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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamasuna et al. (EP 3854841).
As to claim 1 and 16, Hamasuna discloses a method for separating and recovering a layered film (Abstract). Hamasuna discloses that the method comprises of: providing a multilayer structure having at least two layers including a first layer and a second layer, and contacting the multilayer structure with a treatment solution comprising a solvent and a non-solvent (water) until the first layer is separated from the second layer, wherein the first layer comprises a polymer, wherein the polymer is soluble in the solvent and the polymer is insoluble in the non-solvent (¶3, 12-15, 25-26, 38, 40-44 and 70).
As to claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the polymer may comprise of polypropylene or polyethylene (¶30).
As to claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the second layer may comprise of a polymer (¶38-40).
As to claims 4-5, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the second layer may contain a non-polymer metal such as aluminium ((¶41-42).
As to claim 6, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the multilayer structure comprises an adhesive layer (¶27).
As to claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the treatment solution may comprise of an aqueous, homogenous solution (¶12-14).
As to claim 9, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the solvent and non-solvent are in a ratio 50:50 which is within the recited ratio range (¶12-14).
As to claim 11, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the treatment solution is contacted with the multilayer structure at a temperature within the range of 20-90 ºC (¶11).
As to claim 12, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses the step of removing the treatment solution from the separated first layer and the separated second layer (¶71).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above since it produces a separated layer to be recycled and reused as disclosed by Hamasuna (¶1).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above because it uses the solvent and article according to the recited method.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasuna et al. (EP 3854841) in view of Opuszko et al. (US 20240018329).
As to claim 8, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna discloses that the non-solvent may comprise of water but fails to specifically teach or disclose that the solvent comprises dihydrolevoglucosenone. Opuszko discloses a method for recycling polyvinyl chloride (Abstract). Opuszko discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use dihydrolevoglucosenone solvent to separate and recycle PVC (¶48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the dihydrolevoglucosenone of Opuszko in the method taught by Hamasuna because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional solvent separating PVC in a recycling process. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasuna et al. (EP 3854841) in view of Emerson et al. (US 20240207795).
As to claim 10, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna fails to specifically teach or disclose that the treatment solution may contain an enzyme. Emerson discloses a solvent composition for delaminating layers of a multilayer film (¶16). Emerson discloses that it is known and conventional to add an enzyme as an optional additive component in an aqueous solvent formulation (¶40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the enzyme of Emerson in the method taught by Hamasuna because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional additive for use in an aqueous solvent in a film recycling process. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamasuna et al. (EP 3854841) in view of Fullana Font et al. (US 20230050476).
As to claim 13, the method of claim 12 is taught as seen above. Hamasuna fails to specifically teach or disclose that the treatment solution may be reused. Fullana Font discloses a method for decontaminating recycled plastic (Abstract). Fullana Font discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to recycle/reuse solvent so as to make the method more sustainable since less solution would go to waste (Claim 1). It would have been obvious to take steps to reuse the solvent of Hamasuna and would have been motivated to do so because Fullan Font teaches that such a reuse of a solvent makes the method more sustainable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights