DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al (WO 20210385512, cited in IDS, cited herein with identical US 20220282036) in view of Yang et al (CN 101392050) and further view of Fiber industries (GB996689).
Kulkarni discloses a process of making Polyesters and Co - Polyesters comprising the following steps:
adding recycled Bis 2 - Hydroxy Ethyl Terephthalate ( rBHET ) melting powder in a reactor by increasing temperature to 120 degree Celsius (meeting the limitations of claim 2);
increasing temperature of the mixture of step II gradually in a range of 120- to 240 ° C;
adding diols and / or comonomers to the mixture above and applying a pressure of 2.5 bar absolute and perform the polymerization reaction (meeting the limitations of claim 3);
depressurizing the to distill the byproduct (see claim 1).
Kulkarni further discloses that the comonomers are selected from the group of aliphatic and aromatic diacids (see claim 4), meeting the corresponding limitation of claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use diacids as comonomers, since they are clearly disclosed in the reference.
Kulkarni fails to teach diol/diacid composition in a form of slurry.
Yang discloses a method of making polyethylene terneplate, which includes the following steps:
Mixing ethylene glycol (EG) -terephthalic acid (TPA) in a slurry;
Continuously adding the slurry to a molten terephthalic acid dihydroxy ethyl esters (BHET) at 258C(meeting the limitations of claim 3);
Supplying the mixture to a polymerization reactor;
Recovering EG from the reaction mixture.
Note that Yang teaches a polymerization at atmospheric pressure (1 bar) (see Embodiment 1).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) , 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301, see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TPA/EG slurry in PET production, because it is a known commercially used manufacturing approach.
Even though Kulkarni and Yang teach distilling of byproduct and recovering EG from the reaction mixture, the references fail to disclose a step of returning EG to the mixing container.
Fiber industries disclose a process of making PET from dimethyl terephthalate or terephthalic acid, EG and BHET, where the glycol is utilized from the polymerization reaction and returned into the initial step (see Example 1 at 3:5, particularly 3:50).
Fiber industries teaches that along with obvious environmental advantages, recycling of unpurified EG leads to a polyester with equal or superior properties compared to regular commercial PET (see 1:55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use unpurified recycled EG in PET production, since it is environmentally friendly and produce a polymer with equal or superior properties compared to regular commercial PET.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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 Riviere 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
