DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 5, the claims recite “wherein the liquid product stream is used to produce at least one of…”. This phrasing of “use” is an attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps, and is indefinite (See MPEP 2173.05(q)). There are no steps recited in claim 5 and thus it is unclear how the liquid is used to produce the nonwoven, backsheet film, or superabsorbent polymer.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that at least a portion of the liquid product is used in a chemical reaction to form the claimed nonwoven, backsheet film, or superabsorbent polymer. This is based on the instant specification page 19, lines 18-34.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zijl et al. (WO 2020/152317).
With regard to claims 1-4, Van Zijl teaches a hydrocarbon stream A (liquid product stream) produced from treatment of waste plastics (page 21, claim 1) including superabsorbent hygiene products (page 23, claim 11). Thus, Van Zijl teaches the hydrocarbon stream A (liquid product stream) is derived from used adsorbent hygiene products as claimed.
Van Zijl further teaches the hydrocarbon stream A comprises:
30-70 wt% paraffins;
10 to 70 wt% olefins and naphthenes; and
5 to 15 wt% aromatics (page 22, claim 6).
These overlap the ranges of 45-60 wt% and 50 to 55 wt% paraffins of instant claims 1 and 2, 30 to 55 wt% and 35 to 50 wt% olefins and naphthenes of instant claims 1 and 3, and 2 to 15 wt% and 5 to 10 wt% aromatics of instant claims 1 and 4, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. Thus, the hydrocarbon stream A of Van Zijl is also equivalent to the waste-derived fuel product. In an embodiment where the liquid product stream comprises only the waste-derived fuel product, the hydrocarbon stream A meets the claimed limitations of both the waste-derived fuel product and the liquid product stream.
The Examiner notes that the phrase “wherein the liquid product stream is derived from used adsorbent hygiene products” is product-by-process language. The product will determine patentability. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (see MPEP 2113(I)). Van Zijl teaches a stream A having the claimed components in overlapping amounts, and teaches production of the stream A from AHPs, and thus meets the limitations of the claimed feedstock, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 8, Van Zijl teaches the hydrocarbon stream A comprises less than 100 ppm nitrogen (page 21, claim 4). This is within the range of less than 100ppm nitrogen of instant claim 8.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zijl et al. (WO 2020/152317) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weisman et al. (US 2019/0192723).
With regard to claims 5-7, Van Zijl teaches producing polyethylene (instant claims 6 and 7) from the hydrocarbon stream A after treatment (page 21, claim 1).
Van Zijl does not specifically teach the use of the polyethylene in products.
Weisman teaches that adsorbent articles comprises nonwovens and backsheet films (instant claim 5), each of which can be formed from polyethylene (instant claims 6 and 7) (paragraphs [0006], [0087], and [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the polyethylene of Van Zijl in the nonwoven or backsheet film of Weisman, because Van Zijl teaches producing polyethylene and Weisman teaches that a known use of polyethylene is to form nonwovens or backsheet films for adsorbent articles (paragraphs [0087], [0092]).
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 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); 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/128,259 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of Application 18/128,259 anticipates instant claims 1 and 5-8 and claim 10 of 18/128,259 renders obvious instant claims 2-4.
Claim 19 of 18/128,259 recites an Absorbent Hygiene Product comprising a non-woven and a backsheet film, where said non-woven comprises polypropylene and said backsheet film comprises polyethylene, where the PP and PE are produced from USED AHP which produces a liquid stream comprising about 48 wt% paraffins, about 33 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and about 10 wt% aromatics, as well as less than about 100 ppm nitrogen, less than about 100 ppm oxygen, less than about 5 ppm chlorine, less than about 0.125 ppm sodium, and less than about 0.5 ppm calcium.
Instant claim 1 recites a liquid stream derived from AHP comprising about 5-60 wt% paraffins, 30-55 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and 2 to 15 wt% aromatics. Instant claims 5-7 recite a nonwoven comprising PP produced from the liquid stream, and a backsheet film comprising PE produced from the liquid stream. Instant claim 8 recites the liquid stream comprises less than about 100 ppm nitrogen, less than about 100 ppm oxygen, less than about 5 ppm chlorine, less than about 0.125 ppm sodium, and less than about 0.5 ppm calcium.
The amounts of the paraffins, olefins and naphthenes, and aromatics of claim 19 of 18/128,259 lie within and thus anticipate the ranges of instant claim 1, and the ranges of nitrogen, oxygen, chlorine, sodium, and calcium are identical to the claimed ranges, thus anticipating the ranges.
The claims are not identical as the amounts of claim 19 of 18/128,259 lie within the ranges instead of being identical to the ranges of instant claim 1. However, as the amounts anticipate the claimed ranges, claims 1 and 5-8 are rendered unpatentable by claim 19 of 18/128,259
Instant claims 2-4 recite about 20-55 wt% paraffins, about 25-50 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and about 5-10 wt% aromatics, respectively.
Claim 10 of Application 18/128,259 recites a liquid stream comprising 20-50 wt% paraffins, 20 to 40 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and 5 to 20 wt% aromatics.
The ranges of claim 10 Application 18/128,259 overlap the ranges of instant claims 2-4, rendering the claims unpatentable.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,462. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Patent render obvious the instant claims.
Instant claim 1 recites a liquid stream derived from AHP comprising about 5-60 wt% paraffins, 30-55 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and 2 to 15 wt% aromatics. Instant claims 2-4 recite about 20-55 wt% paraffins, about 25-50 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and about 5-10 wt% aromatics, respectively.
Claims 13 and 16 of the Patent recite in combination a process for conversion of AHP where the product is a liquid stream comprising 50-55 wt% paraffins, 40-45 wt% olefins and naphthenes, and about 5 wt% aromatics.
The claims are not identical as the ranges of the Patent are within the ranges of instant claim 1, however they thus anticipate the ranges of instant claim 1, and the claims are unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bitting et al. (US 2020/0369966, cited on IDS of 09/19/2024) teaches conversion of a waste stream textiles (claim 3) to a r-pyoil composition (claim 1), where the textiles include diapers and hygiene products (paragraph [0201]) and the pyrolysis oil includes 1 to 50 wt% olefins and aromatics (paragraph [0243]), 1 to 50 wt% naphthenes (paragraph [0245]), and 25 to 90 wt% paraffins (paragraph [0246]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772