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
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 June 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 10-20, in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
The present application claims priority to provisional application 63/414,332 filed 7 October 2022. However, the subject matter of claims 11-12 and 17-20 is not present in PRO 63/414,432. Therefore, the effective filing date for claims 11-12 and 17-20 of the present application is 10 October 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the applicant has listed a large number of documents for consideration in the information disclosure statements submitted in this application. As noted in MPEP 2001.05, if information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). As noted in MPEP 2004 (Section 13), it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. It is suggested that applicants eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant' s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner has considered the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search,609.05(b). Foreign language documents have been considered for relevance in light of information provided by applicant under guidelines in MPEP 609.04(a)(III).
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 08/21/2024, 03/07/2025, and 04/24/2025 have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The images for Structural Formulae 1 and 2 in paragraph [0037] are blurry; text is difficult to read.
Paragraph [0086] recites " The reagent may comprise a base. The base may comprise potassium chloride, sodium chloride, ethanol, sulfuric acid, or a combination thereof." However, potassium chloride, sodium chloride, and sulfuric acid are not bases, and ethanol is considered a very weak base or neutral.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-20 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 10, lines 2-4, recite "pretreating the polymer comprises contacting the polymer with a first solution; contacting the polymer with a second solution". It is unclear if the polymer is separated from the first solution prior to contacting with the second aqueous solution, or if the polymer AND the first aqueous solution are contacted with the second aqueous solutions.
Claim 10, lines 4-5, recite "contacting the polymer with a second aqueous solution; contacting the polymer with a nanocomposite". It is unclear if the polymer is separated from the second aqueous solution prior to contacting with the nanocomposite, or if the polymer AND the second aqueous solution are contacted with the nanocomposite.
Claim 10, lines 5-8, recite "contacting the polymer with a nanocomposite…contacting the nanocomposite with radiation". It is unclear if the polymer and the nanocomposite after separated prior to contacting the nanocomposite with radiation, or if the nanocomposite AND the polymer are contacted with radiation. This limitation is interpreted as requiring contacting the polymer and the nanocomposite with radiation per [0160] of the Specification.
Claim 10, lines 5-9, recite "contacting the polymer with a nanocomposite…oxidizing the polymer". It is unclear if the polymer and the nanocomposite after separated prior to oxidizing the polymer.
Claim 19, lines 1-2, recite “contacting a metal with a semiconductor in the absence of light to form a nanocomposite”. It is unclear if the metal, semiconductor, and nanocomposite of claim 19 is the same as the metal, the semiconductor, and the nanocomposite of claim 1. This limitation is interpreted as requiring contacting the metal with the semiconductor in the absence of light to form the nanocomposite.
Claims 11-18 and 20 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakerley (WO 2018/096103).
Regarding Claim 10, Wakerley discloses a method for producing hydrogen [0019], the method comprising: pre-treating an organic substrate by contacting the organic substrate with an aqueous base (aqueous base meets the limitation of a first aqueous solution and a second aqueous solution; [0031]), wherein the organic substrate is a polymer [0032].
Wakerley is silent to contact the polymer with a second aqueous solution.
However, the first aqueous solution may be the same as the second aqueous solution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakerley to provide two contacting steps, thereby contacting the polymer with a first aqueous solution and contacting the polymer with a second aqueous solution, because selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Wakerley further discloses exposing a photocatalyst to visible and/or ultraviolet light (visible and/or ultraviolet light provide radiation such that the nanocomposite is contacted with radiation; see [0068]) in the presence of the organic substrate to produce hydrogen [0025], wherein the photocatalyst is a nanoparticle [0086] and may be a CdS/CdOx photocatalyst [0041], wherein CdS is a semiconductor [0243], and CdOx is formed on the CdS surface (CdOx formed on the CdS surface meets the limitation of a metal (Cd) attached to a surface of the semiconductor (CdS); [0244]), such that the photocatalyst of Wakerley meets the limitation of a nanocomposite. Wakerley further discloses degrading the organic substrate [0024], wherein degradation refers to a reduction in the molecular weight of the organic substrate due to the oxidative cleavage of bonds within the organic substrate [0140], such that the polymer is oxidized.
Regarding Claim 11, Wakerley discloses recovering disodium terephthalate [0377].
Regarding Claim 12, Wakerley discloses producing terephthalic acid [0377].
Regarding Claim 13, Wakerley discloses the organic substrate may be polyethylene terephthalate [0032].
Regarding Claim 14, Wakerley discloses the organic substrate is low density polyethylene [0032].
Regarding Claim 15, Wakerley discloses the organic substrate is polystyrene [0032].
Regarding Claim 16, Wakerley discloses pre-treating the organic substrate by contacting the organic substrate with an aqueous base [0031].
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakerley (WO 2018/096103) in view of Ashraf (“Photoreforming of Waste Polymers for Sustainable Hydrogen Fuel and Chemicals Feedstock: Waste to Energy”).
Regarding Claim 17, Wakerley teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 10.
Wakerley is silent to pretreating the polymer by contacting the polymer with ethanol.
Ashraf discloses a method for producing hydrogen comprising (Abstract) comprising pretreatment of the waste plastics and contacting the waste plastics with a photocatalyst and UV light (pg. S, Col. 1, par. 1). Ashraf further discloses solvent-assisted pretreatment of waste plastics (plastics are composed primarily of polymers, and therefore meets the limitation of a polymer) with organic solvents such as ethanol (pg. AE, Col. 2, par. 3). Ashraf further discloses pretreatment with organic solvents has the advantage of ease of solvent recovery and reduced environmental effects (pg. AF, Col. 1, par. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakerley to incorporate the teachings of Ashraf to pretreat the polymer by contacting the polymer with ethanol, because organic solvents such as ethanol have the advantage of ease of solvent recovery and reduced environmental effects, as recognized by Ashraf (pg. AF, Col. 1, par. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Wakerley is silent to pretreating the polymer by contacting the polymer with an acid.
Ashraf discloses a method for producing hydrogen comprising (Abstract) comprising pretreatment of the waste plastics and contacting the waste plastics with a photocatalyst and UV light (pg. S, Col. 1, par. 1). Ashraf further discloses acidic pretreatment of waste polymers with mineral acids or organic acids (pg. AE, Col. 1, par. 4). Ashraf further discloses acid pretreatment is preferred because of its selectivity and efficiency in hydrolyzing polymers into their monomer building blacks (pg. AE, Col. 1, par. 4), which improves the photoreforming process (pg. AE, Col. 2, par. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakerley to incorporate the teachings of Ashraf to pretreat the polymer by contacting the polymer with an acid, because of its selectivity and efficiency in hydrolyzing polymers into their monomer building blacks which improves the photoreforming process, as recognized by Ashraf (pg. AE, Col. 1, par. 4; Col. 2, par. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Wakerley is silent to adjusting the pH of the second aqueous solution.
Wakerley, however, discloses using a CdS/CdOx photocatalyst [0041].
Ashraf discloses the CdS/CdOx photocatalyst requires a high pH for the decomposition or hydrolysis of waste plastics (pg. T, Col. 2, par. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakerley to incorporate the teachings of Ashraf to adjust the pH of the second aqueous solution, because the CdS/CdOx photocatalyst requires a high pH for the decomposition or hydrolysis of waste plastics, as recognized by Ashraf (pg. T, Col. 2, par. 3).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakerley (WO 2018/096103) in view of Cha (“A facile “dark”-deposition approach for Pt single-atom trapping on facetted anatase TiO2 nanoflakes and use in photocatalytic H2 generation”).
Regarding Claim 19, Wakerley teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 10.
Wakerley is silent to contacting the metal with the semiconductor in the absence of light to form the nanocomposite.
Wakerley, however, discloses the photocatalyst may contain metals such as Pt, Zn, Co, and Ni to enhance the photocatalytic effect [0102].
Cha discloses Pt (Pt meets the limitation of a metal) “dark” deposition on TiO2 NFs (nanofibers) (TiO2 NFs meet the limitation of a semiconductor) by facile dip-coating method with a Pt precursor in solution, and immersing the TiO2 NFs in the solution in a quartz finger cell, leading to Pt nanoparticles (NPs) on the surface of TiO2 NFs (Pt NPs on the surface of TiO2 NFs meets the limitation of a nanocomposite; pg. 2, Col. 2, par. 3), such that the metal and the semiconductor are contacted in the absence of light to form a nanocomposite. Cha discloses for “dark”-deposition, dark conditions are built up by wrapping the quartz finger cell with aluminum foil (pg. 2, Col. 2, par. 3), such that there is an absence of light. Cha further discloses the Pt SAs prepared by “dark”-deposition on TiO2 NFs demonstrate a photocatalytic H2 evolution efficiency much higher than that obtained by the conventional crystalline Pt NPs decoration (pg. 8, Col. 1, par. 2). Cha further discloses the “dark”-deposition process is facile, low-cost, and does not require special instrumentation, yet forms an efficient single-atom layer on TiO2 NFs (pg. 9, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakerley to incorporate the teachings of Cha to contact the metal with the semiconductor in the absence of light to form the nanocomposite, because Wakerley teaches the photocatalyst may contain Pt to enhance the photocatalytic effect [0102], forming a nanocomposite comprising a semiconductor (TiO2) and a metal (Pt) by contacting the semiconductor and the metal is a process well-known in the art of forming photocatalysts, as recognized by Cha, and the “dark”-deposition process is facile, low-cost, and does not require special instrumentation, yet forms an efficient single-atom layer on TiO2 NFs (pg. 9, Col. 2, par. 1), which results in a much higher photocatalytic H2 evolution efficiency compared to the conventional crystalline Pt NPs decoration (pg. 8, Col. 1, par. 2), as recognized by Cha.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights