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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 10 July 2026, with respect to claims 16 and 19 rejected under 35 USC§112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July regarding the 35 USC§103 rejection of claims 1-15, 17-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/021902 (hereafter WO’902) in view of Tummes (US 4,138,588, hereafter US’588) and Cook (US 2007/0038001, hereafter US’001), and further in view of WO 2020/242912 (hereafter WO’912), WO 2018/002798 (hereafter WO’798), and US’879 (US 5,904,879, hereafter US’879). Claims 15 and 20 are further rejected in view of US’829 (US 6,749,829, hereafter US’829). Claims 18 and 20 are further rejected in view of US’027 (US 8,153,027, hereafter US’027).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained for the reasons set forth below. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of WO 2021/021902 A1 (“WO ’902”), Tummes et al., US 4,138,588 (“Tummes”), Cook et al., US 2007/0038001 (“Cook”), WO 2020/242912 (“WO ’912”), WO 2018/002798 (“WO ’798”), and Winter et al., US 5,904,879 (“Winter”), with claims 15 and 20 further considered in view of US 6,749,829 (“Briscoe”) and claims 18 and 20 further considered in view of US 8,153,027 (“Klepper”). The applied combination is identified in the prior Office action.
Amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 now requires the source material and target material to “comprise the same type of material,” and that the cited references do not teach or suggest this requirement or the claimed attribution-tracing-allocation framework as applied to DOTP. The amendment to claim 1 is acknowledged. Claim 1 now expressly requires that the source material and target material comprise the same type of material. The argument, however, is not persuasive.
WO ’902 expressly teaches an embodiment in which a DMT supplier provides recycled DMT (“rDMT”), a DMT manufacturer obtains an allocation or credit associated with the rDMT, the manufacturer makes DMT from a reaction scheme starting with p-xylene, and at least a portion of the rDMT allocation or credit is associated with at least a portion of the manufactured DMT. See WO ’902 ¶ [0626]. Thus, WO ’902 expressly teaches allocation of recycled-content credit from a recycled DMT source to a DMT target—materials of the same type. WO ’902 ¶ [0627] further teaches physically recycled DMT obtained from methanolysis of terephthalate polyesters and designation of DMT with corresponding recycle content.
Accordingly, Applicant’s characterization of WO ’902 as limiting its credit-allotment system to dissimilar source and target materials is not consistent with the complete disclosure of the reference. The DMT-to-DMT embodiment of ¶¶ [0626]–[0627] directly demonstrates that the recycle-content attribution framework is applicable where the source and target comprise the same material type. Because claim 1 is generic as to whether the same-type materials are syngas, propylene, or terephthalyl, the DMT embodiment is sufficient to meet the added same-type requirement when considered with the remainder of the applied combination.
WO ’902 further teaches calculation and tracking of recycled content through chemical processing. Paragraphs [0394]–[0400] describe determining recycled content using allotments, inventory, mass balance, product yield, and calculations relating feedstock recycled content to downstream C4 alkanal. Paragraph [0397], for example, expressly uses product yield in calculating the recycled-content portion of the downstream reaction product. Paragraphs [0402]–[0404] teach converting a recycle-designated propylene composition to C4 alkanal and designating a portion of the C4 alkanal as corresponding to the recycled-propylene allocation or credit, including through formulas that calculate the recycled content associated with use of the recycled-propylene feed.
WO ’902 additionally teaches an inventory system in which recycled-content allotments are withdrawn from inventory and applied to downstream products, including allotments originating from methanolysis or gasification of recycled waste. See ¶¶ [0098]–[0102]. The designation may be performed by inventory software and formulas calculating the amount of recycled content applied to a product. Cook supplies the further known reaction of DMT or terephthalic acid with 2-ethylhexanol to produce DOTP, while Tummes supplies conversion of n-butyraldehyde to 2-ethylhexanol. The amended claim therefore does not distinguish patentably from the combined teachings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recycled-DMT attribution methodology expressly taught by WO ’902 with DMT employed in Cook’s known DMT-to-DOTP process. DMT performs its known function as the terephthalyl reactant, while the WO ’902 allocation and tracking system performs its known function of assigning and carrying recycled-content value through downstream chemical processing. The resulting application of recycled-content attribution to a known DOTP process would have yielded the predictable result of DOTP having allocated recycled content. This is consistent with the recognized obviousness rationale of applying a known technique to a known process to obtain predictable results.
Applicant’s argument that WO ’902 does not itself disclose tracing recycled content all the way to DOTP is therefore not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on WO ’902 alone for the entire process. The proper inquiry is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. A rejection based on multiple references is not defeated merely because no individual reference contains the complete claimed arrangement. MPEP § 2145; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Claims 2–6, 8, 10, 11, and 13
Applicant has not identified a separate deficiency in the rejection of claims 2–6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 apart from the arguments directed to the amended limitations of claim 1. Since the amended limitation of claim 1 does not overcome the combination for the reasons above, the rejections of these claims are maintained.
In particular, the same-type limitation is additionally consistent with claim 5. WO ’902 ¶¶ [0626]–[0627] expressly teach recycled DMT as the source of an allocation or credit and DMT as the material to which that credit is associated. WO ’902 therefore directly supports the DMT alternative of claim 5.
WO ’902 also expressly teaches electronic recycle-content inventories, deposit and deduction of allotments, and application of those allotments to compositions. It further identifies recycled-content levels including at least 10%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, and higher values, with values extending up to 100%. See ¶ [0082]. The previously stated findings regarding the physical recycled-feed teachings of WO ’798, WO ’912, and Winter therefore remain applicable.
Claim 7
Applicant argues that claim 7 requires determining reaction-specific conversion factors and using those factors to determine how much credit-based recycled content is allocated to DOTP, and that this feature is absent from the cited art. The argument is not persuasive.
WO ’902 expressly calculates recycled content through a chemical reaction by considering the amount of recycle content, the mass of the product and feed-derived moiety, and the reaction yield. See ¶ [0397]. Paragraphs [0399]–[0400] additionally calculate the quantity of recycled content attributed to the propylene feedstock using mass balance, while ¶ [0404] expressly states that formulas may be used to compute the desired amount of recycled content in the C4 alkanal associated with the recycled-propylene feed.
Thus, WO ’902 does not merely record a commercial label. It teaches numerical accounting of recycled content through a chemical conversion using reaction yield and mass-balance information. Applying that known calculation technique through the remaining known chemical steps leading from C4 alkanal to 2-ethylhexanol and then DOTP would have been a predictable application of the same accounting technique. The rejection of claim 7 is maintained.
Claim 9
Applicant argues that claim 9 requires at least 10 percent physical recycled content and at least 10 percent credit-based recycled content. That limitation does not overcome the rejection.
WO ’798 teaches physically recycled terephthalate feed in producing DOTP, while WO ’902 teaches credit-based recycled-content attribution and expressly identifies recycled-content amounts of at least 10%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, and other levels. Combining a physically recycled DOTP feed with the known credit-allocation system would predictably result in DOTP having both physical and credit-based recycled content. Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed 10% thresholds produce an unexpected result or are otherwise critical. The rejection of claim 9 is maintained.
Claim 12
Applicant argues that claim 12 requires credit-based content to be traced through a first chemical pathway from syngas to DOTP and physical recycled content to be traced through a second pathway from propylene to the same DOTP.
WO ’902 teaches hydroformylation using syngas and recycled propylene and expressly teaches tracing/accounting recycled-content contribution through the propylene-to-C4-alkanal reaction using yield, formulas, and mass balance. See ¶¶ [0394]–[0405]. Winter teaches recycled syngas derived from waste plastic; WO ’912 teaches recycled-content propylene; Tummes and Cook supply the downstream chemistry to 2-ethylhexanol and DOTP. Applying the same known recycled-content accounting technique independently to the two known hydroformylation feed streams would have been a predictable use of WO ’902's allocation methodology. Each feed stream performs its ordinary chemical function, and the accounting technique performs the same tracking function for each stream. No technological incompatibility or unexpected result has been shown. The rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Claim 14
Applicant argues that claim 14 requires the particular sequence of hydroformylation, aldol condensation, aldehyde reduction, and esterification together with credit attribution from r-syngas.
The argument has been considered but does not overcome the rejection. WO ’902 teaches hydroformylation of propylene with syngas and conversion to C4 alkanal, including butyraldehyde. Tummes teaches aldol condensation and reduction of n-butyraldehyde to 2-ethylhexanol. Cook teaches esterification/transesterification of 2-ethylhexanol with terephthalic acid or DMT to form DOTP. WO ’902 further teaches that recycle-content allotments may originate from gasification of recycled waste and may be deposited into inventory and applied to another composition or downstream product. See ¶¶ [0099]–[0102].
Thus, the four reaction stages and the recycled-content attribution technique were each known, and their use together would have predictably carried a recycled-content allocation through the known DOTP reaction sequence. The rejection of claim 14 is maintained.
Claim 15
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach producing r-syngas by “carbon reforming” a feed comprising waste plastic or material obtained from waste plastic. This argument is not persuasive when “carbon reforming” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
The present specification expressly identifies partial oxidation gasification as an embodiment of “carbon reforming.” Specifically, WO 2022/235434 ¶ [0015] states that carbon reforming may be partial oxidation gasification fed with coal and waste plastic, plasma gasification of waste plastic, or partial oxidation gasification using a recycled-content pyrolysis oil produced from waste plastic.
Winter teaches partial oxidation of a waste-plastic-derived hydrocarbonaceous feed to produce syngas. Under the meaning of “carbon reforming” expressly supplied by Applicant’s own specification, Winter therefore teaches a species falling within the claimed carbon-reforming step. Briscoe further confirms that reforming hydrocarbonaceous feed to synthesis gas was conventional. The rejection of claim 15 is maintained.
Claim 17
Applicant argues that the 100 percent total recycled content and the specifically apportioned r-syngas, r-propylene, and r-terephthalyl ranges are not merely matters of routine optimization. The argument is not persuasive on the present record.
WO ’902 expressly treats the amount of recycled-content allotment applied to a product as flexible. Paragraph [0099] states that the amount deducted from inventory depends on the amount of recycled content applied, while ¶ [0100] teaches applying all, part, or none of the available recycled-content allotment to a particular product and storing any remainder for later use. Paragraph [0082] expressly teaches recycled-content values at numerous percentages, including 10%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, and 65%, and expressly contemplates recycled-content amounts up to 100%.
The applied references further establish the availability of recycled syngas, recycled propylene, and recycled terephthalate/DMT streams. Once those known recycled sources are used in the known DOTP synthesis sequence, the amount of recycled content attributed to each branch is an expressly selectable allocation variable in WO ’902's accounting system. Selecting allocations within the claimed ranges so that the total designation reaches 100 percent would have involved selection of the amount attributed from each known source according to the desired total recycled-content designation. Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating criticality at the claimed endpoints or an unexpected technical result associated with the particular allocation ranges. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 is maintained.
Claim 18
Applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the entire architecture of producing a first syngas having physical recycled content, producing a second syngas having no or less physical recycled content, transferring recycled-content credit from the first syngas to the second syngas, and feeding the second syngas to a DOTP facility.
The argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based upon the combined teachings, not on a requirement that one reference expressly disclose the entire architecture. Winter teaches production of syngas from waste plastic. Klepper teaches production of syngas from carbon-containing feed materials. WO ’902 expressly teaches that recycled-content allotments may originate from gasification of recycle waste, may be stored in inventory, and may thereafter be applied to a downstream material without requiring that the physically recycled material itself be used in making that downstream material. See ¶¶ [0099]–[0100].
WO ’902 also expressly uses syngas as a feed to hydroformylation together with propylene. See ¶ [0405]. Thus, one of ordinary skill seeking to use a gasification-derived recycled-content allotment in the known hydroformylation process would have had reason to apply the known inventory/allocation technique to the conventional syngas feed while retaining the physical recycled syngas as the source of the allotment. The credit-allocation methodology operates independently of whether the physically recycled material itself is consumed in the downstream reaction, which is precisely the flexibility taught by WO ’902. The resulting process would have predictably preserved the conventional syngas chemistry while assigning the known recycle-content value to the downstream feed.
The rejection of claim 18 is therefore maintained.
Claim 20
Applicant similarly argues that the references fail to teach the claimed combination of two syngas-generation operations, digital-inventory credit transfer between the first and second syngas, and subsequent production of DOTP having 10–40 percent credit-based recycled content from the first syngas.
For the reasons discussed above, the individual and combined limitations are taught or suggested by the applied references. Winter teaches waste-plastic-derived syngas. Under the specification's express usage, partial oxidation gasification is within “carbon reforming.” Briscoe further teaches reforming hydrocarbon feed to synthesis gas. Klepper teaches producing syngas from other carbon-containing feedstocks. WO ’902 teaches an electronic or software-based recycled-content inventory, credits originating from gasification of recycled waste, and application of such credits to a downstream composition even where the physically recycled reactant is not itself consumed in production. Tummes teaches conversion of n-butyraldehyde to 2-ethylhexanol, and Cook teaches DMT/2-ethylhexanol conversion to DOTP.
Applicant's argument that WO ’902 itself does not expressly show “syngas-to-syngas” transfer does not establish nonobviousness. WO ’902 teaches the credit system as transferable inventory accounting independent of physical molecular transfer, including credits generated by gasification. Applying that known technique to a conventional syngas stream serving as the hydroformylation feed would have been a predictable application of the known technique to a known chemical feed stream.
Finally, WO ’902 expressly identifies recycled-content values encompassing the claimed 10–40 percent range, including at least 10%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, and 40%, and teaches flexible selection of the quantity of allotment applied to a product. Applicant has not shown criticality or unexpected results attributable to selecting a recycled-content value within the claimed range.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 20 is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment and arguments have been considered. The amendment to claim 1 does not overcome the applied prior art because WO 2021/021902 expressly teaches same-type recycled-content attribution, including an rDMT source/allocation associated with a DMT target, and the remaining references supply the known DOTP reaction sequence. Applicant's arguments directed to claims 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 likewise do not establish patentability over the combined teachings for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1–15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 pm).
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights