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 with traverse of Group II, claims 7-18 in the reply filed on 1/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims lack a common special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because no errors in the restriction have been set forth, and the restriction demonstrated how the common special technical feature was present in the prior art. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11, 12 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. Claims 11, 12 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. Claims 11 and 12 both refer to contents of ingredients “relative to 1 mole of the polycarbonate-based resin”. This is unclear because polycarbonate does not have a single specific weight. Each polycarbonate chain is made up of differing numbers of individual units. It is not clear if by “1 mole of the polycarbonate-based resin” applicant is referring to an average molecular weight of the chain or a specific individual unit, for example , or “per mole of carbonate bonds” as in JP 2006022183 by Takemoto translation p.44 paragraph 1 . The instant specification merely describes “1 mole of pretreated waste polycarbonate” in the Examples (Example 1) without describing how the mole is defined. Procuring “1 mol of pretreated waste polycarbonate” as described in instant claim 1 is difficult to understand since waste polycarbonate does not typically come with data like average molecular weight ; and even if average molecular weight was provided then this would be an average with deviation amongst the sample . Therefore a rt which reads on any interpretation of “1 mole of the polycarbonate-based resin” will be applied. Claim Objections Claim 7 recites “adding acid so that the pH of the depolymerization reaction product is 2 to 8 to form a depolymerization reaction product.” The phrasing creates a catch-22 situation of adding acid to the depolymerization reaction product in order to form the depolymerization product: if the depolymerization reaction product is formed by adding acid, it cannot be present prior to the addition of acid. Using the same term – “a depolymerization reaction product”- for two different stages of the method is confusing. For the purposes of compact prosecution the wording “adding acid to form a depolymerization product so that the pH of the depolymerization product is 2 to 8” will be assumed, although correction is required. Claims 8-14 depend on claim 7 and are objected under the same premise. 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 7, 8, 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7, 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/032,117 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Copending claim 7’s “adding acid” step achieves a pH of “2 or less” which overlaps with instant claim 7’s “2 to 8”. Furthermore, copending claim’s purification step correlates to the instant “removing impurities” and “separating” steps. Copending claim 10 and instant claim 8 describe adding acid to convert aromatic diol salt to aromatic diol. Copending claims 11 and 12 describe adding ethanol in the same amount as instant claims 10, 11. Copending claim 13 describes depolymerizing with a base in an amount of 0.5 mol relative to the polycarbonate, as does instant claim 12. Copending is merely more specific in that there are two bases; this still renders obvious the generic instant phrasing. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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) 7-9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006022183 by Takemoto . Takemoto describes a method for obtaining aromatic dihydroxy compound from waste polycarbonate. Regarding claim 7 , Takemoto describes a method of obtaining aromatic dihydroxy compounds (monomers) from waste aromatic polycarbonate (waste plastic) (translation p.1 final paragraph). Takemoto describes: depolymerizing the polycarbonate by depolymerization reaction (“ (A)… decomposing…by transesterification ” translation paragraph 9) adding acid so that the pH of the depolymerization is (paragraph 9 step (B); paragraph 32 middle of p.28) removing impurities (step (C) paragraph 9 separating organic solvent, dialkyl carbonate and aromatic dihydroxy compound to obtain aromatic dihydroxy compound paragraph 9 ; paragraph 33 removing water ) separating a carbonate precursor (aromatic dihydroxy compound) from the depolymerization product (paragraph 9 step (C) and (D) ; paragraph 34-36 ) Regarding claim 8 , Takemoto describes the same reaction, stating that adding water without acid causes dihydroxy compounds to form salts due to metal hydroxides (paragraph 32 p.28 final paragraphs). B oth Takemoto and the instant describe the dihydroxy and metal hydroxides as present prior to the addition of acid (Takemoto paragraph 23, paragraph 30 - metal hydroxide catalyzes depolymerization ; instant submitted specification p.13 final paragraph -p.14 paragraph 1, p.16 paragraph 2- metal hydroxide catalyzes depolymerization into aromatic diol, where diol is synonym to dihydroxy). Thus by adding acid in both instances, the salts of aromatic diol are converted into an aromatic diol. Regarding claim 9, Takemoto describes removing impurities after acid addition (paragraph 9) which includes separating a water layer (paragraph 33 “aqueous solution phase”) containing impurities from an organic solvent layer containing aromatic diol and carbonate precursor (paragraph 34 organic solvent, dialkyl carbonate and aromatic dihydroxy present in organic phase). Regarding claim 12, Takemoto describes 0.002-0.4 mole per mole of the carbonate bond (paragraph 24), which falls within the claimed range. Regarding claim 13, Takemoto describes adding an antioxidant to the reaction (paragraph 30). Regarding claim 14, Takemoto describes reduced pressure distillation (paragraph 35) 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) 10, 11 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006022183 by Takemoto . Takemoto is described above. Regarding claim 10, Takemoto describes ethanol in an embodiment (paragraph 21). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose ethanol because Takemoto describes it as a possibility. Regarding claim 11, Takemoto describes alcohol present in terms of “per mole of carbonate bonds in the aromatic polycarbonate” (paragraph 22), describing a range of 2.4 to 7 moles per mole of carbonate bonds (paragraph 22). Since the instant claim and specification is not clear as to what “relative to 1 mole of the polycarbonate-based resin” means, Takemoto’s range overlaps with the instant when the instant term means “relative to 1 mole of dimer connections in the polycarbonate-based resin ” , i.e. the instantly claimed range is 5-7.5 in Takemoto’s terms. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Takemoto describes values overlapping with the claimed range. See also 112 rejection above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7154 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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