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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse 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 acknowledged.
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
Claims 30-32, 34, 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/9/26.
Partial Rejoinder
The elected species of items a) and d) above was searched and no prior art found. Therefore, the search was expanded in these instances to generic “light organics chemicals” and “recycle content solvent stream”.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the phrase “a light organics coproduct stream 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 “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.
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”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11946000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claim term “c5-c22” reads on the instant “light organics…”. Also, claim term “r-pyoil” reads on instant “processing waste plastic”.
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”.
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”.
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”.
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”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 2, 14 and 17 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.
Claim 2 recites “prior to said introducing” at the beginning of the claim, referring to “introducing…into…chemical processing facilities” in claim 1. But claim 2 later mentions “introducing said combined stream into…chemical processing facilities”. It is not clear if claim 2 is merely describing a step prior to the “introducing” of claim 1 (i.e. “combining”) or if claim 2 is also setting forth an additional “introducing” into chemical processing facilities. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the single “introducing” step will be assumed, but correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said principal solvent" in the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear where the principal solvent originates from as it has not been previously mentioned in the claim dependency. For the purposes of compact prosecution the “principal solvent” will be considered part of the light organics coproduct stream, but correction is required.
Claim 17, similar to claim 2, states “further comprising introduce said second solvolysis coproduct stream…into a polymer melt tank….and introducing…into one or more of said downstream chemical processing facilities”. It is not clear if the steps set forth in claim 17 are specifics of claim 15’s “introducing…into [chemical processing facilities]” or if they are in addition to claim 15’s “introducing…into [chemical processing facilities]”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, a single introducing into chemical processing facilities will be assumed, but correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 11 in the final line “food” should be “feed”.
In claim 13 line 3-4 there is a repeat of the phrase “at least one additional component selected from”; one of these should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 20, 24, 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120266532 by Bergmann et al.
Bergmann describes a process to generate a synthesis gas.
Regarding claim 1, 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”).
Regarding claim 9, Bergmann describes solvolysis including subjecting a feed stream including plastic waste to solvolysis (paragraph 26) which produces a principal glycol and terephthalyl stream (paragraph 36; ethandiol= glycol and terephthalic acid= principal terephthalyl) and a light organics stream which meets the instant requirements as it 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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170190977 by Brandhorst et al.
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).
Claims 1, 2, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H07286185 by Yamada et al.
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).
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
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.
Claim(s) 2, 15, 24, 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170190977 by Brandhorst et al.
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).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H07286185 by Yamada et al.
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 11, 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and 2) separate objection to claims 11 and 13 set forth above are overcome.
Claim 14 is 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.
Each of claims 11, 13, and 14 depend on claim 9, which imposes significant limitation on claim 1. The applicable art to 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. For claim 11, Bergmann describes a wider waste base than merely “plastic” for his feedstock, rendering the data from “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made” by Geyer inapplicable. For claims 13 and 14, Bergmann’s process is not detailed enough to determine if the same, claimed constituents would be present in the light organics coproduct.
Conclusion
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