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 Amendments
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 45-55 and amendments to claims 36 and 40 are acknowledged and have considered for this action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 26 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat. 12,398,328 and any patent resulting from Application Numbers 17/760,323, 17/760,316, and/or 17/760,319 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 26 February 2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
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.
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 36-37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 2012/0083542 A1) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 5,710,315), and with respect to claim 41, as evidenced by Yaws (“Table 64. Enthalpy of Vaporization at Boiling Point - Organic Compounds”. In Yaws' Critical Property Data for Chemical Engineers and Chemists, 2014. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYCPDCECD/id:kt009ZN321/yaws-critical-property/table-64-enthalpy-vaporization>).
Regarding claim 36, Muller teaches a method for processing waste plastic (abstract and [0014]-[0016]) comprising introducing a polyolefin containing waste plastic stream (blue arrow) and a solvolysis coproduct stream from a solvolysis facility (red arrow) into an energy generation/production facility. In particular, Fig. 3 shows these streams being routed for energy use, and such a process must be facilitated by introducing these streams to an energy generation/energy production facility.
Muller also teaches the solvolysis coproduct stream being obtained by subjecting a PET-containing waste stream plastic to solvolysis (the first step is based on treating organic waste components by means of solvolysis, such that subsequently they are present in at least one liquid phase; [0022], [0083]-[0084] discuss applying this to PET) to produce a raw materials stream that would comprise the principal glycols (Dioles [sic] and other raw materials, Fig. 3) and a solvolysis co-product stream (the stream that is not diols and other raw materials in Fig. 3; or Not sellable or not separable components, Fig. 2). Muller further teaches that the stream comprising diols and other raw materials is obtained by vacuum distillation separation of the volatile organic compounds following solvolysis (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
1050
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
688
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Muller does not specifically teach the solvolysis being methanolysis, or the production of separate principal glycol and principal terephthalyl streams.
However, Gallagher teaches that methanolysis is effective at depolymerizing polyesters (column 1, line46-48 and column 2, paragraph 2) in mixed waste streams (column 2, lines 43-49), and that the vapor stream product obtained following methanolysis can be further separated into a principal glycol stream (ethylene glycol) and a principal terephthalyl stream (DMT, dimethylterephthalate; col. 8, lines 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of Muller a solvolysis coproduct stream that is a methanolysis coproduct stream. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gallagher teaches that methanolysis is an effective method to depolymerize polyesters, which is the function of the solvolysis in the method of Muller ([0083] shows the depolymerization of a polyester), and because Gallagher teaches that the products so obtained are volatile organics that could be recovered and separated into materials that can be reused, which is a goal of Muller’s.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been further motivated to produce a principal glycol stream and a principal terephthalyl stream from the methanolysis products generated by the method of modified Muller, as taught by Gallagher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recover these useful products separately for reuse.
Regarding claim 37, Muller teaches the method of claim 36 where the PO-containing stream and the solvolysis coproduct stream are introduced into an energy generation/energy production facility separately (Fig 3, copied and annotated above shows separate streams directed to energy use).
Regarding claim 41, the instant specification ([0178]) defines the term “heavy organic solvolysis coproduct” as a solvolysis coproduct with a boiling point greater than the boiling point of the principal terephthalyl product of the solvolysis facility and the term “light organic solvolysis coproduct” as a solvolysis coproduct with a boiling point lower than the boiling point of the principal terephthalyl product of the solvolysis facility. For the method of modified Muller, Gallagher teaches methanol as the solvolysis solvent for waste streams that contain PET, which will generate dimethylterephthalate (DMT, b.p. 288 °C) as the principal terephthalyl solvolysis product (Gallagher, col. 8, lines 60-67).
Modified Muller teaches the process of claim 36, but is silent with respect to the weight percent of a heavy solvolysis coproduct and a light organic solvolysis coproduct, and to the concentration of products in the solvolysis co-product stream in general. However, Muller does teaches that their method is applicable to a wide variety of plastic wastes ([0075]-[0089]) and the identified solvolysis products of ethylene glycol (b.p. 197 °C), 1,4-butanediol (b.p. 228 °C), 1,4-butanediamine (b.p. 159 °C), and 1,6-hexanediamine (hexamethylenediamine, 202 °C) in [0075]-[0089] have boiling points below that of DMT, as evidenced by Yaw, while the boiling point of adipic acid (338 °C) is above that of DMT. The weight percent of the light and heavy organic solvolysis coproducts in the solvolysis co-product stream will then be principally a function of the overall concentration of this stream and the ratio of plastics in the waste stream, variables that are subject to routine optimization in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concertation of the solvolysis co-product stream by routine experimentation to arrive at a solvolysis co-product stream comprising at least 5 and not more than 60 weight percent of a light organic solvolysis co-product. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because concentration is a well-known to affect reaction rates and viscosity, among other characteristics that one of ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with (e.g., [0036], [0038]).
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 2012/0083542 A1) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 5,710,315), as applied to claim 36, and further in view of de Broqueville (US 5,288,934).
Regarding claim 38, modified Muller teaches the process of claim 36, but does not teach combining the PO-containing stream and the solvolysis coproduct stream to form a combined stream.
However, de Broqueville discloses a similar method of processing waste plastics comprising separating the plastics into a PO-containing stream, a polystyrene stream, and a PVC/PET stream that may be subjected to solvolysis/methanolysis (abstract and column 7, lines 23-28). De Broqueville further discloses the pyrolysis (catalytic cracking at 450 °C; column 9 lines 8-12) of a combined stream resulting from this process (column 8, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of Muller where the PO-containing stream and the solvolysis co-product stream are combined before further use, as taught by de Broqueville, and then introduced to an energy production facility as taught by Muller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so because combining them would allow them to be transported together, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing the need for multiple routes and inlets to the energy production apparatus.
Regarding claim 39, modified Muller teaches the method of claim 38 and Muller further teaches that other steps in the process can be made continuous, including the extraction that affords the PO-containing stream ([0062]). De Broqueville also teaches that their entire process, which include the combining of streams (column 8, lines 1-5) can be made continuous (column 8, lines 19-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the streams of claim 38 taught by modified Muller in a continuous manner, as taught by de Broqueville. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so because de Broqueville teaches that similar processes can be made entirely continuous and because it would allow them to use the PO-containing stream as it is produced continuously by the method of Muller.
Furthermore, it is noted that the courts have held that continuous operations are obvious in light of a batch process disclosed in the prior art. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2144.04(V).E.
Regarding claim 40, modified Muller teaches the method of claim 38 but does not explicitly teach the weight percents and ratios instantly claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight percent of the PO-containing stream in the combined stream and the ratio of a PO-containing stream to the solvolysis coproduct stream by routine optimization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the use of the waste plastic material based upon the composition of the waste plastic feedstock supplied to the solvolysis facility.
Claims 42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 2012/0083542 A1) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 5,710,315), as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Bergmann et al. (US 2012/0266532 A1) and Smith et al. (US 3,719,749).
Regarding claim 42, modified Muller teaches the process of claim 36, but is silent with respect to POX gasification.
However, Bergmann teaches a largely similar method to Muller for the treatment of waste plastics (abstract and Fig. 2), and also teaches that organic components can be converted to synthesis gas ([0001]). Bergman does not specify that this gasification take place in a partial oxidation gasification facility. However, Smith teaches that hydrocarbons can be converted to syngas (H2, CO and CO2) by a solid-fed gasifier in a partial oxidation gasification reaction, which necessarily takes place in a POX gasification facility (column 10, lines 26-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the PO-containing stream and the solvolysis coproduct stream of modified Muller into a POX gasification facility with a solid-fed gasifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Bergman teaches that organic components of the process, which the PO-containing stream and the solvolysis coproduct stream both are, are appropriate for synthesizing syngas, and Smith teaches a method to do so via partial oxidation gasification with a solid-fed gasifier.
Regarding claim 44, modified Muller teaches the method of claim 36 where the streams are introduced to an energy production facility, but does not teach introducing the streams to at least two of (i) through (iii).
However, Bergmann teaches a largely similar method to Muller for the treatment of waste plastics (abstract and Fig. 2), and also teaches that organic components can be converted to synthesis gas ([0001]). Bergman does not specify that this gasification take place in a partial oxidation gasification facility. However, Smith teaches that hydrocarbons can be converted to syngas (H2, CO and CO2) in a partial oxidation gasification reaction, which necessarily takes place in a POX gasification facility (column 10, lines 26-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the streams to an energy production facility and a POX gasification facility in order to generate syngas. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to do so because each element was known in the prior art and introducing the streams to each type of facility would have had the predictable result of producing both energy and syngas from the waste plastic. MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 2012/0083542 A1) in view of Gallagher et al. (US 5,710,315), as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Bergmann et al. (US 2012/0266532 A1) and Butler et al. (Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:227–255).
Regarding claim 43, modified Muller teaches the process of claim 36, but does not teach introducing the streams to a pyrolysis facility. However, Butler teaches the pyrolysis of a polyolefin-containing stream (title) derived from waste plastic to form a recycle content pyrolysis gas (gaseous olefins, Fig. 6) and a recycle content pyrolysis oil (liquid/wax, Fig. 6). Bergman further teaches that a solvolysis coproduct stream can be treated to remove heteroatoms ([0129]), which therefore yields a hydrocarbon that does not contain undesirable elements and would therefore also be suitable for pyrolysis, as taught by Butler (p. 230, column 1, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Muller and to route the PO-containing stream and a solvolysis coproduct stream to a pyrolysis facility and to pyrolyze the streams to form a recycle content pyrolysis gas and a recycle content pyrolysis oil, as taught by Butler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Bergman teaches that both streams can be stripped of heteroatoms, which makes them each suitable to the same pyrolysis that Butler teaches is appropriate for polyolefins.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 102, pages 4-5, have been fully considered and are persuasive. These prior rejections of claims 36-37 and 40-41 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of the reply, with respect to the rejections of claims 38-43 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Gallagher, as analyzed above.
Applicant further argues that Gallagher, as previously applied to claim 45, is incompatible with the method of Muller. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Muller is concerned with treating a diverse waste stream that may include many different waste categories, but one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand the method of Muller as applying to waste streams that contain only a subset of the waste materials identified by Muller. While Applicant asserts that “when taken as a whole it is clear that Muller teaches that it is critical to treat such waste with an aqueous alkaline solution under specific reaction conditions”, page 5, such a conclusion is not supported. Muller’s processes steps depicted in Fig.2 and 3 could easily apply to a method that does not require aqueous alkaline hydrolysis and uses other solvolysis conditions. In fact, Bergmann describes on overall process nearly identical to Muller (compare Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Bergman to Fig. 1 and 2 or Muller) and Bergmann explicitly teaches embodiments where solvolysis in alkaline solution is replaced by an alternate solvolysis method (hydrate smelter; abstract).
Therefore, Gallagher’s teaching to use methanolysis as a replacement for alkaline hydrolysis in order to generate volatile organic products that can be recovered and separated into distinct product streams is an appropriate and obvious modification to Muller.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Double Patenting rejections are persuasive, and all previous Double Patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735