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 .
Claims 1, 2, 13-15, 17, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 29-32, 34-39 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 13-15, 17, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 36-39 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1, 2, 13, 14 are amended.
Claims 3-8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 23, 26, 28, 33 are previously canceled.
Claims 9 and 11 are newly canceled.
Claims 36-39 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 20-22, 24, 25, 27 and 29 in the reply filed on 2/9/26 is repeated herein for reference.
Applicant further elected the following species:
a) light organic chemicals: principal solvent, acetaldehyde, p-dioxane and diethylene glycol methyl ether
b) a downstream chemical processing facility: partial oxidation gasification
c) an “other stream” in claim 2: waste plastic
d) claim 24’s “recycle content solvent stream”: principal solvent, acetaldehyde, p-dioxane and diethylene glycol methyl ether
e) waste plastic stream: at least 50% polyolefin
The elected species of items a) and d) were previously rejoined; thus for a) generic “light organics chemicals” and d) generic “recycle content solvent stream” are searched.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the phrase “a light organics coproduct stream from a solvolysis facility” in line 2 and the phrase “wherein said light organics stream is obtained by…[the rest of the claim]” starting in line 6 product-by-process language. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In claim 1 line 2 the “light organics…stream” may be any light organic stream that any solvolysis facility could conceptually produce. There is no step in the instant claim requiring that the stream be recovered from a solvolysis facility. Notably, also, the term is not “light organics solvolysis coproduct”; even if it did have the exact wording of this term defined in the specification, the definition also includes product-by-process language and does not equate to a required step.
Similarly the claim wording following “said light organics stream is obtained from” in claim 1 line 6 does not limit the light organics stream to originate from the solvolysis facility or solvolysis facility feed stream described in this portion of the claim. The light organics stream must merely be capable of having a lower boiling point than a possible glycol and be capable of having originated from a feed stream comprising textiles as described in this portion of the claim.
In claim 15, the phrase “a second solvolysis coproduct stream from said solvolysis facility” is product-by-process language. The stream may be any stream that any solvolysis facility could conceptually produce. There is no step in the instant claim requiring that the stream be recovered from a solvolysis facility.
In claim 20, the phrase “one solvolysis coproduct stream withdrawn from a solvolysis facility” is product-by-process language. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The stream may be any stream that any solvolysis facility could conceptually produce. There is no step in the instant claim requiring that the stream be recovered from a solvolysis facility.
In claim 24 and 25, the phrase “one recycle content solvent stream” is product-by-process language. There is no active step requiring recycling before the solvent is used and no imparted physical property in the term “recycled”. Thus any solvent stream reads on “one recycle content solvent stream”.
In claim 27 “a solvolysis coproduct stream” is product-by-process language. There is no step in the instant claim requiring that the stream be recovered from a solvolysis facility.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12516250. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the organic compounds described in claim 3 meet the instant requirement (See claim interpretation above) for “light organics coproduct stream from a solvolysis facility” and “is obtained from a solvolysis facility…”. For example in claim 3 there is a stipulation that at least 35% of the organic compounds have a boiling point higher than a principal glycol. This demonstrates overlap with the “is obtained from a solvolysis facility…” of the new claim phrasing.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12516006. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent term “non-recycle cracker feed chosen from propane, ethane, and or natural gasoline” reads on the instant “light organics…” Also, claim term “r-pyoil” reads on instant “processing waste plastic” because pyoil can be a biproduct of waste plastic pyrolysis. The propane, ethane and/or natural gasoline are capable of meeting the product-by-process language in the instant claim (see “Claim interpretation” above); for example they all have a lower boiling point than a hypothetical glycol. The highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-4, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12018220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claim term “C2-C4 hydrocarbons” and “C5-C22 hydrocarbons” reads on the instant “light organics…”. Also, claim term “r-pyoil” reads on instant “processing waste plastic”. Elements of the r-pyoil or “C2-C4 hydrocarbons” and “C5-C22 hydrocarbons” are capable of meeting the product-by-process language in the instant claim (see “Claim interpretation” above). The highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C; at least the patent’s C2-C4 hydrocarbons have a boiling point lower than this.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11945998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent term “carrier fluid stream of C2-C4 hydrocarbons” or “C5-C22 hydrocarbons” reads on the instant “light organics…”. Also, claim term “r-pyrolysis” reads on instant “processing waste plastic”. Elements of the r-pyoil or “C2-C4 hydrocarbons” and “C5-C22 hydrocarbons” are capable of meeting the product-by-process language in the instant claim (see “Claim interpretation” above). The highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C; at least the patent’s C2-C4 hydrocarbons have a boiling point lower than this.