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 of the species “polyethylene terephthalate” and “caprolactone” in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8, 11-16, and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/22/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling). Regarding Claim 1 , s olvent based recycling is not new. Triebert teaches conventional solvent based recycling methods comprise dissolving waste plastics, performing solid-liquid separation / purification, and removing/separating solvent to afford purified recycled plastic material (Figure 2, Page 39). Regarding Claims 2 and 5 , Triebert teaches solvent recovery can take place via known means, such as distillation, whereby known methods can achieve solvent recovery of 99% (“Solvent Recovery”; Page 44). Regarding Claim 4 , Triebert teaches various solid-liquid separation methods, such as filtration (Page 47). Regarding Claim 7 , Triebert teaches the solvent based recycling of various polymers are known, such as polyethylene terephthalate (Table 3). Regarding Claim 9 , ethers (see THF and diethyl ether) and acid solvents are known (Table 3). Regarding Claim 17 , Triebert teaches materials such as pigments, dyes, and heavy metals can be removed (Page 47). Regarding Claim 19 , blends of solvents including phenol, such as phenol/1,4,6-trichlorophenol and phenol/tetrachloroethane are known (Table 3). Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1). Regarding Claim 1 , Hanel teaches methods of solvent-based recycling (Abstract) comprising dissolving waste polymer in an initial mass of solvent, thereby generating a dissolved polymer solution, purifying the obtained solution to remove contaminates, and separating the polymer from the solution (¶ 59-65, 321). As contaminates are removed, the obtained polymer is a purified recycled polymer. Hanel teaches after separation, solvent is separated and purified for re-use (¶ 128; Figure 7 “528”). Regarding Claim 2 , Hanel teaches at least 90 wt%, preferably at least 99 wt%, of solvent is removed from the polymer solution (¶ 236), indicating at least 90 wt% of initial mass of solvent is recovered/removed. Regarding Claim 4 , Hanel teaches removal of solids via filtration (¶ 783-784). Regarding Claim 5 , Hanel teaches methods such as evaporation and/or distillation (¶ 128). Regarding Claims 6 and 7 , Hanel teaches one or more polymers can be used, such as polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 205). Regarding Claims 9 and 19 , Hanel teaches various alcohols and acids can be used, such as acetic acid (¶ 206). Hanel teaches a preference for two or more solvents (¶ 206). Regarding Claim 17 , Hanel teaches embodiments where pigments/dyes are removed during purification (¶ 189). Claim(s) 1, 3 -7, 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) . Regarding Claim 1 , Walker teaches a solvent based recycling process comprising dissolving polyester in a solvent, purifying the dissolved polyester to remove contaminates, and then recovering solvent to yield purified recycled polymer (Abstract; Figures 1-4; ¶ 106-113). Regarding Claim 4 , Walker teaches various purification protocols such as filtration (¶ 46, 97). Regarding Claim 5 , Walker teaches recovering solvent via evaporation or distillation (¶ 47). Regarding Claims 6 and 7 , Walker teaches examples with polyethylene terephthalate (¶ 114-115). Combinations of polyesters can be present (¶ 94). Regarding Claims 3, 9 , and 10 , Walker teaches various solvents such as ethers and esters (¶ 69). Various lactones such as caprolactone is taught (¶ 83). Walker teaches solvent is typically heated at temperatures ranging from 50-150 degrees C so as to maximize amounts and rates of polyester dissolution (¶ 29). Since the same substrates (waste PET), solvents (caprolactone), and temperatures are suggested as those taught by the specification, it stands to reason a certain degree of solvolysis would naturally occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Regarding Claim 17 , Walker teaches pigments such as carbon black being removed via filtration (¶ 46). 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling). Solvent based recycling is not new. Triebert teaches conventional solvent based recycling methods comprise dissolving waste plastics, performing solid-liquid separation / purification, and removing/separating solvent to afford purified recycled plastic material (Figure 2, Page 39). Regarding Claim 6 , Triebert teaches various polymers are known to be processable via solvent based recycling (Table 2) , but differs from the subject matter claimed in that plurality of polymer types are not described. In this regard, it is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Crockett , 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) . Ex parte Quadranti , 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Also, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In this regard, Triebert teaches it was known various polymer types are solvated by the same solvent (Table 3; see for instance HDPE, LDPE, PP, and styrene). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the methods of Triebert to combinations of polymers to predictably afford purified polymer blends where desired. Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling) in view of Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1). The discussion regarding Triebert within ¶ REF _Ref224669403 \r \h 32 - REF _Ref224669404 \r \h 33 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claims 3 and 10 , Triebert differs from the subject matter claimed in that lactone solvent is not explicitly described. Walker also pertains to solvent-based recycling of polyesters (Abstract) such as PET (¶ 9) whereby waste polyester is treated with first solvent to extract dyes, remaining solid polyester is dissolved in second solvent, the resulting polyester solution is purified, and then the purified polyester is separated from solvent (Figure 1; ¶ 106-109). Walker teaches several polyester dissolution solvents are appropriate for solvent-based recycling (¶ 30-41, 69-89), inclusive of lactones such as caprolactone (¶ 33, 83). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize lactone solvents such as caprolactone for polyester substrates in the methods of Triebert because such solvents are capable of effectively dissolving polyesters for subsequent purification/re-isolation/recycling as taught by Walker . Walker teaches second solvent is typically heated at temperatures ranging from 50-150 degrees C so as to maximize amounts and rates of polyester dissolution (¶ 29). Since the same substrates (waste PET), solvents (caprolactone), and temperatures are suggested as those taught by the specification, it stands to reason a certain degree of solvolysis would naturally occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triebert (Solvent-Based Recycling) in view of Russin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,145) . The discussion regarding Triebert within ¶ REF _Ref224669403 \r \h 32 - REF _Ref224669404 \r \h 33 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claim 18 , Triebert differs from the subject matter claimed in that Sb, Ge, Ti, or Co contaminates are not explicitly described. Triebert teaches it was known purifications can remove color pigments, additives, and heavy metals (Page 47). Russin teaches it was known in the art polyesters fibers/films can be produced via various catalyst-inhibitor systems, such as those comprising cobalt, titanium, and/or antimony ions (Col. 2, Lines 38-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the purification methods of Triebert for waste polyesters such as those derived from Russin because doing so would facilitate the removal of additives/metals, such as the catalyst-inhibitor systems taught by Russin . Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1) in view of Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1). Hanel teaches methods of solvent-based recycling (Abstract) comprising dissolving waste polymer in an initial mass of solvent, thereby generating a dissolved polymer solution, purifying the obtained solution to remove contaminates, and separating the polymer from the solution (¶ 59-65, 321). As contaminates are removed, the obtained polymer is a purified recycled polymer. Hanel teaches after separation, solvent is separated and purified for re-use (¶ 128; Figure 7 “528”). Regarding Claims 3 and 10 , Hanel differs from the subject matter claimed in that lactone solvent is not described. Walker also pertains to solvent-based recycling of polyesters (Abstract) such as PET (¶ 9) whereby waste polyester is treated with first solvent to extract dyes, remaining solid polyester is dissolved in second solvent, the resulting polyester solution is purified, and then the purified polyester is separated from solvent (Figure 1; ¶ 106-109). Walker teaches several polyester dissolution solvents are appropriate for solvent-based recycling (¶ 30-41, 69-89), inclusive of lactones such as caprolactone (¶ 33, 83). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize lactone solvents such as caprolactone for polyester substrates in the methods of Hanel because such solvents are capable of effectively dissolving polyesters for subsequent purification/re-isolation/recycling as taught by Walker . Walker teaches second solvent is typically heated at temperatures ranging from 50-150 degrees C so as to maximize amounts and rates of polyester dissolution (¶ 29). Since the same substrates (waste PET), solvents (caprolactone), and temperatures are suggested as those taught by the specification, it stands to reason a certain degree of solvolysis would naturally occur in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1) in view of Russin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,145). Hanel teaches methods of solvent-based recycling (Abstract) comprising dissolving waste polymer in an initial mass of solvent, thereby generating a dissolved polymer solution, purifying the obtained solution to remove contaminates, and separating the polymer from the solution (¶ 59-65, 321). As contaminates are removed, the obtained polymer is a purified recycled polymer. Hanel teaches after separation, solvent is separated and purified for re-use (¶ 128; Figure 7 “528”). Regarding Claim 18 , Hanel differs from the subject matter claimed in that Sb, Ge, Ti, or Co contaminates are not explicitly described. Russin teaches it was known in the art polyesters fibers/films can be produced via various catalyst-inhibitor systems, such as those comprising cobalt, titanium, and/or antimony ions (Col. 2, Lines 38-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the purification methods of Hanel for waste polyesters such as those derived from Russin because doing so would facilitate the removal of additives/metals, such as the catalyst-inhibitor systems taught by Russin . Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) in view of Hanel (US 2023/0331952 A1) . Walker teaches a solvent based recycling process comprising dissolving polyester in a solvent, purifying the dissolved polyester to remove contaminates, and then recovering solvent to yield purified recycled polymer (Abstract; Figures 1-4; ¶ 106-113). Regarding Claim 2 , Walker differs from the subject matter claimed in that a specified amount of solvent recovered is not stated. Hanel also pertains to solvent based polymer recycling (Abstract). Hanel teaches solvent can be separated from purified polymer through various techniques such as filtration or evaporation, whereby recoveries of at least 90 wt% is possible (¶ 277-236). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the solvent recovery protocols of Hanel within the protocols of Walker , thereby facilitating high solvent recovery for re-use. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2017/0218162 A1) in view of Russin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,145). Walker teaches a solvent based recycling process comprising dissolving polyester in a solvent, purifying the dissolved polyester to remove contaminates, and then recovering solvent to yield purified recycled polymer (Abstract; Figures 1-4; ¶ 106-113). Regarding Claim 18 , Walker differs from the subject matter claimed in that Sb, Ge, Ti, or Co contaminates are not explicitly described. Russin teaches it was known in the art polyesters fibers/films can be produced via various catalyst-inhibitor systems, such as those comprising cobalt, titanium, and/or antimony ions (Col. 2, Lines 38-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the purification methods of Walker for waste polyesters such as those derived from Russin because doing so would facilitate the removal of additives/metals, such as the catalyst-inhibitor systems taught by Russin . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6274 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time . 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 Duane Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1166 . 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. /STEPHEN E RIETH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759