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. 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 4, 6, and 13 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. contaminating substances is not found in the prior art either singly or in combination. Claims 4, 6, and 13 recite “the last heating element,” “the form,” and “the production” respectively, which all lack an antecedent basis, which are construed to be indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 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. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)3 as being anticipated by Kawabe et al. (JP 381140). All citations on those prior art references are based on the English language translation. The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying speciation, to be disclosed by Kawabe as teaching: a drying plant for granular polymer material based on polyethylene terephthalate (PET), (paragraph [0011] and preamble is treated as a statement of intended use since PET does not breath life and meaning into the claims) the plant comprising: a hopper 14 , in which the granular polymer material is dried (paragraph [0018]) and a supply and recirculation circuit which is configured to supply a process gas to the hopper in order to dry the granular polymer material and to at least partially recover the process gas at a discharge of the hopper in order to supply the process gas to the hopper again (paragraph [0018]), wherein the supply and recirculation circuit 21, 22, 23 comprises: a heating unit 11 which is configured to heat the process gas (paragraph [0019]), and a catalyzing group (paragraph [0030]) which is positioned inside the heating unit and which is configured to promote a decomposition reaction of contaminating substances which are present in the process gas and which are released from the granular polymer material in the hopper (the claimed decomposition reaction of contaminating substances is structurally and functionally the same as the prior art teaching of thermal decomposition and deodorization treatment). Kawabe also discloses the claimed 2 feature wherein the heating unit comprises one or more heating elements of the process gas and the catalyzing group (paragraph [0035]) is positioned inside the heating unit between the one or more heating elements and a discharge of the heating unit (shown in figure 3), the claim 3 feature wherein the heating unit comprises at least two heating elements for the process gas which are positioned in series, and the catalyzing group is interposed between two heating elements of the process gas (figure 4). 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe. Kawabe discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed penultimate heating element, support frame, or honeycomb feature. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recited those features since the teachings of Kawabe would perform the invention, regardless of those features and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability. Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in in view of Shinegawa et al. (US JP 05-033829). Kawabe discloses the invention as follows: a drying process for granular polymer material based on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (paragraph [0011] and preamble is treated as a statement of intended use since PET does not breath life and meaning into the claims), the method comprising: providing the granular polymer material inside a hopper 14 (paragraphs [0042]-[0043]), introducing into the hopper a process gas in order to dry the granular polymer material (paragraphs [0039] and [0044]), at least partially recovering the process gas at the discharge of the hopper (paragraph [0045]). Kawabe discloses the claimed invention, except for the step of placing the process gas recovered from the hopper in contact with a catalyzing group capable of promoting a decomposition reaction of contaminating substances comprising benzene and/or acetaldehyde present in the process gas so as to obtain a purified process gas and - re-introducing the purified process gas in the hopper. Shinegawa, another drying method, discloses that feature in the English translation paragraph [0040} since the claimed benzene or acetaldehyde are equivalent to the disclosed organic substance or perovskite. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kawabe with the teachings of Shinegawa for the purpose of releasing undesirable products from the polymer material undergoing a process gas treatment. Kawabe in view of Shinegawa discloses the claimed invention, except for the claimed steps of before re-introduction, temperature value, recycled PET fraction, or food products. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recited those features since the teachings of Kawabe in view of Shinegawa would perform the invention, regardless of those features and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, N, O, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, Q, R, cited with this action teach drying plants and methods of drying thereof. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4875 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am . 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 Craig Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 3607 . 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. Tuesday, March 3, 2026 /STEPHEN M GRAVINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753