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 48, 49 of copending Application No. 17/597817 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application term “C2-C4 hydrocarbon composition” reads on the instant “light organics…”. Also the copending step of pyrolyzing waste plastic reads on instant “processing waste plastic”. The C2-C4 hydrocarbon composition is capable of meeting the product-by-process language in the instant claim (see “Claim interpretation” above); the highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C; at least the application’s C2-C4 hydrocarbons have a boiling point lower than this.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12 of copending Application No. 18/658,580 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application term “C2-C4 hydrocarbon composition” reads on the instant “light organics…”. Also, copending claim term “r-pyoil” reads on instant “processing waste plastic”. The C2-C4 hydrocarbon composition is capable of meeting the product-by-process language in the instant claim (see “Claim interpretation” above). The highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C; at least the application’s C2-C4 hydrocarbons have a boiling point lower than this
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 “said light organics stream” should be “said light organics coproduct stream”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection in the previous action of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim clarifying “introducing”.
The rejection in the previous action of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim clarifying the principal solvent.
The rejection in the previous action of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of applicant’s argument on p.11 of Remarks submitted 6/26/26.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 13 set forth in the previous action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 20, 24, 25, 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120266532 by Bergmann et al is repeated and amended in view of applicant’s amendment.
Bergmann describes a method for processing waste plastic (paragraph 1, 4) comprising: introducing a portion of a light organics coproduct stream (paragraph 112-114 “organic components…removed”; paragraph 127 “extracted from the sump”) from a solvolysis facility (paragraph 26) into a partial oxidation gasification facility (paragraph 132-133 “liquid organic components…used in thermal process…preferably gasification”). Bergmann meets the stipulation of the light organics stream having a lower boiling point than a hypothetical glycol because Bergmann’s light organics stream is vaporized in the same conditions in which the glycol and terephthalyl remain unvaporized (paragraph 36, claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Bergmann describes a method for processing waste plastic (paragraph 1) comprising:
a) a stream of waste plastic which is submitted to solvolysis (Claim 1, paragraph 2). Since the instant “at least one solvolysis coproduct stream” is broad and may be any possible component of any solvolysis reaction, the air, for example, in Bergmann’s solvolysis container can read on the “at least one solvolysis coproduct stream”. See claim interpretation above.
b) withdrawing a vapor stream and a liquefied stream from the liquification tank (paragraph 114)
c) introducing the vapor stream into a gasification facility (paragraph 133)
Regarding claim 24, Bergmann describes a method for processing waste plastic (paragraph 1) comprising:
a) a stream of waste plastic which is submitted to solvolysis (Claim 1, paragraph 2). Since the instant “at least one recycle content solvent stream” is broad and may be any possible component of any solvolysis reaction, the air, for example, containing some amount of water vapor in Bergmann’s solvolysis container can read on the “at least one recycle content solvent stream”. See claim interpretation above.
b) separating the combined stream to provide a vapor (organic) (paragraph 114) and a liquefied stream (e.g. remaining terephthalic acid paragraph 36)
c) introducing the vapor stream into a gasification facility (paragraph 133)
Regarding claim 25, the air is necessarily mixed with the waste plastic in the tank in which Bergman’s liquification takes place (solvolysis; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 27, Bergmann’s air with some amount of water vapor can read on “solvolysis coproduct stream” because it is capable of having been produced in solvolysis, see claim interpretation above.
The rejection in the previous action of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170190977 by Brandhorst et al is repeated and amended herein to reflect applicant’s amendment. Claim 14 is newly rejected under the same premise due to a new dependency on claim 1.
Brandhorst describes a multistage thermolysis method.
Regarding claim 1, Brandhorst describes a method for processing waste plastic (paragraph 3) including introducing a light organics stream into a partial oxidation gasification facility (paragraph 103, light oil fraction separated and reprocessed in the gasification system). Brandhorst’s light aromatics and olefins in paragraph 103 reads on the new claim language requirements for the “light organics coproduct stream” because one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect a “light oil fraction of aromatic oil and olefins” to have a boiling point below a hypothetical glycol; for example one of the highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 2, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H07286185 by Yamada et al is repeated and amended herein to reflect applicant’s amendment.
Yamada describes a mixed waste plastics treating method.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada describes a method for treating mixed waste plastics (translation paragraph 7). Yamada describes introducing a light organic (oil) into a gasification facility (paragraph 10-11). Yamada’s “oil” -which is recirculated via pump 6 into the dissolution tank 7 (Fig.3)- is lightened prior to recirculation (catalytic lightening furnace item 3, paragraph 21); thus it would meet the instant “light organics coproduct stream” stipulations because it is expected to have a boiling point below a hypothetical glycol; for example one of the highest boiling points of typical glycols is triethylene glycol at about 287C, and most organic compounds have a lower boiling point than this, and Yamada’s light oil was previously a gas and has been lightened, all indicating it has a lower boiling point than a hypothetical glycol.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada describes combining the light organic (oil) (paragraph 10, 21) with waste plastics to form a combined stream and introducing the combined stream to a gasification facility (paragraph 11, Fig.3 item 7 is dissolution tank and Fig.3 item 2 is dissolution/gasification tank).
Regarding claim 15 and 17, Yamada meets this claim when the process is tracked from a different perspective. Yamada describes introducing a light organic stream (reads on “first stream”) into a gasification facility (paragraph 30, Fig.3 item 15, 7 “dissolution furnace” wherein the gasification product is taken out via valve 17). Yamada describes introducing a second stream into a melt tank with a stream of waste plastic -there is dissolved solvent/oil therein which reads on the “second stream”- and melting/gasifying therein (paragraph 32, Fig.3 item 2, 16 “dissolution/pyrolysis furnace”).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada describes a method for treating mixed waste plastics (translation paragraph 7), comprising:
a) combining a product (oil/solvent, paragraph 10, 21) with a stream of waste plastic in a liquification tank (Fig.3 item 7; paragraph 30)
b and c) withdrawing a gas and liquified stream and sending the liquified stream to gasification (paragraph 30, 32)
Regarding claim 24, Yamada describes a method for treating mixed waste plastics (translation paragraph 7), comprising:
a) combining a recycled solvent (oil/solvent paragraph 10, 21) with a stream of waste plastic to form a combined stream (Fig.3 item 7; paragraph 30)
b) separating said combined stream to provide a vapor stream and a liquefied stream (paragraph 30-32, Fig.3 item 17 and 16)
c) introducing the liquified stream into a gasification facility (paragraph 32, Fig.3 item 16, 2)
Regarding claim 25, Yamada describes combining in a liquification tank (paragraph 29, Fig.3 item 7 is liquification tank).
Regarding claim 27, Yamada’s oil could meet a pyrolysis oil stream or a solvolysis coproduct stream, see claim interpretation above.
Claims 21, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H07286185 by Yamada et al as evidenced by “Supplementary Materials for ‘Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made’” by Geyer et al.
Regarding claim 21, Yamada is silent as to the makeup of his plastic waste, although he does state that “reducing the volume of discarded plastics” (paragraph 1) is a goal, and emphasizes the mixed nature of the starting material (paragraph 5, 7). Geyer describes global primary plastic waste generation according to industrial use, describing (42/302 Mt) 14% of primary plastic waste as “Textile” (Supplementary Material table S5). Thus since Geyer describes the amount of textile in primary plastic waste as 14%, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect Bergmann’s total plastic waste to also include roughly 14% textile waste, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 29, Yamada is silent as to the makeup of his plastic waste, although he does state that “reducing the volume of discarded plastics” (paragraph 1) is a goal, and emphasizes the mixed nature of the starting material (paragraph 5, 7). Geyer describes global primary plastic waste generation according to polymer type, in which the named polyolefins account for (57+40+55) 152/302 =50.3 wt% of the total, in addition to some undetermined amount which is included in the “PP&A fiber” (polypropylene and acrylic fiber) category, which itself accounts for 13.9% and “Other” category (Supplementary Material table S6). Thus since Geyer describes the amount of polyolefin in primary plastic waste as above 50.3 wt%, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect Yamada’s mixed waste plastic stream to fall within the claimed range of polyolefin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 2, 15, 24, 25, 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170190977 by Brandhorst et al is repeated and maintained herein.
Brandhorst is described above.
Regarding claim 2, Brandhorst describes introducing the light organics stream (paragraph 103 “light oil fraction reprocessed in the gasification system”) with e-waste to the gasification reaction (paragraph 94) where e-waste includes waste plastic resins (paragraph 3).
Although Brandhorst does not explicitly describe the mixing of the light organics with the waste plastic prior to introducing to gasification reactor, combining them prior to introducing them is obvious to one of ordinary skill since Brandhorst describes adding both to the gasification reactor. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 15, Brandhorst describes five gas cleaning systems (paragraph 103) and returning the light oil and olefins from these to the gasification system (paragraph 103), i.e. up to five “coproduct” streams into the gasification facility, depending on order of mixing. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). The obvious option highlighted here for Brandhorst is to remove a light oil and/or olefin stream from up to each gas cleaning system and return each separately to the gasification facility.
Regarding claim 24, Brandhorst describes a method for processing waste plastic (paragraph 3) by introducing light organics stream (reads on “recycle content solvent stream”; paragraph 103 “light oil fraction reprocessed in the gasification system”) with e-waste to reactors (plural, in an embodiment paragraph 94) where e-waste includes waste plastic resins (paragraph 3). The reactors are in series (paragraph 93, 90), i.e. there is a process in the first reactor which creates liquid (e.g. paragraph 93 tars and fuel oils) and vapor (meets instant (b)) which feeds the next gasification reactor (meeting (c)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use multiple reactors and meet the instant claim because Brandhorst describes multiple reactors in an embodiment.
Regarding claim 25, since a liquid manifests in the reactor described by Brandhorst (e.g. paragraph 93 tars and fuel oils), under broadest reasonable interpretation the tank is a liquefication tank.
Regarding claim 27, Brandhorst describes light oil which is capable of being a solvolysis coproduct stream or a pyrolysis oil stream (paragraph 103).
The rejection in the previous action of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H07286185 by Yamada et al is repeated and maintained herein.
Yamada is described above.
Regarding claim 22, Yamada describes passing the vapor stream through a scrubber after gasification (paragraph 21, Fig.1 item 12, 3; Fig. 3 item 12, 3). Given this, it is obvious to pass the vapor stream through the scrubber before gasification (e.g. Fig. 3 items 12, 3 prior to Fig.3 item 2). Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 describes a specific combination of components in the light organics coproduct stream. The closest art, JP H07286185 by Yamada et al and US 20170190977 by Brandhorst et al are both silent as to the presence of an acetaldehyde or para-dioxane along with one of the additional components listed.
Claim 14 describes the light organics coproduct stream as containing an azeotrope with one of water or a glycol or a solvent in the coproduct stream. Both JP H07286185 by Yamada et al and US 20170190977 by Brandhorst et al are silent as to this aspect, and both do not list the components of their oil, so determination of azeotropes is difficult.
Claims 36-39 are allowed.
Claim 36 incorporates the phrasing of previous claims 1, 9 and 13, where claim 13 (dependent on claims 9 and 1) was previously indicated as allowable. As previously stated, the applicable art to previous claim 9 is much smaller than the rest of the claims. Although US 20120266532 by Bergmann et al describes the process of claim 9, there is insufficient data in Bergmann to render obvious dependent claims 11, 13 and 14.
Claims 37-39 properly depend from claim 36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.11 final paragraphs of Remarks submitted 6/26/26 has been considered but is not persuasive. By amendment applicant has entered the phrasing of claim 9 and 11 into claim 1, but not directly- the new claim language is “said light organics stream is obtained by…” which does not directly require the new phrasing as method steps, but as product-by-process language (see Claim Interpretation above and rejections). As such, the applied art must merely be capable of having been obtained by the new phrasing. The only physical requirement thereby imposed is that the light organics stream should have a boiling point lower than a hypothetical (any) glycol. The art applied above (and previously applied) applies as it meets this requirement.
Also, notably, applicant has not addressed the double patenting rejections previously set forth and repeated herein, accounting for the new claim language. Failure to address all rejections set forth in an action in applicant’s remarks may result in categorization of the remarks as non-responsive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights