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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-23 are under examination in their entirety. Claims 1-6 are rejected. Claims 10-12, and 16-23 are allowed.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-9, and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/24/2026.
Specie Election
Applicant elected the below specie without traverse in the reply filed on 03/24/2026.
Anisole (methoxybenzene)=Formula 1
Potassium acetate (KOAc)
Anisole=Formula 1 addition in current claim 16 step 1)
Applicant provided a more detailed specie election bridging pages 1-2 in the response filed 03/24/2026 which is incorporated by reference.
The specie election has been withdrawn.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
98
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
70
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
22
940
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
43
938
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
121
939
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Ultrafast Homogeneous Glycolysis of Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate via a Dissolution-Degradation Strategy, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 57, 16239-16245, Published 2018. Cited in the IDS filed 07/23/2024.) in view of Hirotaka et al. (JP2009192856, Published 08-2009) and Krall et al. (Controlled hydrogenative depolymerization of polyesters and polycarbonates catalyzed by ruthenium(II) PNN pincer complexes, Chem. Commun., 50, 4884-4887, Published 2014. Cited in the IDS filed 07/23/2024.).
Scope of the Prior Art
Liu et al. teach the glycolysis (ethylene glycol EG, current claim 4 polyhydric alcohol) of polyethylene terephthalate (PET Current claim 5) in the following solvents aniline, nitro benzene, 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (NMP), or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the presence of a catalyst (p. 16240 middle left and right columns). Liu et al. teach the glycolysis being a dissolution-degradation method for recycling PET by adding solvents the reaction (p. 16240 left column). Liu et al. teach the dissolution-degradation strategy can improve the efficiency of glycolysis of PET effectively in homogeneous systems (p.
16241, right column).
Liu et al. teach the π−π interaction between the benzene ring of the solvent and PET might play a key role in the PET dissolution for aromatic solvents (p. 16244, left column). Liu et al. goes on to teach “the π−π interaction between the aromatic solvents and PET plays an important role in this process, which provides an important guidance for searching more solvents for PET dissolution” (p. 16244, right column).
Concerning the catalysts of current claim 2 and 3, Liu et al. teach Zn(OAc)2 having the highest yield of the monomer bishydroxyethyl terephthalate (BHET) (p. 16241, right column, Table 1.). Zinc being a Group 2B metal. The OAc being acetate.
Ascertain the Differences
Liu et al. does not teach the use of the current chemical compound of Formula 1.
Secondary References
Hirotaka et al. teach solvents that can be utilized in depolymerization reactions of PET. The solvents being anisole (methoxybenzene, current claim 6) and other alkoxylated benzenes that are encompassed by the current Formula 1 (p. 9, middle).
Krall et al. teach PET polymer solubility was increased with the use of anisole (p. 4886, left column). Due to both Hirotaka et al. and Krall et al. teaching anisole being a solvent for PET and Krall et al. teaching the increase in solubility of PET with the inclusion of anisole, both references are deemed analogous art to the invention.
Analogous art, MPEP 2141.01(a) I. (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Dissolution of PET is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This is because the dissolution of PET can improve the efficiency of glycolysis of PET.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the modified benzene solvents taught Hirotaka et al. in the search for more solvents for PET taught by Liu et al. The ordinary artisan would have especially tried anisole due to PET solubility being increased as taught by Krall et al. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the dissolution of PET using the modified benzene solvents because Liu et al. teach the π−π interaction between the benzene ring of the solvent and PET might play a key role in the PET dissolution for aromatic solvents. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the glycolysis of PET with the modified benzene solvents because Liu et al. teach the dissolution-degradation strategy can improve the efficiency of glycolysis of PET. The alkoxylated benzenes, as currently claimed would have also been arrived at while searching more solvents for PET dissolution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, and 16-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: The closest prior art to claims 10-12, 16-21 and 22-23 is Liu et al. (Ultrafast Homogeneous Glycolysis of Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate via a Dissolution-Degradation Strategy, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 57, 16239-16245, Published 2018).
Liu et al. teach the glycolysis (ethylene glycol EG, current claim 4 polyhydric alcohol) of polyethylene terephthalate (PET Current claim 5) in the following solvents aniline, nitro benzene, 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (NMP), or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the presence of a catalyst (p. 16240 middle left and right columns).
Hirotaka et al. was brought in to teach the current compounds of chemical Formula 1.
However, concerning claim 10, neither Liu et al. or Hirotaka et al. teach separating the current compound of chemical Formula 1 via a gas-liquid or liquid-liquid separation/extraction respectively. For example, Liu et al. teach concentrating the solvent and cooling the remaining liquid to form crystals of the bishydroxyethyl terephthalate (BHET) (see page 16240 right column section 2.3.).
Concerning claim 16, neither Liu et al. nor Hirotaka et al. teach adding the current compound of chemical Formula 1 to a monomer of an ester functional group-bearing polymer.
Concerning claim 22, neither Liu et al. or Hirotaka et al. teach leaving the mixture of water and the depolymerized mixture to induce a liquid-liquid phase separation. Instead as written above, Liu et al. teach concentrating the solvent and cooling the remaining liquid to form crystals of the BHET (see page 16240 right column section 2.3.).
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the
invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.G.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights