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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 03/04/2024 and 05/26/2025 fail t o comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) (i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise explanation of the invention, but it repeats the claim language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claim1 recites the limitation "the product " in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims dependent of claim 1 are also rejected. Claim 6 recites the limitation " the chemical depolymerization liquid " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 – (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 -9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Mukai et al. (US 2009/0133200 A1) (“Mukai” herein) Claim 1. Mukai discloses , as best understood based on the indefiniteness above , a method of recycling a polyester fabric, comprising: [0084-0086] providing a polyester fabric, wherein the polyester fabric comprises polyethylene terephthalate and dyes; [0021-0022] performing an extraction process to remove the dyes from the polyester fabric, wherein the extraction process comprises using ethylene glycol as an extraction solvent, immersing the polyester fabric in the extraction solvent, and extracting under a temperature of 80 °C to 180 °C; [00 32, 00 35 ] performing a depolymerization process, wherein the depolymerization process comprises using a chemical depolymerization solution to depolymerize the polyester fabric treated with the extraction process to obtain a product comprising BHET ( bis ( 2-hydroxyethyl terephthalate)), and the chemical depolymerization solution is ethylene glycol; [0035-0038, 0040] performing a purification process to remove impurities of the product obtained by the depolymerization process and to obtain a purified BHET; [0039-0040, 0050] and performing a solvent recycling process, wherein the solvent recycling process comprises collecting waste solutions of the extraction process and the depolymerization process, and recycling ethylene glycol in the waste solutions by a distillation separating system. [0030 , 0073-0074 ] Claim 2. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein in the extraction process, the polyester fabric is subjected to 1 to 10 extraction steps, and each of the extraction steps is to soak the polyester fabric in a new extraction solvent. [0035-0038, 0040] Claim 3. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 2, wherein a time of each of the extraction steps is between 20 minutes and 1 hour. It is elementary that the mere recitation of newly discovered function or property possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be a characteristic of the prior, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Claim 4. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 2, wherein in each of the extraction steps, a weight ratio of the extraction solvent to the polyester fabric is 5 to 10. [0029-0034] Claim 5. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein the depolymerization process is performed at a temperature of 190 °C to 240 °C. [0035-0038, 0040] Claim 6. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein a weight of the chemical depolymerization liquid accounts for 30 wt% to 80 wt% of a total weight of the chemical depolymerization liquid and the polyester fabric treated with the extraction process. [0029-0034] Claim 7. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein the depolymerization process is performed in an environment containing a catalyst, and the catalyst comprises an organic metal or an ionic liquid. [0048-0049] Claim 8. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 7, wherein a weight of the catalyst accounts for 0.3 wt% to 8 wt% of a total weight of the chemical depolymerization liquid and the polyester fabric treated with the extraction process. [0048-0049, 0069, 0071] Claim 9. Mukai discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein a time of the depolymerization process is between 1 hour and 6 hours. It is elementary that the mere recitation of newly discovered function or property possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be a characteristic of the prior, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Liao (US 2023/0060362 A1- dated of Aug.26, 2021) (“Liao” herein). Claim 1. Liao discloses, as best understood based on the indefiniteness above , a method of recycling a polyester fabric, comprising: providing a polyester fabric, wherein the polyester fabric comprises polyethylene terephthalate and dyes; [0008-0010, 0032-0034] performing an extraction process to remove the dyes from the polyester fabric, wherein the extraction process comprises using ethylene glycol as an extraction solvent, immersing the polyester fabric in the extraction solvent, and extracting under a temperature of 80 °C to 180 °C; [0036, 0040] performing a depolymerization process, wherein the depolymerization process comprises using a chemical depolymerization solution to depolymerize the polyester fabric treated with the extraction process to obtain a product comprising BHET (bis (2-hydroxyethyl terephthalate)), and the chemical depolymerization solution is ethylene glycol; [0036-0037] performing a purification process to remove impurities of the product obtained by the depolymerization process and to obtain a purified BHET; [ 0041-0042] and performing a solvent recycling process, wherein the solvent recycling process comprises collecting waste solutions of the extraction process and the depolymerization process, and recycling ethylene glycol in the waste solutions by a distillation separating system. Claim 2. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein in the extraction process, the polyester fabric is subjected to 1 to 10 extraction steps, and each of the extraction steps is to soak the polyester fabric in a new extraction solvent. [0036, 0040] Claim 3. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 2, wherein a time of each of the extraction steps is between 20 minutes and 1 hour. [0054-0055 , 0059 ] Claim 4. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 2, wherein in each of the extraction steps, a weight ratio of the extraction solvent to the polyester fabric is 5 to 10. [0059] Claim 5. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein the depolymerization process is performed at a temperature of 190 °C to 240 °C. [0036-0037] Claim 6. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein a weight of the chemical depolymerization liquid accounts for 30 wt% to 80 wt% of a total weight of the chemical depolymerization liquid and the polyester fabric treated with the extraction process. [0059] Claim 7. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein the depolymerization process is performed in an environment containing a catalyst, and the catalyst comprises an organic metal or an ionic liquid. [0038-0044] Claim 8. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 7, wherein a weight of the catalyst accounts for 0.3 wt% to 8 wt% of a total weight of the chemical depolymerization liquid and the polyester fabric treated with the extraction process. [0066] Claim 9. Liao discloses the method of recycling the polyester fabric of claim 1, wherein a time of the depolymerization process is between 1 hour and 6 hours. [0059] 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai. Claim 10. Mukai discloses the claimed invention except for the solvent recycling process, a recycling rate of the ethylene glycol is greater than 98 wt. %. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to have the solvent recycling process, a recycling rate of the ethylene glycol is greater than 98 wt. % , since it has been held that [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao . Claim 10. L iao discloses the claimed invention except for the solvent recycling process, a recycling rate of the ethylene glycol is greater than 98 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to have the solvent recycling process, a recycling rate of the ethylene glycol is greater than 98 wt.%, since it has been held that [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rogers et al. (US 11,299,599 B1) Rapid Chemical Methods For Recovery Of Materials From Waste Sources teaches Methods for the recovery of natural fiber-containing material from waste textile and methods for recovery of monomers and/or oligomers from waste plastics comprise contacting about 10 to about 25 wt % of the waste with about 75 to about 95 wt % of an aqueous reagent, the aqueous reagent comprising at least about 80 wt % water and about 20 wt % or less tetraethylene glycol, based on the water and the tetraethylene glycol, and a base, at a temperature of about 90° C. to about 140° C. for about 20 to about 60 minutes to depolymerize polymers in the wastes. The base is included in the aqueous reagent in an amount effective to depolymerize the polymers , Guha et al. (US 10,875,213 B2) Recycling Carbon Fiber Based Materials teaches A process is provided to reclaim carbon fiber from a cured vinyl ester, crosslinked unsaturated polyester, or epoxy thermoset matrix. The composite pieces are added to a polyol solvent composition under to conditions to free more than 95% by weight of the carbon fiber from the composite. The freed carbon fibers are washed and dried to reclaim carbon fiber reusable to reinforce a polymer to form a new FRC article. Solvents are chosen that are low cost and low toxicity. Processing is further facilitated by techniques such as solvent pre-swell of the particles, microwave heating, and sonication to promote thermoset matrix digestion to free reinforcing carbon fibers , and Jay (US 6,896,808 B1) Recovery Of Metal Values From Aqueous Solutions And Slurries teaches The invention generally relates to a process for the recovery or removal of metal species from a solution or slurry comprising the steps of: a) contacting the solution or slurry with a polymeric material, selected from the group consisting of a solid superhydrophilic polyurethane polymer containing a chelating and/or solvating agent, a water-insoluble polymeric chelating agent dispersed in a water-insoluble carrier solution, and a water-soluble polymeric chelating or co-ordinating agent to load the polymeric material with metal species wherein said polymeric material; b) separating the loaded polymeric material from the solution or slurry; and c) recovering or removing the metal from the polymeric material. There is also considered a polymeric material for use in the recovery of metal species from a solution or slurry, the polymeric material comprising a solid superhydrophilic polyurethane polymer containing a chelating or co-ordinating agent and/or a solvating agent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SILVANA C RUNYAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5415 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-4:30 . 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 Doug Hutton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4137 . 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. /SILVANA C RUNYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 03/20/2026