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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022011241 see pages 1-7 in view of JP 200700762 Machine Translation see [0001], [0004], [0017].
Claim 1 is directed to an Absorbent Hygiene Product (AHP) comprising a non-woven, a backsheet film, and a superabsorbent polymer (SAP); wherein said non-woven comprises polypropylene (PP); wherein said backsheet film comprises polyethylene (PE); wherein said SAP comprises poly(acrylic acid) produced from propylene; wherein at least one of said PP, said PE, and said SAP are produced from a used AHP stream comprising a used AHP; wherein said used AHP stream is fed into a hydrothermal treatment (HTT) reactor operating at an HTT reactor temperature, at an HTT reactor pressure, and for an HTT reactor residence time; wherein said HTT reactor produces a liquid product stream, a gas product stream, and a solid product; wherein said liquid product stream comprises waste-derived fuel products; and wherein said waste-derived fuel products are converted to at least one of said PP, said PE, and said SAP.
WO 2022011241 discloses hydrothermal treatment of plastic containing waste streams at elevated temperature, pressure, and residence time to produce a liquid product stream, a gas product stream and a solid product stream. See page 6 last paragraph to page 7.The reference further teaches that the liquid stream comprises hydrocarbon fuel products. See page 7. The reference further discloses that the liquid stream comprises hydrocarbon fuel products. Additionally, the reference discloses steam cracking hydrothermal oil to produce ethylene and propylene which may be polymerized to form PP and PE. See page 7 last paragraph.
JP 2007007622 discloses that used absorbent hygiene products (AHPs) such as diapers constitute organic waste suitable for hydrothermal treatment and further teaches processing diapers together with plastics.
Because both references address hydrothermal conversion of organic and polymeric waste into liquid, gaseous and solid products and since JP2007007622 explicitly shows hydrothermal treatment of diapers together with plastics, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or supplement the plastic -containing feedstock of WO2022011241 with the diaper waste taught by JP2007007622. JP2007007622 clearly teaches that AHP materials may be hydrothermally processed together with the mixed plastic feed of WO2022011241 and would have been a predictable modification yield the same types of hydrothermal conversion products. Accordingly, the combination would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claim 2 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said HTT reactor temperature is higher than about 4000C.
WO 2022011241 discloses hydrothermal treatment conducted at temperatures around 4450C and 6000C mixed plastic wastes..
The selection of temperatures greater than 4000C represents routine optimization of a result effective variable to achieve efficient decomposition of a diaper containing feedstock.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 3 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said HTT reactor pressure is higher than about 23 MPa.
WO 2022011241 discloses describes hydrothermal operation at approximately 10 MPa .
Increasing the operating pressure above 23MPa is a predictable adjustment to maintain desired water density and reaction kinetics. See figure 1.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 4 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said HTT reactor residence time is longer than about 30 min.
WO 2022011241 discloses reaction times of 0-6hours which encompass values great than 30 minutes.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 5 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said used AHP stream comprises an aqueous solution.
WO 2022011241 discloses feed ratios of 0:1 to 2:1.
JP 2007007622 discloses shows the introducing AHP’s into feedstock contributes additional organic constituents. Adjusting process parameters to achieve the recited hydrocarbon distribution is routine optimization consistent with known HTT products.
Claim 6 is directed to the AHP of Claim 5, wherein said aqueous solution is in supercritical conditions.
Supercritical water conditions fall within or adjacent to WO 2022011241’s disclosed temperature ranges. Adjusting process parameters to achieve the recited conditions is routine optimization. .
Claim 7 is directed to the AHP of Claim 5, wherein said used AHP stream comprises between about 30% and about 80% said used AHP on a dry basis and between about 20% and about 70% said aqueous solution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 8 is directed to the AHP of Claim 5, wherein said used AHP stream comprises between about 5% and about 25% used AHP on a dry basis, between about 35% and about 75% mixed plastic waste on a dry basis, and between about 20% and about 70% said aqueous solution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022011241see pages 1-7 in view of US Pub 20190299181 see ([0026], [0027], [0032] and fig. 1.
Claim 9 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said waste-derived fuel products comprise n-paraffins, iso- paraffins, naphthenes, olefins, aromatics, or mixtures thereof.
Both WO 2022011241 and US Pub 20190299181 disclose hydrothermal or supercritical conversion of polymers to fuels comprising paraffins, olefins, naphthenes and aromatics.
Claim 10 is directed to the AHP of Claim 9, wherein said waste-derived fuel products comprise n-paraffins and iso-paraffins between about 20% and about 50%; wherein said waste-derived fuel products comprise olefins between about 10% and about 20%; wherein said waste-derived fuel products comprise naphthenes between about 10% and about 20%; and wherein said waste- derived fuel products comprise aromatics between about 5% and about 20%.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 11 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said waste-derived fuel products comprise naphtha.
WO 2022011241 discloses the separation of naphtha fractions from hydrothermal oils.
Claim 12 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said waste-derived fuel products are treated to produce a stream suitable for feeding into a steam cracker.
Claim 13 is directed to the AHP of Claim 10, wherein said waste-derived fuel products are fed into a steam cracker; and wherein said steam cracker produces a product stream comprising ethylene and propylene.
US Pub 20190299181 discloses production of ethylene and propylene. Feeding hydrocarbons to a stem cracker is a known refinery operation.
Claim 14 is directed to the AHP of Claim 13, wherein said ethylene is converted to said PE; wherein part of said propylene is converted to said PP; and wherein part of said propylene is converted to said SAP.
Polymerizing ethylene and propylene into PE, PP, and related absorbent product materials is a well-known downstream process.
Claim 15 is directed to the AHP of Claim 14, wherein said AHP comprises at least one of said PE, said PP, and said SAP.
Hydrocarbon composition ranges overlap those produced in US Pub 20190299181 and WO 2022011241 selecting specific ratios is an obvious adjustment.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20190299181 see paragraphs [0011], [0028]-[0030] and fig. 1; [0026][0027][0032]; 416a-c, hydrocarbon abstract, figures, and [0003] [0004][0014][0043] [0044];in view of Gerina-Ancane, Anita, and Agrita Eiduka. "Research and analysis of absorbent hygiene product (AHP) recycling." Eng. Rural Dev. Jelgava 5 (2016): 904-910.
Claim 16 is directed to the AHP of Claim 1, wherein said used AHP is size reduced to pieces; wherein said pieces are fed into an extruder to produce a melt stream; and wherein said melt stream is contacted with an aqueous solution to produce said used AHP stream.
Gerina et al. teaches shredding AHPs prior to thermochemical conversion. Combining this preprocessing with US Pub 20190299181’s feed preparation is an obvious improvement. See paragraphs [0028]-[0030] and figure 1.
Claim 17 is directed to the AHP of Claim 16, wherein said size reduction is selected from the group comprising grinding, chipping, palletization, granulation, flaking, powdering, shredding, milling, or compression and expansion.
Gerina et al. teaches size reduction methods such as shredding, grinding, milling and flaking. Incorporating these methods is an obvious choice.
Claim 18 is directed to the AHP of Claim 17, wherein said used AHP pieces have an average size between about 0.1 mm and about 10 cm.
Gerina et al. teaches shredded diaper fragments in mm-cm ranges. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20190299181 see paragraphs [0011], [0028]-[0030] and fig. 1; [0026][0027][0032]; 416a-c, hydrocarbon abstract, figures, and [0003] [0004][0014][0043] [0044]; in view of JP 200700762 Machine Translation and Gerina-Ancane, Anita, and Agrita Eiduka. "Research and analysis of absorbent hygiene product (AHP) recycling." Eng. Rural Dev. Jelgava 5 (2016): 904-910.
Claim 19 is directed to an Absorbent Hygiene Product (AHP) comprising a non-woven, a backsheet film, and a superabsorbent polymer (SAP); wherein said non-woven comprises polypropylene (PP); wherein said backsheet film comprises polyethylene (PE); wherein said SAP comprises poly(acrylic acid) produced from propylene; wherein at least one of said PP, said PE, and said SAP are produced from a used AHP stream comprising a used AHP; wherein said used AHP is size reduced to pieces; wherein said pieces have an average size between about 0.1 mm and about 10 cm; wherein said used AHP stream is fed into an extruder to produce a melt stream; wherein said melt stream is contacted with an aqueous solution to produce a mixed stream; wherein said mixed stream is fed into an HTT reactor operating at about 445°C, about 23 MPa, and for an HTT reactor residence time; wherein said HTT reactor produces a liquid product stream, a gas product stream, and a solid product; wherein said liquid product stream comprises waste-derived fuel products; wherein said waste-derived fuel products comprise n-paraffins, iso-paraffins, naphthenes, olefins, aromatics, or mixtures thereof; wherein said n-paraffins and said iso-paraffins comprise about 48% of said waste-derived fuel products, said naphthenes comprise about 15% of said waste- derived fuel products, said olefins comprise about 18% of said waste-derived fuel products, and said aromatics comprise about 10% of said waste-derived fuel products; wherein waste- derived fuel products comprise less than about 100 ppm nitrogen, less than about 100 ppm oxygen, less than about 5 ppm chlorine, less than about 0.001 ppm iron, less than about 0.125 ppm sodium, and less than about 0.5 ppm calcium; wherein said waste-derived fuel products are fed into a steam cracker; wherein said steam cracker produces a product stream comprising ethylene and propylene; wherein said ethylene is converted to said PE; wherein part of said propylene is converted to said PP; and wherein part of said propylene is converted to said SAP.
Note that the examiner is interpreting hydrothermal to means a chemical reaction conducted in water at elevated temperature and pressure. This includes subcritical water, 200-370 oC moderate pressure and supercritical water >374oC. Thus, the examiner is interpreting the supercritical water as the extreme end of hydrothermal conditions and is a subset of hydrothermal chemistry.
Note US Pub 20190299181 discloses treatment of shredded or molten plastic feedstock mixed with water under supercritical water conditions to generate hydrocarbon mixtures including paraffins, olefins, aromatics and naphthenes. The disclosed supercritical water conditions overlap the claimed temperature and pressure ranges. Note for extruder paragraphs [0011], [0028]-[0030] and fig. 1; supercritical [0026],[0027],[0032] and fig. 1; oil and gases 416a-c, hydrocarbon abstract, figures, and [0003], [0004],[0014],[0043] [0044]; separation paragraphs [0011], [0028]-[0030] and fig. 1; supercritical [0026],[0027],[0032] and fig. 1; oil and gases 416a-c, hydrocarbon abstract, figures, and refining, separation and reactor [00038]-0044] and .
The US Pub 20190299181 also shows that feed composition, water content and process conditions affect impurity levels, making optimization of the ppm level product sections. See also paragraphs [0008]-[0012]. Although US Pub 20190299181 does not use the word “hydrothermal”, the supercritical water reaction system employes water at temperatures and pressures exceeding the critical point of water. A person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes supercritical water treatment as a form of hydrothermal processing because hydrothermal reactions encompass chemical reactions conducted in water at elevated temperature and pressure including subcritical and supercritical regimes.
JP 2007007622 discloses that the used absorbent hygiene products (diapers) (AHPs) are appropriate for hydrothermal feedstock and explicitly discloses hydrothermal treatment of diapers combine with plastics. See paragraphs [0001], [0004], [0005]-[0006], [0017] of Machine Translation.
Gerina-Ancane, Anita, et al. teaches shredding used AHP’s into controlled particle sizes to improve feed uniformity, supporting the claimed 0.1mm to 10cm range. Note specifically pages 904 -906.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the diaper feedstock of JP 2007007622 with the hydrothermal plastic processing system of US Pub 20190299181, and to incorporate the shredding practices of Gerina-Ancane, Anita, et.al. to enable mixed diaper/plastic hydrothermal conversion. Each reference addresses hydrothermal or supercritical conversion of polymeric waste into liquid, gaseous, and solid products and JP 2007007622 explicitly teaches hydrothermal treatment of diapers together with plastics. Incorporating AHP materials into the mixed plastic feed of US Pub 20190299181 represents a predicable medication expected to yield the same hydrothermal product streams , paraffins, olefins, aromatics, and naphthenes. Downstream steam cracking of hydrothermal oils into ethylene and propylene and polymerizing those monomers into PP, PE and SAP, represent routine petrochemical processes.
Claim 20 is directed to AHP of Claim 19, wherein said used AHP stream comprises about 25% said used AHP on a dry basis and about 75% mixed plastic waste on a dry basis.
Adjusting feed ratios of AHP to plastics is a predictable optimization based on teachings from the references above
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022011241see pages 1-7 in view of JP 200700762 Machine Translation see [0001], [0004], [0017]; further in view of US Pub 20190299181 see paragraphs [0011], [0028]-[0030] and fig. 1; [0026],[0027],[0032]; 416a-c; abstract, figures, and [0003] [0004][0014][0043] [0044].
Claim 21 is directed to a method of producing an Absorbent Hygiene Product (AHP) comprising:
a. providing a used AHP stream comprising a used AHP;
b. feeding said used AHP stream into a hydrothermal treatment (HTT) reactor operating at an HTT reactor temperature, at an HTT reactor pressure, and for an HTT reactor residence time; wherein said HTT reactor produces a liquid product stream, a gas product stream, and a solid product; wherein said liquid product stream comprises waste- derived fuel products;
c. converting said waste-derived fuel products to at least one of PP, PE, and SAP;
d. forming said AHP, wherein said AHP comprises a non-woven, a backsheet film, and a superabsorbent polymer (SAP); wherein said non-woven comprises polypropylene (PP); wherein said backsheet film comprises polyethylene (PE); wherein said SAP comprises poly(acrylic acid) produced from propylene; wherein at least one of said PP, said PE, and said SAP are produced from the used AHP stream.
WO 2022011241 discloses hydrothermal treatment of plastic containing waste streams at elevated temperature, pressure, and residence time to produce a liquid product stream, a gas product stream and a solid product stream . see page 6 last paragraph to page 7.The reference further teaches that the liquid stream comprises hydrocarbon fuel products. See page 7. The reference further discloses that the liquid stream comprises hydrocarbon fuel products. Additionally, the reference discloses steam cracking hydrothermal oil to produce ethylene and propylene which may be polymerized to form PP and PE. See page 7 last paragraph. Polyacrylic acid from propylene monomers is conventional polymer chemistry and forming an AHP from PP, PE and SAP is routine and well-known.
JP 2007007622 discloses that used absorbent hygiene products (AHPs) such as diapers constitute organic waste suitable for hydrothermal treatment and further teaches processing diapers together with plastics. See paragraphs [0001], [0004], [0005]-[0006], [0017] of Machine Translation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat used AHP’s by hydrothermal treatment, collect the resulting liquid hydrocarbons, convert those hydrocarbons into monomers, regenerate polymers such as PE, PP and SAP and form new AHP articles from those regenerated materials since each step directly follows from the combined teachings of the cited references above.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Obviousness-type 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No.12060462.
The U.S. Patent No.12060462 patent claims hydrothermal treatment of used absorbent hygiene product, AHP, waste, production of hydrocarbon oils, upgrading to monomers, polymerization to PP/PE/SAP, and reconstruction of absorbent hygiene products. The claims of the instant differ only in obvious variations of feedstock preparation, reaction parameters, and product specifications. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims are found in patent claims (as the application claims fully encompasses patent claims). The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claims include more detailed and more specific steps, the invention of the patent claims is effectively a species of the more general invention of the application claims. It has long been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a disclosed species. See In re Goodman, 29USPQ2d2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims is anticipated by claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the patent.
As a future response to the rejection above, applicants are advised to not withhold a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer (TD), to the pending ODP rejection. It is noted that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below:
“As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765