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 1-41 are pending. Claims 1-41 are under examination. Claims 1-41 are rejected. No claims 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 11/21/2025 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 Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below in original or modified form is herein withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-40 concerning the indefiniteness of “physical recycled content”, and “credit-based recycled content” in the non-final rejection mailed 07/24/2025 is withdrawn in part.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/11/2025 explains the “physical recycle content” being material that is at least partly made of a waste material. For example the phrase “physical recycled content” implies a material which is at least partially from a recycled waste material . Whereas “credit-based recycled content” and “non-physical recycled content” may be waste or non-waste material but having attributed recycled content.
The 112(b) rejection concerning carbon dioxide is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments immediately following are persuasive.
PNG
media_image4.png
193
934
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The 112(b) rejection concerning “credits” is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments immediately following are persuasive.
PNG
media_image5.png
245
938
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The 112(b) rejection of claims 2-3, 16 and 38 and any other claim using percentages is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection. Although the specification does not have explicit support for “percent by mass”, the references to “percent physical content” throughout the specification would have lead a person of ordinary skill, at the time the patent application was filed to have understood the physical content to be mass.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 32 concerning step (d) is withdrawn. The claim amendments have overcome the rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections in the non-final rejection mailed 07/24/2025 involving U.S. Patent No. 11,312,914 and 11,939,546 and US application 17/996,668 and 17/996,703 are withdrawn. See approved terminal disclaimers filed.
After further review, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection involving US application 17/996,696 has been withdrawn.
The modified 112(b), and 103(a) rejections constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(b) rejection
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
70
1101
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
Claim 9 recites the following.
PNG
media_image7.png
220
1105
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
75
1085
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The immediately above target materials that comprise syngas, methanol, acetic anhydride, and/or glycerin do not require the target materials to be the syngas, methanol, acetic anhydride, and/or glycerin in steps (a)-(c) in claim 9. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection is being maintained.
Note: claim 41 does require the target materials to be the reactants in steps (a)-(c). See immediately below.
PNG
media_image9.png
169
1018
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The remainder of the claims do not require the target material to be the reactants in the claimed steps of (a)-(c).
Concerning applicant’s arguments pertaining to the source material, how the
source material and also the target material is involved in the chemical synthesis of
steps (a)-(c) in claim 9 for example, is still lacking clarity.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image10.png
251
1082
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
A content credit being applied to the target material from the source material does not negate the fact that neither the source nor the target material is required to be in steps (a)-(c). How the source material and additionally the target material are being used in the claimed process still needs clarity.
For example, current claim 12 the source material and target material are waste plastic and syngas respectively. Placing a recycled credit from waste plastic onto a syngas does not require the target or source material to be utilized in step (a) of claim 9 from where claim 12 depends.
Applying credits to a target material that is not involved in the current method steps is immaterial to the process of the invention. Removing limitations of credits from sources to targets does not alter the scope of the claimed method.
Note: claim 41 remedies the indefiniteness because the target material is involved in the chemical reaction of step (a), thus tying the target materials to step (a).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
28
1077
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
105
1080
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The “at least one chemical pathway” in claim 9 is not restricted to the claimed steps (a)-(c) in claim 9. Therefore the metes and bonds of the claim are not clear. The only claimed chemical pathway in claims 9 and 31 are steps (a)-(c).
103 rejections
The applicant is arguing hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the original rejection, the examiner is not arguing that the ordinary artisan in need of preparing r-triacetin would have combined the references. Rather, the original rejection just utilizes products obtained from a waste source as reagents in the process to prepare triacetin.
Moreover, the secondary references were argued to be overlapping in nature and analogous art to the invention. Hence combining the references was permissible.
Additionally, the primary reference Sandesh et al. teach triacetins from glycerol. See original rejection page 8. As argued in the original rejection page 8, Sandesh et al. teach a source of the glycerol is from transesterification of vegetable oils and/or animal fats (p. 104354, left column). On page 15 of the original rejection, “it would have been obvious to have sourced the s-glycerin from the transesterification of vegetable oils and/or animal fats as taught by Sandesh et al. to satisfy a sustainable source of the s-glycerin.
Upon utilizing the s-glycerin and the r-syngas and the r-CO in all the claimed reactions, all products would be at 100% recyclable material”.
Additionally, the prior art does teach triacetin made from waste material. As argued in the original rejection, “concerning the glycerin taught by Sandesh et al., this glycerin is considered waste as evidence by Farm-Energy (p. 1 of 9). Note: both Sandesh et al. and Farm-Energy teach glycerin from biodiesel and Farm-Energy teach methods of disposal of the glycerin. Therefore, glycerol from the biodiesel process taught by Sandesh et al. is considered waste glycerin”. Upon producing triacetin from glycerol obtained from biomass, triacetin would necessarily be considered r-triacetin.
Concerning the subsequent rejections being premised on the viability of the rejection of the independent claims, the combination of the prior art when rejecting the independent claims was argued above to be acceptable. Thus the subsequent rejects are being maintained/modified.
For the reasons stated above the obviousness rejection is maintained/modified as set forth below.
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 9-20, 26 and 31-41 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. The modifications to this rejection were necessitated by amendment.
As originally argued in the non-final mailed 07/25/2025 page 5, “Concerning source material and target material, these materials are not defined in the specification and could include compositions/compounds not recited in the claims. Clarification is needed”.
The newly added limitations of claims 9 and 31 attempt to define said target material. However, the newly added limitations do not clarify the terms.
For example, the target material “syngas” may or may not be the syngas in step (a) of claim 9. Additionally, none of the newly added target materials are required to be utilized in steps (a)-(c).
Claim 13 goes on to define the source and target materials as syngas. However, clarity is needed to understand if the target material syngas is the “syngas” in step (a) of claim 9.
Contrary to claims 9 and 31, claim 41 defines the target materials and attaches the target materials to the methods steps (a)-(d). For example, claim 41 identifies the target material being the syngas of step (a). Now the target material of step (a) is linked to the method steps of the claim.
Claims 9 and 31 and newly added claim 41 are directed to a chemical pathway. Clarification is needed to explain what chemical pathway is being referred to.
Newly added claim 41 is directed to a chemical pathway as follows: “tracing
recycled content along at least one chemical pathway from the at least one target
material to the triacetin, and (iii) allocating recycled content to the triacetin based at least in part on the tracing of recycled content along said chemical pathway”.
As argued above and in the original rejection “clarification is needed to explain what chemical pathway is being referred to. A chemical pathway in steps (a)-(c) or some other undisclosed pathway”.
Note: claim 7 was amended to recite “said at least one chemical pathway” from the waste plastic to the triacetin. Here, “said at least one chemical pathway” has implicit support from the steps (a)-(d) in claim 1. The definite article “the” preceding the reactants “waste plastic” and “triacetin” in claim 7 require the steps (a)-(d) to be the claimed “chemical pathway”. Claim 9 and the other indefinite claims are not worded as claim 7 is.
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) 1-5, 7-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24-26, 31-33, 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 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). The modifications to this rejection were necessitated by amendment.
Scope of the Prior Art
Sandesh et al. teach the following (p. 104361).
PNG
media_image13.png
164
590
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Sandesh et al. teach triacetin being used as fuel additive, cold flow improver and cosmetics (p. 104354).
Concerning claim 25 and for future reference claim 29 and the s-glycerin from a sustainable source, Sandesh et al. teach a source of the glycerol is from transesterification of vegetable oils and/or animal fats (p. 104354, left column).
Concerning claim 30 and 24 and the solid acid catalyst, Sandesh et al. teach the following (p. 104354).
PNG
media_image14.png
146
514
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The above teachings render Sandesh et al. analogous art to the invention for teaching the production triacetin from acetic acid and acetic anhydride.
Concerning the glycerin taught by Sandesh et al., this glycerin is considered waste as evidence by Farm-Energy (p. 1 of 9). Note: both Sandesh et al. and Farm-Energy teach glycerin from biodiesel and Farm-Energy teach methods of disposal of the glycerin. Therefore, glycerol from the biodiesel process taught by Sandesh et al. is considered waste glycerin.
Ascertain the Differences
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 plastic. Sandesh et al. does not teach a digital inventory for any and all recycled content, credit/s, physical, and/or target material.
Secondary References
Current step (a) in claims 1, 21, and 27 syngas production, Tsangaris et al. teach current (a) as follows. See Tsangaris et al. page 1.
PNG
media_image15.png
74
914
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
60
918
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
126
928
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
118
918
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The H2 and CO from waste material is a recycled content syngas minus the current source of waste plastic.
Tsangaris et al. teach waste plastic. See Tsangaris et al. page 2.
PNG
media_image19.png
122
916
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
84
922
media_image20.png
Greyscale
The specification contemplates waste plastics in paragraph 238 and contemplates plastic polymers being chemically recycled into non-polymeric molecules including hydrogen and CO (par. 223). The immediately above tires is interpreted to be polymeric plastics.
Current step (b) in claims 1, 21, and 27, and current step (a) on claims 9 and 31 converting r-syngas to r-methanol via catalytic synthesis, Tsangaris et al. teach current (b) as follows. See Tsangaris et al. page 55.
PNG
media_image21.png
120
920
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
44
232
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
116
920
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Current step (c) in claims 1, 21, and 27, and current step (b) in claims 9 and 31, and claim 5, production of acetic acid from the carbonylation of the r-methanol with CO with subsequent production of acetic anhydride, Tsangaris et al. teach the following page 55-56.
PNG
media_image24.png
37
868
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
128
926
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Tsangaris et al. is silent as to the methods to produce acetic anhydride via esterification of acetic acid with methanol to produce methyl acetate with subsequent carbonylation with CO.
Townsend et al. teach the general pathway producing acetic anhydride via methanol and methyl acetate (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image26.png
498
930
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Concerning the specifics as to the production of methyl acetate and acetic anhydride, see Townsend et al. paragraphs 107 and 110 immediately below.
PNG
media_image27.png
56
506
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
108
498
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Concerning the CO (carbon monoxide), Townsend et al. teach in paragraph 110 the following.
PNG
media_image29.png
120
510
media_image29.png
Greyscale
The teachings of Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are interpreted to be overlapping because both teach the gasification of biomass to achieve syngas and in turn, methanol and acetic acid and both teach methyl acetate and acetic anhydride.
The teachings of Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are interpreted to be analogous art to the invention due to both teaching methanol and acetic acid from syngas and both teach methyl acetate and acetic anhydride.
Concerning waste plastic, Ko et al. teach waste plastic can be used in gasification processes to prepare syngas (p. 7, 1). Ko et al teach overlapping carbonaceous sources as taught by Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. For example, tires and crop waste, animal waste and so on. These comparative teachings render Ko et al. overlapping in nature to Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. and analogous art to the invention.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the acetic acid and anhydride taught by Tsangaris et al. to prepared triacetin as taught by Sandesh et al. to arrive at the current invention of step (d) of claim 1, step (c) of claim 9, step (d) of claim 21 and step (g) of claim 31 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning the applying/allocating/tracing content/attributing recycled content from a source to target, this is accomplished upon performing each claimed chemical step. This is because, “tracing” and attributing recycled content from a source to target is not adding additional active steps that would differentiate the claimed steps and subsequent products thereof from the products/steps of the prior art.
Upon arriving at the claimed steps and subsequent claimed products by the ordinary artisan, the claimed “tracing of recycled content along the chemical pathway” is accomplished.
Concerning claims 2, 3, 9 and the 20 and 10 percent total and physical recycled content and less than 1 percent credit-based recycled content, this is a product of the process. Upon accomplishing the claimed steps, the product having 20 and 10 percent total and physical recycled content and less than 1 percent credit-based recycled content is achieved. As a reminder less than 1 percent is zero. Utilizing all waste material, no credit-based recycle content is achieved.
Due to the processes of the prior art being substantially identical to the claimed methods, the products achieved by the methods of the prior art are substantially identical to those of the claimed invention.
Substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products. See MPEP 2112.01 I. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Concerning claim 4, any and all certifications and certification entities are
subject to change. Without method steps to accurately describe the claimed certification and entity doing the certification, the method steps prior to the certification and entity therefrom fulfil the limitations of certifications and certification entities.
Concerning the determination of conversion factors of one or more chemical reactions and the subsequent determination by the conversion factors of the amount of physical/credit-based recycled content from the waste plastic is allocated to the triacetin in claims 8, 15, 26 and 35, these limitations are met when completing all the claimed steps to achieve the r-triacetin.
Moreover, from the viewpoint that all starting material is waste any and all compounds generated from the waste would necessarily be made entirely from the waste.
For example, Townsend et al. teach in paragraph 110, use of the CO from the syngas in other steps besides the preparation of methanol. Here all reactants are accounted for and determined to be from the original waste plastic. The amount of physical/credit-based recycled content from the waste plastic would necessarily be all physical recycled content.
Concerning the conversion factors, upon performing the claimed steps the conversion factors (conversion, yield and/or selectivity) naturally occur.
Concerning claim 25 and for future reference claim 29 and the s-glycerin from a sustainable source, it would have been obvious to have sourced the s-glycerin from the transesterification of vegetable oils and/or animal fats as taught by Sandesh et al. to satisfy a sustainable source of the s-glycerin. In doing so, the ordinary artisan would have arrived at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Upon utilizing the s-glycerin and the r-syngas and the r-CO in all the claimed reactions, all products would be at 100% recyclable material.
Concerning claim 20, due to the reactions pertaining to the production of r-syngas taught by Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. not being the reactions to produce triacetin taught by Sandesh et al., these processes can be interpreted to be separate which can include separate locations/sites.
Concerning the 1 mile, due to time and distance being result effective variables for obtaining reactants, closer sources of reactants equals less time for achieving reactants. The ordinary artisan would have arrived at the at least a mile. MPEP 2144.05 II. A. and B. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Concerning claims 10 and 32 and the use of mass balance during the step of applying, upon knowing the reactants and products arrived at by the ordinary artisan and the understanding that the reactants and products have mass as a property of matter, the ordinary artisan has arrived at the mass balance of the current invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 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). The modifications to this rejection were necessitated by amendment.
Scope of the Prior Art
The combinational teachings of Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are in the above 103 rejection and are incorporated by reference.
Ascertain the Differences
Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. do not teach the dehydration of the obtained acetic acid to acetic anhydride.
Secondary References
Rainalter et al. teach the distillation of acetic anhydride obtained by the vapor phase dehydration of acetic acid (Example 1).
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have obtained the acetic anhydride taught by Tsangaris et al., by utilizing any and all acetic acid from the combinational teachings of Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al., in the process taught by Rainalter et al. with a reasonable expectation of success.
The ordinary artisan would have done so to satisfy an alternate source for the acetic anhydride taught by Tsangaris et al.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 19-20, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 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). The modifications to this rejection were necessitated by amendment.
Scope of the Prior Art
The combinational teachings of Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are in the above 103 rejection and are incorporated by reference.
Ascertain the Differences
Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are silent to any digital inventory of recycled plastics.
Secondary References
Bellm teach a life cycle inventory for recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (p. 2). Ledger Insights teach the use of blockchain to track and trace recycled plastic (p. 2).
Obviousness
Concerning any and all digital accounting and/or digital inventories of content, credit/s, physical, traceable material not from the plastic waste and/or material from the plastic waste in claims 14, 15, 19, 34, 35, it would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have traced, tracked, made inventories of all materials utilized in the claimed recycling process and steps. The ordinary artisan would have made these inventories because Bellm teach a life cycle inventory for recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and Ledger Insights teach the use of blockchain to track and trace recycled plastic (p. 2). In order to maintain the inventories, blockchain is an obvious answer because Ledger Insights teach the use of blockchain to track and trace recycled plastic (p. 2).
Claim(s) 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 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). The modifications to this rejection were necessitated by amendment.
Scope of the Prior Art
The combinational teachings of Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are in the above 103 rejection and are incorporated by reference.
Ascertain the Differences
Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. are silent to step (d) of claim 27, recovering r-acetic acid from an acetylation with a portion of the r-acetic anhydride.
Secondary References
Khramov teach the separation of acetic acid via distillation from a reaction of acetic anhydride and glycerol when preparing triacetin (Example 1, Bridging columns 4 and 5).
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the reaction taught by Khramov et al. with any and all r-acetic anhydride and s-glycerin obtained from the combinational teachings of Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al. and recovered any and all r-acetic acid via distillation when reacting the s-glycerin and r-acetic anhydride to produce triacetin.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to have performed the acetylation reaction taught by Sandesh et al. with any and all acetic anhydride derived from the waste plastic arrived at by the combinational teachings of the prior art, and remove any and all r-acetic from the acetylation rection utilizing the teachings of Khramov et al. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving acetic acid and removal thereof in reactions involving acetic anhydride and glycerol as evidence by Khramov et al.
The ordinary artisan would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success to satisfy a source of acetic acid for any and all esterification reactions involving s-glycerol and r-acetic acid arrived at by the combinational teachings of Sandesh et al., Townsend et al. and Tsangaris et al.
Hence, steps (b)-(d) of claim 27 have been met.
Concerning claim 29 and the s-glycerin from a sustainable source, it would have been obvious to have sourced the s-glycerin from the transesterification of vegetable oils and/or animal fats as taught by Sandesh et al. to satisfy a sustainable source of the s-glycerin. In doing so, the ordinary artisan would have arrived at the current invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning step (e) of claim 27 and to satisfy a source of r-acetic acid in the already arrived at esterification reaction of glycerin/s-glycerin, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to have utilized the r-acetic acid from the acetylation reactions taught by Sandesh et al., Townsend et al., Tsangaris et al. and
Khramov et al. in any and all esterification reactions of glycerin as taught by
Sandesh et al., Townsend et al., Tsangaris et al. to arrive at the invention of (e) of claim
27 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is free of the prior art. Upon overcoming the 112(b) rejection claim 41 would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
An interpretation of newly added claim 41 is needed to establish patentability.
Target material is defined in the specification on page 7 paragraph 30 as having less than 100 percent physical recycled content. Thus, a target material must contain non-waste material.
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. See Sandesh et al. page 104354 left 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 plastic.
As argued in the original rejection Tsangaris et al. teach syngas production as follows. See Tsangaris et al. page 1.
PNG
media_image15.png
74
914
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
60
918
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
126
928
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
118
918
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Tsangaris et al. teach waste plastic. See Tsangaris et al. page 2.
PNG
media_image19.png
122
916
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
84
922
media_image20.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 feedstocks taught by Tsangaris et al., would not have utilized a non-waste feedstock (a target material) for preparing the current r-triacetin.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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