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 1-11, 16-22 and 24-26 in the reply filed on 2-6-26 is acknowledged. Applicants election with traverse of Species 1 (electrostatic charge on particle) is also acknowledged. Obviousness-type Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms . The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 1-11, 16-22, 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18 / 154664; or copending Application No.18 / 791076. Note that claim 2 of application 18 / 791076 is an obvious variation of the present claim 1 because it recites the same method of treating plastic waste and extruding it to form particles but omits the additional electrostatic charging, powder battering and reactor carbonation steps of claim 1 while adding the conventional mixing of pozzolans which would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. With regard to claim 1 of application 18 / 154664 , claim 1 is an obvious variant of the original claim 1 because it recites the same method of treating plastic waste with CaO / Ca( OH) 2 , mixing with pozzolans, hot extruding the mixture, and forming particles, but omits the additional electrostatic charging , pow d er battering, and reactor carbonation steps which does not render the claims patentably distinct. With regard to claim 1 of application 17 / 285050 , claim 1 is not patentably distinct from original claim 1 because it recites the same method of treating granulated mixed plastic waste with CaO / Ca( OH) 2 , mixing with pozzolans, hot extruding the mixture, and forming particles with exposed plastic surfaces, and thus does not define patentably distinct subject matter . 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(s) 1-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002160951 see abstract, page 2 line 34 , page 3 line 13, page 4 lines 21-35, page 3 line 16 to page 6 line 10, page 4 lines 24-26 in view of WO2016084007A1 see abstract and paragraphs [0022]-[0038] WO2016084007A1 abstract and paragraphs [0022]-[0038], [0067], [0233]; further in view of USPub20020114888A1 see abstract, Table 1 and claims With regard to claim 1 , the claim is directed to a method of making a particle, the method comprising: obtaining a supply of granulated mixed plastic waste treated with a preconditioning agent to improve sanitation of the granulated mixed plastic waste; extruding the granulated mixed plastic waste to form an extruded product including waste plastic material; processing the extruded product to form a particle in which the waste plastic material is exposed at exterior surfaces thereof; creating an electrostatic charge on the particle; after creating, coating the particle with calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based powder to form a preconditioned particle; and passing the preconditioned particle through a reactor to interact the calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based powder with flue gases in the reactor and form a hybrid particle with a calcium carbonate layer on the waste plastic material. JP 2002160951 discloses an artificial lightweight aggregate using plastic waste, wherein the aggregate exhibits sufficient mechanical strength when used in cement compositions. The primary reference discloses that the lightweight artificial aggregate includes plastic particles coated with cementitious material and subjected to carbonation to form calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) , producing a product suitable for use in concrete compositions. See abstract ( plastic waste), page 2 line 34 to page 3 line 13(particle/oxide) -20 (layer), page 4 lines 21-35(calcium), page 3 line 16 to page 6 line 10(surface), page 4 lines 24-26 (granulation) and line 45 line 45(layers) . Further, JP2002160951A teaches treating the surface of waste plastic material with cementitious and alkaline materials to improve affinity and suitability for further processing, which constitutes a precondition step. The use of such treatment prepares the waste plastic material for subsequent coating and reaction steps and reasonably meets the claimed “:preconditioning agent” under broadest reasonable interpretation. Moreover, the refence does not explicitly disclose passing the coated particle through a reactor or containing the particle with flue gas. WO2016084007A1 discloses processing waste plastic by mixing plastic waste with additives such as pozzolanic materials, hot extruding the mixture to form an extruded product, and cutting or processing the extruded product into particles or aggregates that may be used in construction materials. See 1 abstract , and paragraphs [0022] -[ 0038], [0067], [0233] . Neither JP2002160951 nor WO 2016084007A1 explicitly disclose creating an electrostatic charge on the particle. However , USPub20020114888A1 teaches depositing coating powder particles that are electrostatically charged, wherein the pow d er particles are passed through an electric field to impart an electrostatic charge prior to deposition so that the particles stick to the surface. See abstract, Table 1 and claims It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the electrostatic charging technique taught by USPub20020114888 A1 to the particle processing methods of JP2002160951 A and WO 2016084007A1 because electrostatic charging is known to improve adhesion and uniform deposition of coating materials, and because flue gas is a known source of carbon dioxide for carbonation reactions. With regard to claim 2 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 1 wherein the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste includes a variety of plastic materials including at least one of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS, polyurethane, polyamide, and PET, or wherein a portion of the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste includes non-plastic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention b ecause mixed plastic waste steams commonly include multiple polymer types such as HDPE, polypropylene, PVC, ABS, polyurethane, polyamide, and PET, and may also contain non-plastic material. JP2002160951 page 2 lines 37-39 and WO2016084007A1 abstract and [0233]. With regard to claim 3 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 1, further comprising, after passing the preconditioned particle through the reactor: washing the hybrid particle in a calcium hydroxide bath; and drying the hybrid particle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because washing coated or treated particles in a calcium hydroxide bath and drying them is a known technique to ensure proper coating adhesion and remove s excess processing material. JP2002160951 page 2 lines 37-39 and page 4 lines 2,6, 43 (lime=calcium hydroxide= Ca( OH) 2 ) With regard to claim 4 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 1 further comprising, before extruding the granulated mixed plastic waste: batching the preconditioned granulated mixed waste plastic by density. Although not explicitly disclosed, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because batching mixed plastic waste by density prior to extrusion is a well- known sorting method used to improve consistency of recycled plastic feedstocks as taught by WO2016084007A1 abstract. With regard to claim 5 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 1, wherein the preconditioning agent is at least one of calcium hydroxide and ash. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because calcium hydroxide and ash are known alkaline material commonly used as conditioning or treatment agents in waste processing and generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin , 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face). With regard to claim 6 , the claim is directed to 6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste treated by the preconditioning agent includes at least about 50% waste plastic material by weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because recycled mixed plastic waste streams typically contain substantial proportions of plastic material and selecting a feedstock containing at least about 50% waste plastic material by weight represents a conventional material composition. With regard to claim 7 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 1, wherein passing the preconditioned particle through the reactor includes capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gases in the calcium carbonate layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because reacting calcium hydroxide with carbon dioxide present in flue gas to form calcium carbonates is a well-known carbonation reaction in carbon and mineralization processes. JP2002160951 page 4 lines 22-23. With regard to claim 8 , the claim is directed to 8. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 7, wherein capturing carbon dioxide includes capturing carbon dioxide in an amount up to 50% by weight of the hybrid particle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because adjusting the amount of captured carbon dioxide to achieve a desired amount of calcium carbonate formation would have been an obvious matter of routine process optimization. With regard to claim 9 , the claim is directed to 9. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further comprising, after obtaining the supply of granulated mixed plastic: mixing the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste treated with the preconditioning agent with one or more additives to form a plastic waste mixture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because mixing treated p l astic waste with additives to pr o d u ce a plastic waste mixture is a common compounding step used in polym e r processing . With regard to claim 10 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 9 wherein the one or more additives includes at least one of an essence, a fire retardant, pozzolans, and an anti-bacterial agent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because additives such as essence, a fire retardant, pozzolans, and an anti-bacterial agent s were known additives used to impart desired functional properties to plastic -based composite materials. With regard to claim 11 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 1, wherein extruding the granulated mixed plastic waste to form the extruded product includes hot extruding the granulated mixed waste plastic material at a processing temperature between about 165°C and about 230°C . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because hot extruding the granulated mixed waste plastic material at a processing temperature between about 165°C and about 230°C represents conventional extrusion conditions for many thermoplastic materials. Claim(s) 16-22, 24- 26 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002160951 see abstract, page 2 line 34 , page 3 line 13, page 4 lines 21-35, page 3 line 16 to page 6 line 10, page 4 lines 24-26 in view of WO2016084007A1 see abstract and paragraphs [0022] -[ 0038] WO2016084007A1 abstract and paragraphs [0022]-[0038], [0067], [0233]; further in view of USPub20020114888A1 see abstract, Table 1 and claims With regard to claim 16 , the claim is directed to a method of making a particle, the method comprising: obtaining a supply of granulated mixed plastic waste; extruding the granulated mixed plastic waste to form an extruded product including waste plastic material; processing the extruded product to form a particle in which the waste plastic material is exposed at exterior surfaces thereof; creating an electrostatic charge on the particle; battering the particle with a calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based paste to form a preconditioned particle, wherein the electrostatic charge on the particle assists with covering the particle with the calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based paste; and passing the preconditioned particle through a reactor to interact the calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based paste with flue gases in the reactor and form a calcium carbonate layer on the waste plastic material. JP 2002160951 discloses coating plastic particles with cementitious material including lime and aluminum hydroxide, forming a coating layer on the plastic surface that is subsequently subjected to carbonation to form calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ), producing a product suitable for use in concrete compositions. See abstract, paragraphs [0004 ] , [ 0007]. More specifically, the primary reference teaches an artificial lightweight aggregate using plastic waste, wherein the aggregate exhibits sufficient mechanical strength when used in cement compositions. . The primary reference discloses that the lightweight artificial aggregate includes plastic particles coated with cementitious material and subjected to carbonation to form calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ), producing a product suitable for use in concrete compositions. See abstract( plastic waste), page 2 line 34 to page 3 line 13(particle/oxide)-20 (layer), page 4 lines 21-35(calcium), page 3 line 16 to page 6 line 10(surface), page 4 lines 24-26 (granulation) and line 45 line 45(layers). However, the primary refernece does not explicitly teach that the cement is applied as a paste . WO2016084007A1 discloses the use of cement paste for bonding to plastic aggregate surfaces. See paragraph [0147]. The reference further di scloses processing waste plastic by mixing plastic waste with additives such as pozzolanic materials, hot extruding the mixture to form an extruded product, and cutting or processing the extruded product into particles or aggregates that may be used in construction materials. See abstract and [0022] -[ 0038], [0067], [0233]. Neither JP2002160951 nor WO 2016084007A1 explicitly disclose creating an electrostatic charge on the particle. USPub20020114888A1 teaches electrostatically cha rg ing coating particles prior to dep o s i tion so that the particles adhere to a surface improving coating adhesion and un un iformity. See abstract, Table 1 and claims It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the electrostatic charging technique taught by USPub 20020114888A1 to the particle processing methods of JP2002160951 and WO 2016084007A1 because electrostatic charging of particulate coating materials is well known to cause the particles to adhere to surfaces and assist with covering the particles with the coating material, resulting in improved adhesion and more uniform coating deposition during particle or aggregate formation processes. With regard to claim 17 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 16 wherein the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste includes a variety of plastic materials including at least one of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS, polyurethane, polyamide, and PET, or wherein the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste includes non-plastic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because mixed plastic waste includes a variety of plastic materials including at least one of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, ABS, polyurethane, polyamide, and PET, and may also contain non-plastic material . See JP2002160951 abstract page 2 lines 37-39 , page 2 line 34 and WO2016084007A1 abstract. With regard to claim 18 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 16, wherein the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste includes at least about 50% waste plastic material by weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because recycled mixed plastic waste streams typically contain substantial proportions of plastic material and selecting a feedstock containing at least about 50% waste plastic material by weight represents a conventional material selection. JP2002160951 see abstract, page 4 line s 20 -23 and WO2016084007A1 abstract and paragraph [0038]. With regard to claim 19 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 16, wherein passing the preconditioned particle through the reactor includes capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gases in the calcium carbonate layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because reacting calcium hydroxide with carbon dioxide present flue gas to form calcium carbonate is a well-known carbonation reaction used in carbon capture and mineralization processes. See JP2002160951 abstract, page 4 line s 20 -23 and WO2016084007A1 abstract and paragraph [0038]. With regard to claim 20 , wherein capturing carbon dioxide includes capturing carbon dioxide in an amount up to 50% by weight of the hybrid particle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because adjusting the amount of carbon dioxide captured to form calcium carbonate in varying amounts would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable of the carbonation reaction. See JP2002160951 abstract, page 4 line s 20 -23 and WO2016084007A1 abstract and paragraphs [0019] -[ 0020] and [0038]. With regard to claim 21 , further comprising, after obtaining the supply of granulated mixed plastic: mixing the supply of granulated mixed plastic waste with one or more additives to form a plastic waste mixture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because varying the composition of the calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based paste used to coat the particle would have been an obvious matter of routine material selection to achieve desired coating properties and , it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin , 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face). WO2016084007A1 abstract and paragraphs [0016] -[ 0020] [0044] and [0063]. With regard to claim 22 , wherein extruding the granulated mixed plastic waste includes hot extruding at a processing temperature between about 165°C and about 230°C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because hot extrusion at a processing temperature between about 165°C and about 230°C represents conventional extrusion processing conditions for thermoplastic materials . One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003 ) . WO 2016084007A1 Table 1 and paragraphs [0146]. With regard to claim 24 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 16, wherein the electrostatic charge on the particle is a negative electrostatic charge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because adjusting the cooperating conditions of the reactor used for carbonation, including exposure of the coated particles to flue gas, represents routine process optimization in carbonation and mineralization processes. USPub 20020114888 see abstract, paragraphs [0003] -[ 0015], [0021],and claims. With regard to claim 25 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 16, wherein creating the electrostatic charge includes triboelectric charging. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because modifying processing parameters such as residence time or reactor conditions to achieve a desired calcium carbonate coating on the hybrid particle would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003). With regard to claim 26 , the claim is directed to the method of claim 16, wherein passing the preconditioned particle through the reactor includes capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gases in the calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide-based paste and resulting calcium carbonate layer on the waste plastic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because modifying processing parameters reactor conditions for forming the calcium carbonate layer on the particle would have been an obvious matter of routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003) . See JP2002160951 page 4 line 21-26 (carbon dioxide gas) In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable. Information Disclosure Statement Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office. Improper Claim Dependency Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30. 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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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. /Terressa Boykin/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765