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. 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 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); 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 26-45 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-15,17-22, 24-25, 28 of copending Application No. 18/546,271 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claims a method for recycling PET, the recycled product and an apparatus, as claimed wherein the pet is depolymerized in the presence of ethylene glycol and a catalyst, crystallizing the BHET produced, dissolving the crystallized BHET, purifying and then crystallizing the purified product. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 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 – 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. Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( (a)(1) ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Allen et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060419. Allen discloses a method of recycling PET polyester. See paragraph 0002. The method includes the step of depolymerizing the PET in the presence of an alcohol and a catalyst. See paragraph 0008. The PET can include the constitutional units as claimed in claim 36. See paragraphs 0057-0058. The depolymerization is performed in a pressure reactor at a temperature higher than the boiling point of the alcohol. See paragraph 0016. The pressure of the reactor can be 0-50 psi and can be carried out at temperatures of 150-250. See paragraph 0019. Note that this range of values includes atmospheric pressure. The catalyst can be a tertiary amine and the alcohol can be ethylene glycol. See paragraph 0020-0023. The amine catalyst is recycled from the reaction product but way of a distillation reaction. See paragraph 0027. The reaction product can be BHET and ethylene glycol. See paragraph0029. The BHET is then purified by known methods including filtration, chromatography, distillation and combinations thereof. The purified BHET can be repolymerized to form PET. See paragraph 0030-ll33. After completion of the depolymerization reaction, the product can be subjected to additional purification steps including purification by crystallization. See paragraph 0087. The process results in an amount of BHET of 98.5% The process of Allen is not identical to the claimed process, however, since the instant claim is drawn to a product, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. Claim (s) 26-43, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060419 in view of Applicant’s statement of the prior art at page 3 and Pilati et al, EP 0723951 . Allen discloses a method of recycling PET polyester. See paragraph 0002. The method includes the step of depolymerizing the PET in the presence of an alcohol and a catalyst. See paragraph 0008. The PET can include the constitutional units as claimed in claim 36. See paragraphs 0057-0058. With regard to the b(h) values of the PET, it would have been obvious to have selected PET having suitable properties for being recycled into a usable polymer product. The depolymerization is performed in a pressure reactor at a temperature higher than the boiling point of the alcohol. See paragraph 0016. The pressure of the reactor can be 0-50 psi and can be carried out at temperatures of 150-250. See paragraph 0019. Note that this range of values includes atmospheric pressure. The catalyst can be a tertiary amine and the alcohol can be ethylene glycol. See paragraph 0020-0023. The amine catalyst is recycled from the reaction product but way of a distillation reaction. See paragraph 0027. The reaction product can be BHET and ethylene glycol. See paragraph0029. The BHET is then purified by known methods including filtration, chromatography, distillation and combinations thereof. The purified BHET can be repolymerized to form PET. See paragraph 0030-ll33. After completion of the depolymerization reaction, the product can be subjected to additional purification steps including purification by crystallization. See paragraph 0087. The process results in an amount of BHET of 98.5%. With regard to IPA in claims 36-37, Applicant’s specification states that it was known in the art to add IPA to recycled BHET if the amount is too low in order to enhance moldability. See page 3, lines 9-15 of the instant specification. The product can then be repolymerized into PET. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added IPA as taught by Applicant’s specification to be known and conventional in the art in order to provide a concentration which was suitable for molding. Allen does not disclose a second crystallization step where the BHET is dissolved in a protic solvent. However, Pilati et al teaches a method of preparing BHET to obtain high purity BHET by reacting waste PET and ethylene glycol in order to provide BHET which is then filtered then dissolved again in water and then crystallized again. See entire document including claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have performed a second crystallization of BHET by dissolving it in water and then crystallizing it in order to further purify the BHET as taught by Pilati. With regard to claims 40-43, it is well known and conventional in the art of polymer fibers and fabrics to melt spin polyester into fibers and to draw the filaments to orient them, as well as to combine filaments of the same or different polymers to form yarns. Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060419 in view of Applicant’s statement of the prior art at page 3 and Pilati et al, EP 0723951 as applied to claim s above, and further in view of Sublett et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,559,159 . Allen differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly teach employing multiple reactors to react, depolymerize and repolymerize the PET. However, Sublett teaches employing multiple reactors to recycle PET by depolymerizing and repolymerizing and teaches moving the purified BHET in the form of a slurry to be repolymerized. See col. 6, lines 40-58. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed multiple reactors and to move the purified BHET in the form of a slurry in view of the teaching of Sublett that it was known and conventional to use more than one reactor and to have moved the BHET as a slurry. It further would have been obvious to have used a different liquid than the protic solvent in order to avoid redissolving the BHET. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chikawa et al, U.S. Patent No. 3,666,791. Chikawa discloses a process for purifying crude BHET. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1475 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM . 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 Marla McConnell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7692 . 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. /ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789