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 § 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) 20-26, 28, 35, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Marty (WO 2021/005198). Regarding Claims 20 and 26, Marty shows that it is known to carry out a process for degrading a plastic product comprising at least one polyester comprising at least a terephthalic acid monomer (TA) wherein the process comprises a step of depolymerization of said at least one polyester performed at a pH between 3 and 6 by contacting the plastic product in the reaction medium with an enzyme able to degrade said at least one polyester (pg 25, lines 16-19; pg 27, lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 21, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the enzyme is an esterase (pg 26, line 16).
Regarding Claim 22, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the pH of the depolymerization step is regulated between 4.00 and 5.50 by addition of a base in the reaction medium (pg 27, lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 23, Marty shows the process of claim 22 above, including one wherein the base is sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (pg 32, lines 10-15).
Regarding Claim 24, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the pH of the depolymerization step is not regulated and is between 3 and 5 (pg 27, line 8).
Regarding Claim 25, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the process is implemented at a temperature between 50°C and 72°C (pg 26, lines 27-31).
Regarding Claim 28, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the polyester is PET (pg 25, lines 22-23).
Regarding Claim 35, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the depolymerization step is performed at a pH of 5.2 and a temperature of 55C (pg 26, lines 27-31; pg 27, lines 8-10).
Regarding Claims 37-38, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including one wherein the process further comprises a step of recovering the oligomers and/or monomers resulting from the depolymerization of the polyester (pg 26, lines 14-16).
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) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty. Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, including various composition amounts (pg 31, lines 2-7), however he does not specifically disclose the claimed concentration of polyester. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any appropriate polyester concentration, such as that which is claimed, because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claim(s) 29-34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty, in view of Desrousseaux et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0218360).
Regarding Claim 29, Marty shows the process of claim 28 above, but he does not show using two enzymes. Desrousseaux et al., hereafter “Desrousseaux,” show that it is known to carry out a process wherein the polyester is PET and wherein the depolymerization step is implemented by contacting the plastic product with at least two enzymes (0077). It would have been obvious to use two enzymes, as taught by Desrousseaux, in Marty’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using two enzymes (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 30, Marty shows the process of claim 29 above, but he does not show using two enzymes. Desrousseaux shows a method wherein the plastic product is contacted simultaneously with at least one PETase and at least one MHETase (0077-0078). It would have been obvious to use two enzymes, as taught by Desrousseaux, in Marty’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using two enzymes (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 31, Marty shows the process of claim 30 above, but he does not show using two enzymes. Desrousseaux shows a method wherein the PETase and the MHETase are included in a multienzyme system (0084). It would have been obvious to use two enzymes, as taught by Desrousseaux, in Marty’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using two enzymes (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 32, Marty shows the process of claim 30 above, but he does not show using two enzymes. Desrousseaux shows a method wherein the plastic product is contacted first with a PETase and a MHETase is introduced in the reaction medium after the PETase (0084). It would have been obvious to use two enzymes, as taught by Desrousseaux, in Marty’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using two enzymes (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 33, Marty shows the process of claim 29 above, but he does not show using more than one addition of enzyme. Desrousseaux shows a method wherein additional amounts of MHETase are added once or several times in the reaction medium (0084). It would have been obvious to use two enzymes, as taught by Desrousseaux, in Marty’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using two enzymes (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 34, Marty shows the process of claim 30 above, but he does not show the specific enzyme. Desrousseaux shows that it is known to carry out a method wherein the MHETase is derived from Ideonella sakaiensis (0078). It would have been obvious to use Desrousseaux’s specific enzyme, in Marty’s process because there is art recognized suitability for using one derived from Ideonella sakaiensis (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 36, Marty shows the process of claim 20 above, but he does not show an amorphization step prior to the depolymerization step. Desrousseaux shows that it is known to carry out a method which includes an amorphization step prior to the depolymerization step (0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Desrousseaux’s amorphization step prior to Marty’s depolymerization step in order for the material to be appropriately prepared for depolymerization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights