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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered. A request for suspension of action was NOT filed.
Claim Status
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-15, 17-20, 24-26 and 41 are pending. Claims 2-8, 10, 12-15, 17-20, 24-26 and 41 are under examination. Claims 7-8, 18-20, 24 and 26 are rejected. Claim 41 is objected to. Claims 2-6, 10, 12-15, 17, and 25 are objected to for being dependent on an objected claim. No claims are allowed.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
120
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
96
996
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
998
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 05/08/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below in original or modified form is herein withdrawn.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 112(b) rejection of claims 9-11, 13-17, 19-20 and 31-41 in the final rejection mailed 02/23/2026 is withdrawn for the following reasons.
The source and target materials in dependent claim 41 are defined. The chemical pathway is defined in claim 41 to be from the target material to the triacetin.
The 103(a) rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24-26, 31-33, 36-40 over Sandesh et al. (Glycerol acetins: fuel additive synthesis by acetylation and esterification of glycerol using cesium phosphotungstate catalyst, RSC Advances, 5, pp. 104354-104362, Published 2015), Tsangaris et al. (CA 2651337, Published 11-2007), Townsend et al. (US2013/0143973, Published 06-2013), Ko et al. (CA2832431, Published 03-2013), and as evidence by Farm-Energy (New Uses for crude Glycerin from biodiesel Production, pp. 9, Published 04-2019) in the final rejection mailed
02/23/2026 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 23 over Sandesh et al. (Glycerol acetins: fuel additive synthesis by acetylation and esterification of glycerol using cesium phosphotungstate catalyst, RSC Advances, 5, pp. 104354-104362, Published 2015), Tsangaris et al. (CA 2651337, Published 11-2007), Townsend et al. (US2013/0143973, Published 06-2013), Ko et al. (CA2832431, Published 03-2013), and as evidence by Farm-Energy (New Uses for crude Glycerin from biodiesel Production, pp. 9, Published 04-2019) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24-26, 31-33, 36-40 and in further view of Rainalter et al. (USPatent 2,464,345, Patent date 03-1949) in the final rejection mailed 02/23/2026 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103(a) rejection of claims 14, 15, 19-20, 34 and 35 over Sandesh et al. (Glycerol acetins: fuel additive synthesis by acetylation and esterification of glycerol using cesium phosphotungstate catalyst, RSC Advances, 5, pp. 104354-104362, Published 2015), Tsangaris et al. (CA 2651337, Published 11-2007), Townsend et al. (US2013/0143973, Published 06-2013), Ko et al. (CA2832431, Published 03-2013), and as evidence by Farm-Energy (New Uses for crude Glycerin from biodiesel Production, pp. 9, Published 04-2019) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24-26, 31-33, 36-40 and in further view of Bellm (New study provides life cycle inventory data for recycled PET and HDPE packaging, 5 pages, Published 01-2014) and Ledger Insights (Dell using VMware’s blockchain to track recycled packaging, 4 pages, Published 11-2019) in the final rejection mailed 02/23/2026 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The 103(a) rejection of claims 27-30 over Sandesh et al. (Glycerol acetins: fuel additive synthesis by acetylation and esterification of glycerol using cesium phosphotungstate catalyst, RSC Advances, 5, pp. 104354-104362, Published 2015), Tsangaris et al. (CA 2651337, Published 11-2007), Townsend et al. (US2013/0143973, Published 06-2013), Ko et al. (CA2832431, Published 03-2013), and as evidence by Farm-Energy (New Uses for crude Glycerin from biodiesel Production, pp. 9, Published 04-2019) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24-26, 31-33, 36-40 and in further view of Khramov (US Patent 5,777,157, Patent date 07-1998) in the final rejection mailed 02/23/2026 is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/08/2026 do not address the below newly applied claim objection and/or newly applied 112(b) rejection.
