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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 - 12 in the reply filed on December 8,2025 is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1- 20 are pending. Claims 13 – 20 are withdrawn. Clams 1 - 12 are rejected. 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. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 2 defines a " polyalkylene " and a "polyester". Claim 5, dependent on claim 2, defines the polyalkylene being selected from the from the group consisting of polyalkylene terephthalate, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), a poly( cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate) (PCT), and a polylactic acid (PLA). However, the polymers specified in claim 5 do not fall in the category of polyalkylenes , but are polyesters, and polyesters as specified in claim 2 are distinctive from polyethylenes . Then the wording of the claims leaves reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which the term " polyalkylene " refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claims lacks clarity . Further, it is remarked that polyalkylene , which also corresponds to polyalkene defines polymers derived from CnH2n monomers, and therefore they contain carbon and hydrogen such as polyethylene, polypropylene. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, while being enabling for a method for depolymerization a mixture of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polylactic acid (PLA) with ionic liquid systems of cholinium lysinate ([Ch][Lys]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([C2C1im]CI), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate ([C2C1im][Ac]) or [Ch]3[Phos] in the presence of absence of water; does not reasonably provide enablement for a method for depolymerization of a mixture of two or more of any type of plastics with any ionic liquid (IL) or deep eutectic solvents (DES). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosures in the specification coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation (United States v. Telectronice , 8, USPQ2D 1217 (Fed. Cir, 1988) . Whether undue experimentation is needed is not based upon a single factor but rather in a conclusion reached by weighing many factors . The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands , 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). The court in Wands states, “Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation, such as routine screening . However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation . The key word is ‘undue’, not ‘experimentation’” ( Wands , 8 USPQ2sd 1404) . Clearly, enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention . “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations” ( Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1404) . The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’." ( In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) . Consistent with Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023), the Wands factors continue to provide a framework for assessing enablement in a utility application or patent, regardless of technology area. See Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 89 FR 1563 (January 10, 2024). These factors include, but are not limited to : (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the relative skill of those in the art; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary. While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below. (1) The nature of the invention : the nature of the invention is drawn to a method for depolymerizing a mixture of plastics by introducing an ionic liquid (IL) or deep eutectic solvents that are capable of co-polymerizing at least two polymers. (2) the scope of the claims: The scope of the invention in the claims is such that the “two or more plastics” referrer to any polymer . Also, th e method can be performed with any ionic liquid or any deep eutectic solvents. (3) The state of the prior art : The state of the art is discussed on Coates . It is stated in Coates that impediments to the recycling of commodity polymers include separation, impurities and degradation of macromolecular structures, all of which can negatively affect the properties of recycle materials , which is termed chemical recycling to monomers (CRM) . (abstract, Nature Reviews Material, 2020) . Further, stating that chemical recycling is an attractive alternative to transform polymers back into monomers and purify them for repolymerization. (abstract). In reviewing poly(α- methylstyrene ) (PAMS) it is stated that it reverts almost exclusively to monomer in depolymerization. On the other hand polystyrene (PS) produces styrene, toluene, α- methylstyrene , 1,3-diphenylpropane, and styrene dimer and trimer. (pp. 505 bottom left col to top rt. col.) . In Coates, the above differences are an example that CRM is difficult . Furthermore, Coates considers the polyester poly( lactic acid) (PLA). It is stated that PLA is the most widely used biodegradable plastic derived from annually renewable feedstocks . Also, concluding that CRM is not viable for CRM because of side reactions at depolymerization temperatures . Stating the PLA is susceptible to elimination to yield acrylic acid, as well as epimerization of the α-position. (pp. 509, rt. col. last para.). Also, the state of the prior art can be found in the teachings Delamarche et al. The prior art of Delamarche describes a process of degradation ( depolymerization ) of a poly( butylene succinate) and poly(lactic acid) blend comprising the mixing of the blend with a deep eutectic solvent choline chloride/glycerol DES and a step of incubation, which results in the fragmentation of the polymer chains in oligomers/monomers. (pp. 6, rt. col. “Degradation Mechanism Observed at Microscale”). (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art: Chemistry is unpredictable. In re Marzocchi , 439 F2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 para. 3. However, the "predictability or lack thereof ” in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclose d or know results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. MPEP 2164.03. In Coates it is stated that notable advances have been made in the recycling of commodity resins through all recycling modes (primary, secondary and tertiary) . Noting that of the individually number resins, PS and PET are produced in the lowest volumes; although CRM of the former has selectivity issues, monomers can still be recovered I well above 90% yield, and PET is the most highly recycled resin . However, for the three polymers produced in largest volumes – PVC, PE and PP – CRM is either chemically impossible (PVC) or extremely challenging (polyolefins) . (pp. 512, left col. para. 2 in “Outlook”). (5) The relative skill of those in the art: I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any one of the following: ( i ) a Ph.D. degree in Chemistry or Chemical Engineering or a related field, and about 3 years total of practical experience; (ii) a Masters degree in Chemistry or Chemical Engineering or a related field, and about 5 years total of practical experience; (iii) a Bachelors degree in Chemistry or Chemical Engineering or a related field, and about 10 years total of practical experience. These descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa. (6) The amount of direction or guidance presented and (7) the presence or absence of working examples: The specification has provided guidance for a method for depolymerization a mixture of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polylactic acid (PLA) with ionic liquid systems of Cholinium lysinate ([Ch][Lys]), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([C2C1im]CI), 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate ([C2C1 im][ Ac]) or [Ch]3[Phos] in the presence of absence of water . However, the specification does not provide for a method for depolymerization of a mixture of two or more of any type of plastics with any ionic liquid (IL) or deep eutectic solvents (DES) . The claim does not provide any structural definition of the polymers as well as of the type of ionic liquid or of the deep eutectic solvent to be selected in order to achieve a depolymerization of two polymers, which can be also very different in nature. (8) The quantity of experimentation necessary : Considering the state of the art as discussed by the references above, particularly with regards to the differ natures of plastics and the varying composition of IL and DES and the high unpredictability in the art as evidenced therein, and the lack of guidance provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to practice the invention commensurate in the scope of the claims. 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 . 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) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 2016/0326335) . Th rejected claims cover, inter alia, a method for depolymerizing a mixture of plastics, the method comprising: (a) providing a composition comprising a mixture of two or more plastics; (b) introducing a solvent comprising an ionic liquid (IL) or deep eutectic solvents (DES) to form a solvent-plastic composition; and (c) incubating the solvent-plastic composition for a period of time to produce a depolymerized composition such that at least portions of the two or more plastics are depolymerized into monomers. Dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 further limit the two or more plastics . Dependent claim 6 further limits the ionic liquid . Dependent claim 12 further limits the process. However, Schmidt discloses a method for forming an aromatic diacid and/or an aromatic diacid precursor from a polyester-containing feedstock. The method comprises contacting the polyester-containing feedstock with water or an alcohol to depolymerize the polyester and thereby form an aromatic diacid and/or an aromatic diacid precursor. (abstract, [0008]) . Further, the polyester is depolymerized in the presence of one or more ionic liquid . (pp. 3, [0033] & pp. 4, [0042]) . According to Schmidt, t he polyester-containing feedstock comprises any polyester or copolyester typically found in a material recycling facility and/or post-consumer polymer source. For example, the feedstock can comprise post-consumer mixed rigids ( e.g. , polyester bottles and thermoforms), post-consumer polyester carpet, or a combination thereof. The feedstock preferably comprises post-consumer mixed rigids, optionally comprising, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene terephthalate glycol modified (PETG), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polybutylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid (PLA), polycarbonate, and combinations thereof . (pp. 3, [0030]) . In the preferred embodiment of Schmidt, in addition to comprising 60% or more polyester the feedstock comprises one or more secondary material. (pp. 4, [0038]) . The secondary material can be at least one material selected from the group consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) (including crystal and impact modified), polycarbonate (PC), ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH), poly(ethylene vinyl alcohol), polylactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid, poly(hydroxy butyrate), a synthetic rubber (e.g., ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), polybutadienes, acrylics), poly(ethylene-2,5-furan dicarboxylic acid), and combinations thereof . (pp. 4, [0039]) . The term “ionic liquid” includes compounds having both high melting points and compounds having low melting points, e.g. at or below room temperature. Ionic liquids having melting points below around 30° C. are commonly referred to as “room temperature ionic liquids” and are often derived from organic salts having nitrogen-containing heterocyclic cations, such as imidazolium and pyridinium-based cations. (pp. 4, [0035]) . According to Schmidt, a ny suitable ionic liquid can be employed in the present invention. For example, the ionic liquid cation can be an imidazolium, pyridinium or ammonium species, and the anion can be a halide, tetrafluroborate , hexaflurophosphate , bistriflimide , triflate or tosylate species. (pp. 4, [0037]). The difference between Schmidt and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis ver bis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). However, based on the above, Schmidt teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (s ee M.P.E.P. § 2143). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim (s) 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delamarche (Frontiers in Materials, 2020) . Th rejected claims cover, inter alia, a method for depolymerizing a mixture of plastics, the method comprising: (a) providing a composition comprising a mixture of two or more plastics , as set out in paragraph 14 above. Dependent claims 2 and 5 further limit the two or more plastics. However, Delamarche describes a process of degradation (depolymerization) of a poly( butylene succinate) and poly(lactic acid) blend comprising the mixing of the blend with a deep eutectic solvent choline chloride/glycerol DES and a step of incubation, which results in the fragmentation of the polymer chains in oligomers/monomers. (pp. 2, rt. col. para. 4 , & pp. 6, rt. col. ”Degradation Mechanisms Observed at Microscale” ). The difference between Delamarche and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis ver bis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). However, based on the above, Delamarche teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (s ee M.P.E.P. § 2143). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim (s) 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (JP2008174497) . Th rejected claims cover, inter alia, a method for depolymerizing a mixture of plastics, the method comprising: (a) providing a composition comprising a mixture of two or more plastics , as set out in paragraph 14 above. Dependent claims 2 and 5 further limit the two or more plastics. However, Kamimura discloses a method for depolymerizing a synthetic resin by making an ionic liquid act on the synthetic resin and t he method produces the synthetic resin monomer(s). (abstract, [0001] & [0009]) . The method for depolymerizing a synthetic resin such as a polyamide or a polyester . ([0006]) . T he synthetic resin in the method for depolymerizing a synthetic resin and the method for producing a monomer is a so-called condensation type polymer . The difference between Kamimura and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis ver bis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). However, based on the above, Kamim u ra teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (s ee M.P.E.P. § 2143). Art Made of Record The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. K aczmarek et al. (New J. Chem. 2021 vol. 45, pp. 6344 – 6355) Glycine betaine-based ionic liquids and their influence on bacteria, fungi, insects and plants . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9067 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30) . 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 Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5241 . 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. /YATE' K CUTLIFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692