantially insoluble in the solvent such that resin loss is less than about 2 wt.%; (c) filtering the PVB mixture to remove the PVB solids;(d) optionally, measuring the level of plasticizer in the PVB solids; and(e) subjecting the PVB solids to heat to obtain recovered PVB polymer.
The crux of the invention lies in the discovery that post consumer PVB can be recovered and reused by removing the plasticizer to produce reclaimed PVB to be used for making new PVB resin and interlayers while avoiding the problems commonly associated therewith. Such has neither been anticipated by nor made obvious from the prior art. Claims 1-12 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over USPub 2009/0209667 A1. Applicants response filed on 8-3-26 states that
“ Independent claim 1 has been amended to require that the solvent comprises a mixture of ethanol and water in which the water is present in an amount of about 30 to about 40 wt.%, and that the stirring extracts plasticizer while the PVB solids remain substantially insoluble such that resin loss is less than about 2 wt.%. Applicants further submits that “the claimed ethanol/water window is a critical range rather than a matter of routine optimization. The claimed range is critical because it is bounded on both sides by competing physical constraints. Below about 30 wt.% water, the PVB resin begins to dissolve in the ethanol, resulting in unacceptable loss of the very polymer the process is intended to recover. Above about 40 wt.% water, extraction efficiency drops and plasticizer is retained in the resin. The specification demonstrates this criticality in Table 1, where resin loss falls to 0% within the claimed window while plasticizer extraction remains effective. The '667 publication does not disclose or suggest this narrow operability window, nor does it recognize the dual constraint that defines it. A person of ordinary skill following the '667 publication would have had no reason to arrive at the claimed range, and the demonstrated criticality rebuts the assertion that the range is a mere product of routine optimization.”
Thus, the art of record demonstrates other methods used in the art which do not however, result in the same product or contain the advantages as mentioned and neither avoid the problems as mentioned above.
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