Newly Applied Objections/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “anydride” in step (b) of claim 41 is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8, 18-20, 24 and 26 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 7 recites the limitation “the waste plastic” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is directed to “said at least one chemical pathway from the waste plastic to the triacetin”. The use of the word “said” implies reference to the original “at least one chemical pathway” in claim 41. However, claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for “the waste plastic” that’s included in the referenced “said at least one chemical pathway”. The wording “further comprising” is utilized in claim 7. However, when reciting a new limitation (e.g. “the waste plastic”), the indefinite article should be used.
Additionally, the place where the “waste plastic” fits within the at least one chemical pathway needs clarification. In claim 7, when referring to the “said at least one chemical pathway”, the reader looks to claim 41. There, the at least one chemical pathway encompasses “the at least one target material to the triacetin”. This phrase does not direct the reader as to where the “waste plastic” fits within the defined boundaries of the at least one chemical pathway. Before the target, or perhaps after the target.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "wherein the source material comprises at least one of (i) waste plastic" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41, from where claim 18 depends defines the source material. Of which, waste plastic is not listed. Moreover, the provisos in claim 41 do not allow for waste plastic to be solely the source material. Thus, choice (i) in claim 18 does not comply with the provisos in claim 41 wherein the source material has to be r-syngas, r-CO or r-glycerin.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "carbonylation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41, from where claim 19 depends does not implicitly or explicitly recite carbonylation. Yes, claim 41 does recite “(b) producing an acetic acid or acetic anydride from at least a portion of the methanol and a carbon monoxide (CO)”. However, without clarity other chemical reactions may be utilized to prepare acetic acid or the anhydride. Note: claims 5 and 6 recite “carbonylating”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein the esterifying of step (d) is” in lines 1-2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41, from
where claim 24 depends has a step (d). However, step (d) in claim 41 is directed to applying recycled content.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the waste plastic” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41, from where claim 26 depends recites the chemical pathway being from “the at least one target material to the triacetin”. This phrase does not direct the reader as to where the “waste plastic” fits within the “a chemical pathway”. Moreover, without a clear understanding of the steps in the ”a chemical pathway”, there is doubt as to where in the pathway the waste plastic is utilized.
Due to the definite article “the” preceding the “waste plastic” a previous recitation of waste plastic is implied. However, claim 41 from where claim 26 depends does not recite waste plastic. The use of the definite article adds confusion to the claims.
Additionally, the “a chemical pathway” in claim 26 may be referring to the chemical pathway in claim 41. However, the use of the indefinite article “a” preceding the chemical pathway implies a newly added separate chemical pathway apart from the pathway in claim 41.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon overcoming the objection to claim 41, claim 41 would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
An interpretation of claim 41 is needed to establish patentability.
Target material is being interpreted as having less than 100 percent physical recycled content. See the specification on page 7 paragraph [0030]. Physical recycled content is defined in page 33 paragraph [00232] as physically traceable back to waste material. Thus, a target material must contain non-waste material. Source material is claimed as having physical recycled content. Thus source material has waste material origins.
Teachings of the Prior Art
The closest prior art to the invention Sandesh et al. teach “scarcity of fossil
hydrocarbons” and the use of “biomass” as a “potential raw material” for making “renewable fuels” and glycerol as a side product. Sandesh et al. goes on to teach
triacetin is made from glycerol via acetylation and esterification of glycerol with acetic anhydride and acetic acid respectively. See Sandesh et al. page 104354 left column and 104361 right column.
Sandesh et al. does not teach the current steps to obtain the acetic acid and/or anhydride from the syngas produced by the gasification of waste.
As argued in the original rejection Tsangaris et al. teach syngas production as follows. See Tsangaris et al. page 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
74
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
60
918
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
126
928
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
118
918
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tsangaris et al. teach waste plastic. See Tsangaris et al. page 2.
PNG
media_image8.png
122
916
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
84
922
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With the understanding of the “scarcity of fossil hydrocarbons” and the need for renewable feedstocks, the ordinary artisan electing to go the route of utilizing waste (source material) feedstocks taught by Tsangaris et al., would not have utilized a non-waste feedstock (a target material) for preparing the current r-triacetin. All the while, attributing recycled content from at least one source material having physical recycled content to the at least one target material.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the current 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