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 filed 1-9-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Terminal disclaimer filed on 1-23-26 continues to not be approved because the Power of Attorney was not accepted. The assignee listed on the terminal Disclaimer does not match the assignee of record in the Office. As noted N572 dated 1-15-26. Please correct the assignee information, and resubmit the Power of Attorney and Terminal Disclaimer.
For this reason, the previous rejection has been maintained:
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 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11981779; or claims of U.S. Patent No.11396588.
With regard to related patent USP 11981779, the patent recites a system for the continuous depolymerization of plastic, the system comprising: (a) a pump for transmitting a heterogeneous reaction mixture comprising solid plastic particles and a solvent at a particle speed sufficient to maintain the plastic particles in suspension in the solvent; (b) a first heat exchanger fluidly coupled to the pump, wherein the first heat exchanger is positioned downstream of the pump and comprises a cooling section and a heating section, wherein the heating section of the first heat exchanger is adapted to preheat the heterogeneous reaction mixture; (c) a heating apparatus comprising a heating chamber, the heating chamber including a material passageway having an inlet fluidly coupled to an outlet of the heating section of the first heat exchanger, wherein the material passageway defines a heating region adapted to heat the heterogeneous reaction mixture to at least a reaction temperature sufficient to initiate conversion of the heterogeneous reaction mixture into a homogeneous reaction solution comprising a liquefied reaction product; (d) a hold tube adapted to maintain the heterogeneous reaction mixture at or above the reaction temperature in order to complete the conversion of the heterogeneous reaction mixture into a homogeneous reaction solution, the hold tube having a tube inlet and a tube outlet, wherein the tube inlet is fluidly coupled to an outlet of the material passageway of the heating chamber, and wherein tube outlet is fluidly coupled to an inlet of the cooling section of the first heat exchanger.
Because the system also performs the process steps, the claimed process in claims 1-5 represents the intended use of the related system and would have been an obvious use of the previous claimed system. Note that the present claims also include claims 6-13 which are also directed to a system.
With regard to related patent USP 11396588 the related patent claims recite:
a process for continuously depolymerizing plastic, the process comprising:
mixing solid polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles with a solvent selected from ethylene glycol (EG), diethylene glycol (DEG), methanol and water in the presence of a catalyst selected from zinc acetate, zinc chloride, manganese acetate, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, 1,5,7-triazabicyclo[4.4.0]dec-5-ene (TBD), 1,8- diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU); magnesium acetate, 4- dimethyl aminopyridine (DMAP), amine, and trialkyl amine, to produce a heterogeneous reaction mixture;
(b) transmitting the heterogeneous reaction mixture through a first section of a first heat exchanger to preheat the heterogeneous reaction mixture, wherein the heterogeneous reaction mixture is transmitted through the first section of the first heat exchanger at a predetermined flow rate sufficient to maintain a particle speed of above 30 cm/s in order to prevent the solid plastic particles from settling out of suspension;
(c) transmitting the preheated heterogeneous reaction mixture at the predetermined flow rate into a heating region of a heating chamber;
(d) heating the heterogeneous reaction mixture within the heating region of the heating chamber with a heat source which indirectly heats the heterogeneous mixture using a heat transfer fluid to a reaction temperature of 230°C or higher to initiate conversion of the heterogeneous reaction mixture into a homogeneous reaction solution comprising a liquefied reaction product, said liquefied reaction product comprising bis(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate (BHET) monomer;
(e) transmitting the homogeneous reaction solution through a second section of the first heat exchanger to cool the homogeneous reaction solution to a temperature below 50°C;
(f) transmitting the homogeneous reaction solution to a settling tank and allowing to settle for a settling time of between 0.5 hours and 170 hours to allow the liquefied reaction product to convert into a solid reaction product and precipitate from the cooled homogeneous reaction solution; and wherein the process further comprises the step of maintaining a system pressure above a vapor pressure of the solvent at the reaction temperature to prevent the solvent from evaporating.
The present claims recite a process that differs only in the claimed limitations such as flow rate specification and temperature range which would have been obvious optimizations of the system to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference application. However, the reference application teaches all of the claimed elements, and a substantially similar process. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from those of the cited patents since they claim the same continuous de polymerization system and process for Polyethylene terephthalate and are different only by variations of the parameters such as temperature, pressure, flow rate or residence time.
Claim 1 corresponds to USP ‘779 claim 17 and USP ‘588 claim 31 since each discloses a continuous PET depolymerization sequence of mixing, preheating, heating to 230oC, holding, cooling etc.
Claim 2 corresponds to USP ‘779 claim 26 and USP ‘588 claim 32 since each discloses ethylene glycol as the solvent and BHET monomer or oligomer as the product.
Claim 3 corresponds to USP ‘779 claim 21 and USP ‘588 claim 33 since each discloses the reaction time and hold tube appear to be the same.
Claim 4 corresponds to USP ‘779 claim 19 and USP ‘588 claim 34 since each discloses a downstream cooling method through a second heat exchanger.
Claim 5 corresponds to USP ‘779 claim 19 and USP ‘588 claim 35 since each discloses precipitation.
Claim 6 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 37 since each discloses. the same system parts, e.g. pump, heat exchanger, heating chamber, hold tube, separator, are the same.
Claim 7 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 37 since each discloses system parts, e.g. pump, heat exchanger, heating chamber, hold tube, separator, are the same.
Claim 8 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 37 since each discloses preheating exchanger between the pump and the reactor.
Claim 9 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 38 since each discloses heating by a heat -transfer fluid identical.
Claim 10 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 38 since each discloses heat transfer conduit with inlet/outlet loop.
Claim 11 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 31.
Claim 12 corresponds to USP ‘588 claim 34 since each discloses cooling to below 50oC.
Claim 13 corresponds to and USP ‘588 claim 35 since each discloses a solidification stage.
As a future response to the rejection above, applicants are advised to not withhold a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer (TD), to the pending ODP rejection. It is noted that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below:
“As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
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.
Allowable Subject Matter over IDS filed 8-14-24 and 1-17-25
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant(s) claimed invention is directed to:
A process for continuously depolymerizing plastic, the process comprising:
(a) mixing solid polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles with a solvent and a catalyst to produce a heterogeneous reaction mixture;
(b) transmitting the heterogeneous reaction mixture through a first section of a first heat exchanger to preheat the heterogeneous reaction mixture, wherein the heterogeneous reaction mixture is passed through the first portion of the first heat exchanger at a pump flow rate by a pump, wherein the pump maintains a continuous flow rate that ensures a particle speed of the heterogeneous mixture great enough to keep the particles in suspension such that particles do not settle in the lines and clog the system;
(c) transmitting the preheated heterogeneous reaction mixture into a heating region of a heating chamber;
(d) heating the heterogeneous reaction mixture within the heating region of the heating chamber with a heat source which indirectly heats the heterogeneous mixture using a heat transfer fluid to a reaction temperature of at least 230°C to initiate conversion of the heterogeneous reaction mixture into a homogeneous reaction solution comprising a liquefied reaction product, and maintaining the mixture at the reaction temperature in a hold tube for at least one minute to complete the conversion of the heterogeneous reaction mixture to the homogeneous reaction solution;
(e) transmitting the homogeneous reaction solution through a second section of the first heat exchanger to cool the homogeneous reaction solution;
(f) transmitting the homogeneous reaction solution to a settling tank to allow the liquefied reaction product to convert into a solid reaction product and precipitate from the cooled homogeneous reaction solution.
The crux of the invention lies in the discovery that a continuous depolymerization system and process polyethylene terephthalate using heat-transfer-fluid that replace energy batch heating with sable, efficient, self-regulating flow process while avoiding the problems commonly associated therewith. Such has neither been anticipated by nor made obvious from the prior art. The art of record demonstrates other depolymerization processes used in the art which do not however, contain the advantages as mentioned and neither avoid the problems as mentioned above. The specific patent references including the non-patent literature references on the IDS’s filed 8-14-24 and 1-17-25 do not disclose or render obvious the claimed invention. Although in some instances the references disclose similar PET glycolysis, they do not disclose the continuous flow and dual heat-exchanger, the preheat and cooling steps, hold -tube retention and settling steps as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the Issue Fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the Issue Fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
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 on 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 Riviere Kelley can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765