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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 4, 9, and 15 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim s 4, 9, and 15 recite a broad recitation, and the claims also recite a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Gross et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0086639) . Regarding Claim 1, Gross et al., hereafter “Gross,” show that it is known to have a composition (Abstract) comprising a polymer, a Lewis acid, and a solvent (0007, 0042). Regarding Claim 2, Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, including one wherein the polymer has a ceiling temperature of equal to /greater than 150C (0007). Regarding Claim 5, Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, including one wherein the polymer is a polyester (0032). Regarding Claim 16, Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, including one wherein the solvent comprises an ether (0043). 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. Claim (s) 4, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross . Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, but he does not show the claimed amounts of polymer, solvent, and lewis acid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any appropriate amounts of ingredients, such as those claimed, in order for the composition to have desired physical and chemical characteristics, and also because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art (i.e. composition having amounts of polymer, solvent, lewis acid), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Claim (s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, in view of Partridge et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0247124) . Regarding Claim 6, Gross shows the composition of claim 5 above, but he does not show a particular polyester. Partridge et al., hereafter “Partridge,” show that it is known to have a composition w hose polyester comprises an epsilon caprolactone (0039). It would have been obvious to use Partridge’s epsilon caprolactone as Gross’ polyester because there is art recognized suitability for epsilon caprolactone in degradable compositions (MPEP 2144.07) . Regarding Claim 8, Gross shows the composition of claim 5 above, but he does not show a particular polyester. Partridge show s that it is known to have a composition whose polyester comprises propylene carbonate (0039). It would have been obvious to use Partridge’s propylene carbonate as Gross’ polyester because there is art recognized suitability for propylene carbonate in degradable compositions (MPEP 2144.07) . Claim (s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, in view of Goh et al. (U.S. Patent 10,106,421) . Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, but he does not show the specific Lewis acid catalyst. Goh et al., hereafter “Goh,” show that it is known to have a composition which includes a Lewis acid of Zn2+ or FeCl3 ( lewis acid catalyst) (Column 10, lines 41-54). It would have been obvious to use Goh’s particular Lewis salts in Gross’ composition because of increased oxidation capabilities when using transition metal salts. Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross and Goh, further in view of Baczek et al. (U.S. Patent 4,266,036) . Gross shows the composition of claim 12 above, but he does not show a Lewis acid of ZnCl2. Baczek et al., hereafter “ Baczek ,” show that it is known to have a composition which includes a Lewis acid of ZnCl2 (Column 15, lines 53-59). It would have been obvious to use Goh’s particular Lewis salts in Gross’ composition because there is art recognized suitability for using ZnCl2 in the field of reusable compositions (MPEP 2144.07). Claim (s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, in view of Guha et al. (U.S. Patent 10,875,213) . Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, but he does not specify an ether solvent. Guha et al., hereafter “Guha,” show that it is known to have a reclaimed composition which comprises polyethylene glycol 200-400 (Column 3, lines 20-49). It would have been obvious to use Guha’s polyethylene glycol 200-400 as the solvent in Gross’ composition because there is art recognized suitability for polyethylene glycol 200-400 in the field of recycling polymeric compositions (MPEP 2144.07). Claim (s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, in view of Goto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0184077) . Gross shows the composition of claim 1 above, but he does not include a monomer of the polymer. Goto et al., hereafter “Goto,” show that it is known to have a composition which includes a polymer and a monomer of the polymer (0025-0028). It would have been obvious to use Goto’s polymer/monomer combination in Gross’ composition in order to more precisely control the decomposition reaction (Goto, 0015-0018). Claim (s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross and Goto, in view of Partridge . Gross shows the composition of claim 2 5 above, but he does not show a particular polyester or polycarbonate . Partridge show s that it is known to have a composition whose polyester comprises an epsilon caprolactone or propylene carbonate (0039). It would have been obvious to use Partridge’s epsilon caprolactone or propylene carbonate in Gross’ composition because there is art recognized suitability for epsilon caprolactone in degradable compositions (MPEP 2144.07). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1198 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8a-4p . 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 Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1176 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MONICA ANNE HUSON Primary Examiner Art Unit 1742 /MONICA A HUSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742