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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the title, “aqueos” should read “aqueous”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-10 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 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the alkaline aqueous phase”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the aqueous phase is not specifically referred to as being alkaline in Claim 1 (Examiner notes it appears Claims 9 and 10 should depend on Claim 8 as Claim 8 recites “the aqueous phase is an alkaline aqueous phase”). For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as dependent on Claim 8 where an alkaline aqueous phase is established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al (EP3828228 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Jones teaches a process for treating a polyolefin [0032] recycling stream (Abstract; [0033]), comprising, in the given order, the steps of:
i) providing a polyolefin recycling stream, comprising at least 50 wt.%, relative to the total weight of the polyolefin recycling stream, of multilayer films ([0006]- typical recycling streams contain 90% plastic; [0067]- example: 0.5 g of cryo-milled LDPE bags; [0010]- step i) comprising the following layers:
(a) an outer layer consisting of a composition comprising at least 90 wt.% of one or more polyolefins [0032];
(b) a metal layer in contact with the outer layer [0023]; and
(c) one or more further layers wherein at least one of the one or more further layers is in contact with the metal layer [0023]-[0024],
wherein the one or more further layers may contain non-polyolefin material or one or more polyolefins that may be the same as or different to the one or more polyolefins of the outer layer, with the proviso that the further layer that is in contact with the metal layer contains one or more polyolefins that may be the same as or different to the one or more polyolefins of the outer layer,
ii) contacting the polyolefin recycling stream with an emulsion ([0019]-[0020]; [0010]- step ii) comprising:
(a) an aqueous phase [0029]; [0012]; and
(b) an organic phase ([0030], thereby obtaining a suspended polyolefin recycling stream,
iii) subjecting the suspended polyolefin recycling stream to agitation through ultrasonic treatment, thereby obtaining a treated recycling stream dispersed in the emulsion [0026],
iv) removing the emulsion from the treated recycling stream ([0010]- step iv), and
v) optionally recycling one, or both, of the aqueous phase and the organic phase ([0041]- reintroducing carrier and/or cleaning medium).
Regarding Claim 2, Jones further teaches step iii) is carried out for a period of time in the range from 1 minute to 4 hours ([0045]- the time for the step of contacting and treating the article (step ii) is 1 to 600 minutes).
Regarding Claim 3, Jones further teaches step iii) is carried out at a temperature in the range from 20 to 95°C ([0044]- the temperature for the step of contacting and treating the article (step ii) is -86°C to 500°C).
Regarding Claim 4, Jones further teaches the organic phase comprises at least 90% v/v of one or more fully saturated organic solvents having logP values in the range from 1.0 to 10.0 ([0030]- preferred carrier medium include cyclohexane (logP value of 3.44), mineral oil (logP value of 5-7)).
Regarding Claims 6, 7, and 17, Jones further teaches the cleaning medium is an acid selected from the group consisting of oleum, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, boric acid, adipic acid, formic acid, acetic acid, and mixtures thereof [0029] thus meeting the instant limitations of the aqueous phase is an acidic aqueous phase, having a pH in the range from 0.0 to 5.0 wherein the acidic aqueous phase is an inorganic oxoacid solution and the inorganic oxoacid is selected from the group consisting of disulphuric acid, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, perchloric acid, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding Claim 12, Jones further teaches the metal layer (b) is a vapour-deposited metal layer, wherein said metal layer has been vapour-deposited on the outer layer (a) [0023].
Regarding Claim 16, Jones further teaches the one or more fully saturated organic solvents are selected from the group of linear and branched alkanes and ethers ([0030]- mineral oil contains linear and branched alkanes).
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.
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 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (EP3828228 cited in IDS) in view of Bork et al (PGPub 2006/0118469).
Regarding Claim 5, Jones does not specify the aqueous phase is a substantially neutral aqueous phase, having a pH in the range from 5.0 to 9.0.
Bork teaches an alternative method of treating a polymer recycling stream (Abstract) wherein a suitable pH adjustment allows metallic ions to be precipitated out and removed [0134] thus but this is a result-effective variable modifying the rate of metallic ion precipitation. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize the pH of the aqueous solution through routine experimentation in order to perfect the result-effective variable of the rate of metallic ion precipitation, consult MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 11, Jones does not specify the aqueous phase comprises a detergent in an amount in the range from 0.1 wt. % to 1.0 wt.%, relative to the total weight of the aqueous phase.
Bork teaches an alternative method of treating a polymer recycling stream (Abstract) wherein a small amount of detergent is utilized [0078] in order to reduce surface tension, to reduce interfacial tension between the fluid and the particles, to promote the release of air bubbles and to reduce the attraction between particles [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jones to include a detergent as taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of success to reduce surface tension, to reduce interfacial tension between the fluid and the particles, to promote the release of air bubbles and to reduce the attraction between particles [0078] thus meeting the instant limitation of the aqueous phase comprises a detergent in an amount in the range from 0.1 wt. % to 1.0 wt.%, relative to the total weight of the aqueous phase
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (EP3828228 cited in IDS) in view of Lee et al (PGPub 2006/0178442).
Regarding Claim 8, Jones does not specify the aqueous phase is an alkaline aqueous phase, having a pH in the range of 9.0 to 14.0.
Lee teaches an alternative method of treating a polyolefin recycling stream (Abstract) utilizing an alkaline aqueous phase [0013] in order to increase the reaction and dissolution rate of the metal (aluminum) layer as compared to an acidic aqueous solution [0004]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Jones to include an alkaline aqueous phase as taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of success to increase the reaction and dissolution rate of the metal (aluminum) layer as compared to an acidic aqueous solution [0004].
Regarding Claim 9, Lee further teaches further teaches the alkaline aqueous phase is an aqueous solution of a base selected from the group consisting of calcium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide and mixtures thereof [0013].
Regarding Claim 10, Lee further teaches the amount of the base in the alkaline aqueous phase is in the range from 0.05 to 10 wt.% [0013].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 9/9/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
