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 § 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 1-12 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.
The claims are indefinite because claim 1 recites values of non-specified ΔL, Δa, and Δb.
Thais makes the claims indefinite because it is not clear from claim 1 what the referenced parameters are.
The claims are further indefinite and incomplete because claim 1 recites values ΔL, Δa, and Δb, but fails to recite any step(s) to obtain the referenced values.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from step “b” of claim 1 how immersing the plastic article in a hot caustic wash may provide a non-colored plastic article and a non-colored label.
The claims are further indefinite because the term “the resultant non-colored article” in claim 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation from 70°C to 95°C, and the claim also recites from 80°C to 90°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the ΔL, Δa, and Δb recited by this claim are the same as ΔL, Δa, and Δb recited by claim 1.
The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear what is referenced as “a non-printed (control) resultant plastic article.
Claim 3 is further indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear from claim 3 how what is recited by this claim is related to the subject matter of the parent claim 1.
Further, the claim is indefinite because it how the plastic material to be recycled can be an article comprising the plastic material and the ink attached to the label attached to the article.
What is required by the claim?
Claim 5 is further indefinite because the terms “the article comprising the plastic material being recycled” and “the plastic material being recycled” lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is further indefinite and could not be properly understood because it requires that “the plastic article and label are ground into flakes before removing the ink in step b)”, while the parent claim 1 requires “b) immersing the plastic article or plastic article plus label in a hot caustic wash to remove the inks as a particulate precipitate that is essentially insoluble in the caustic wash to provide a non-colored plastic article and non-colored label; c) separating the non-colored plastic article or plastic article plus label from the ink precipitate and the hot caustic wash”. It appears that claim 7 contradicts to the parent claim 1.
Claim 11 could not be properly understood because the method of claim 1 is not limited to obtaining bottles or flakes.
Claim 12 is further indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear how the UV cured ink may comprises tri-acrylate monomers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
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) 1-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EP 0588534.
EP 0588534 teaches a method.
The method comprises:
Providing a plastic article comprising a surface a which a UV cured ink has been directly printed directly printed.
See at least Working Example 1 and Working Example 2. EP 0588534 specifically teaches: “The double bond-containing oligomer obtained in Preparation Example 1, B-1 (24.4 g), an aliphatic urethane acrylate (7.8 g), a fluorine macromer (25.7 g), monoacryloyloxyethyl phthalate (6.3 g), the bisphenol A epoxy acrylate-phthalic ester obtained in Preparation Example 2, (a) (3.2 g), trimethylol propane triacrylate (2.0 g), phenoxyethyl acrylate (14.2 g), and acryloylmorpholine (16.4 g) were mixed to give a vehicle mixture with 17.6 acid value”. The document further teaches: “An untreated polyethylene terephthalate sheet was screen printed with the ink thus obtained by means of a 300 mesh Tetron .sup.Tm screen and the printed product was radiated with a 120 W/cm metal halide lamp to the extent of integrated ultraviolet exposure of 200 mj/cm.sup.2 to obtain a cured film”.
The disclosed method further comprises:
B) immersing the plastic article or plastic article plus label in a hot caustic wash to remove the inks as a particulate precipitate that is essentially insoluble in the caustic wash to provide a non-colored plastic article;
C) separating the non-colored plastic article or plastic article plus label from the ink precipitate and the hot caustic wash; wherein the hot caustic wash is an aqueous solution of 2 wt% NaOH at from 70°C.
See at least Working Example 1 and Working Example 2. EP 0588534 specifically teaches: “When the cured film prepared under the same condition was kept in a 2% aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide at 70 °C for 20 minutes, the cured film detached in a filmy form and no trace of prints was observed on the polyethylene terephthalate base”.
As to the limitation requiring “the plastic material is not stained or contaminated by the UV cured ink during recycling”:
The referenced limitation is met by the earlier cited disclosure of EP 0588534 stating “no trace of prints was observed on the polyethylene terephthalate base”.
In view of the indefiniteness of the claims it is reasonably believed that the unclear limitation of the values of ΔL, Δa, and Δb is also met or obvious over the teaching of EP 0588534, which states that “no trace of prints was observed on the polyethylene terephthalate base”.
As to claim 2:
In view of the indefiniteness of the claim it is reasonably believed that the unclear limitation of the values of ΔL, Δa, and Δb is met or obvious over the teaching of EP 0588534, which states that “no trace of prints was observed on the polyethylene terephthalate base”.
As to claim 3:
EP 0588534 teaches direct application of the ink to the article and recycling the referenced article. See at least previously cited Working Example 1 and Working Example 2.
As to claim 4:
EP 0588534 teaches that the disclosed ink is a flexographic ink (at least page 11, lines 27-30).
As to claims 5:
EP 0588534 teaches polyethylene phthalate (PET) articles. See at least previously cited Working Example 1 and Working Example 2.
As to claims 6 and 10:
These claims are met by the disclosure of EP 0588534 because the limitations related to the label in claim 1 are recited as alternative limitations with respect to the limitations directed to the directly printed article.
As to claim 9:
EP 0588534 teaches the disclosed method for recycling bottles. See at least Background of the Invention.
As to claim 11:
The claim could not be properly understood.
Since the EP 0588534 teaches all manipulative steps of claim 1, it is reasonably believed that what is recited by claim 11 is anticipated or obvious over the teaching of EP 0588534.
As to claim 12:
EP 0588534 teaches that that the ink comprises ingredients as claimed. See at least previously cited Working Example 1 and Working Example 2.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
The non-colored plastic bottle recited by this claim is anticipated by any non-colored bottles, which are widely available.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0588534.
EP 0588534 doe not specifically teach grounding of the plastic articles before step b) or after step c).
However, EP 0588534 teaches that conventionally the plastic articles are discarded or recycled as lumps (plastic chunks, which are readable on recited flakes). See at least Background of the Invention.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide plastic articles in the method of EP 0588534 prior to step b) or after step c). in order to have the articles in the form for the further processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to the methods of recycling plastic articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711