DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 06/03/2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the correction made to paragraph [0073] of the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Remarks) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 112(b) for reciting “waste mask” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant states:
In response to the term "waste mask", Applicant states that the mask used in this patent is a disposable medical mask. According to the results of elemental analysis, the waste mask has a C content of 78.96 wt%, an H content of 12.80 wt%, a O content of 6. 34 wt%, and an N content of 1. 91 wt%; and according to the results of industrial analysis, the waste mask has an ash content of 0.242 wt%, a volatile matter content of 99.73 wt%, and a fixed carbon content of O. 028 wt%. Thus, Applicant believes that the term "waste mask" is defined in the disclosure.
In response to the statement “the mask used in this patent is a disposable medical mask,” it is noted that the term “disposable medical mask” is not recited in the claims, nor is the term necessarily considered a synonym of “waste mask.” With regard to the elemental analysis of the waste mask, the examiner notes that it was not described in the originally-filed application and, if added to any part of the application, the compositional data would be considered new matter. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant and submits that the term “waste mask” is not defined in the originally-filed disclosure.
As noted in the rejection, the term “waste mask” does not have an ordinary meaning with respect to its composition, nor is it given a compositional definition in the originally-filed disclosure. Here, the pending claims are directed to using a waste mask as reactant in a catalytic pyrolysis reaction and therefore understanding a compositional meaning of the term “waste mask” would be necessary to clearly and precisely point out what the inventor regards as the inventive subject matter. The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
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 1-16 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 1 is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what the term “waste mask” is compositionally. The term “waste” typical means “discarded” and does not have a compositional meaning. The term “mask” would ordinarily be understood by its function (e.g., for covering one’s face partially or entirely) and not by its composition. Claim 1 is directed to a conversion process where “waste mask” is used as a reactant; therefore, it is critical to fully understand what “waste mask” is rather than what it does. The instant specification is silent on the composition of “waste mask.” It is noted that the terms “waste mask” and “disposable mask” appear to be used interchangeable throughout the specification. The only relevant information on waste mask or disposable mask may be found in para. [0003], which states, “[s]ince novel coronavirus pneumonia became a global epidemic, in order to prevent the virus from spreading from person to person, the demand and also the abandonment of disposable masks have been sharply increased.” Thus, it appears that “waste mask” refers to a mask that was used during the coronavirus pandemic, but there are various types of masks with different materials known to the public.
Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. Therefore, the instant claims are withdrawn from consideration for a prior art rejection.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Streiff et al. (US 2018/0371327 A1) discloses a process for converting waste plastic into gases, liquid fuels, and waxes by catalytic cracking in the presence of nitrogen gas and a catalyst comprising a zeolite ([0010]-[0014], [0028], [0048]). Suitable zeolites include ZSM-5 impregnated with gallium ([0035], [0058]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights