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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed 1/30/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-8 and 11 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.
Claim 1 recites oxidizing r-paraxylene “in an oxidation zone of a terephthalic acid (TPA) production facility to provide a recycled content crude terephthalic acid (r-CTA) slurry”. It is unclear if the paraxylene and terephthalic acid are subject to the same oxidation zone to produce a single product comprising a recycled content crude terephthalic acid (r-CTA) slurry or if the paraxylene is simply oxidized in a oxidation zone within a CTA production process.
Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the EG". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the steam cracking facility ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note claim 11 depends on claim 9. Steam cracking facility is introduced in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 9, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck (US 2021/0348063) in view of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009).
With respect to claim 1, Linck (US 2021/0348063) discloses a process for converting plastics to aromatic hydrocarbons including xylene isomers by hydrodeoxygenation. Abstract; par. [0007]. Thus, the aromatic hydrocarbons produced are interpreted as r-aromatics or r-paraxylene (see par. [0008]) within the limitations of the present claims. In one example, PET is subject to hydrodeoxygenation to produce paraxylene and ethane. Par. [0008]; [0013]. The r-paraxylene may be subject to oxidation to produce TPA using a known process. Par. [0013]; [0075]; [0082].
With respect to the specific details of production of TPA and PET from the r-paraxylene, Link teaches using known oxidation process. In analogous art of paraxylene oxidation to terephthalic acid, Izumisawa discloses oxidizing paraxylene with molecular oxygen in an acetic acid solvent in the presence of a catalyst to produce a terephthalic acid slurry. Col. 2, lines 7+. The slurry is washed, separated, and mixed with water. Col. 2, lines 7+. The water slurry may be subject to hydrogenation for additional purification. Col. 2, lines 7+; col. 5, lines 9+. The purified terephthalic acid slurry is subject to crystallization. Col. 5, lines 29+.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as the oxidation process for producing TPA in Linck the process of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009) for oxidizing, purifying, and crystalizing because both are directed to paraxylene and oxidation to TPA, Linck teaches producing recycled paraxylene and utilizing the r-paraxylene in an oxidation process for producing TPA and Izumisawa teaches said process. The combination of the two processes in sequence provides the benefit of conversion of the r-paraxylene product of Linck to a valuable product of TPA as desired in Linck, and combines the known steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Izumisawa discloses oxidizing paraxylene in the presence of acetic acid. Izumisawa at col. 2, line 7+.
With respect to claim 3, Izumisawa teaches “[f]rom the acetic acid slurry of terephthalic acid thus obtained as a reaction mixture, terephthalic acid is crystalized for separation” and removed from the acetic acid solvent. Col. 2, lines 50+. The terephthalic acid may be washed, col. 3, lines 10+, may be washed with water, col. 4, lines 21+, and/or may be mixed with water and subject to hydrogenation to produce purified terephthalic acid, col. 4, lines 57+.
With respect to claim 4, Izumisawa teaches wherein the oxidation reaction with acetic acid may be stepwisely completed, col. 2, lines 45+, which is expected to include contacting the first terephthalic acid produced with a second amount of acetic acid in at least a second oxidation reaction.
With respect to claim 5, Izumisawa teaches wherein the second solvent comprises predominantly water and wherein the treating of step (b) includes hydrogenation of the second r-CTA slurry. Col. 5, lines 8+.
With respect to claim 6, the art teaches both utilizing non-recycled paraxylene (Izumisawa) and recycled paraxylene (Linck) for producing the CTA. It would have been obvious to and within the skill of one in the art prior to filing to combine recycled paraxylene with non-recycled paraxylene for the benefit of increased production in a common processing unit. Linck teaches wherein the paraxylene produced can be utilized in applications that require a high degree of purity. Par. [0082].
With respect to claim 7, Linck teaches producing the r-paraxylene by subjecting a waste plastic to heating and hydrodeoxygenation to produce an aromatics stream and recovering paraxylene from the aromatics.
With respect to claim 8, Linck teaches wherein the PTA produced is used in a PET production facility that utilizes terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. Par. [0082]. Linck teaches PET may break down to produce ethylene glycol, par. [0075], or ethane which may be used for production of ethylene glycol. Par. [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize ethylene glycol derived from plastics in the production of the PET for truly circular process as discussed in Linck.
With respect to claim 9, Linck (US 2021/0348063) discloses (a) a process for converting waste plastics to aromatic hydrocarbons including xylene isomers by hydrodeoxygenation. Abstract; par. [0007]. Thus, the aromatic hydrocarbons produced are interpreted as r-aromatics or r-paraxylene (see par. [0008]) within the limitations of the present claims. (c) The r-paraxylene may be subject to oxidation to produce TPA using a known process. Par. [0013]; [0075]; [0082].
With respect to the specific details of the TPA production process, Izumisawa discloses (c) oxidizing paraxylene with molecular oxygen in an acetic acid solvent in the presence of a catalyst to produce a terephthalic acid slurry. Col. 2, lines 7+. (d) The slurry is washed, separated, and mixed with water, and subject to hydrogenation for additional purification. Col. 2, lines 7+; col. 5, lines 9+.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as the oxidation process for producing TPA in Linck the process of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009) for oxidizing, purifying, and crystalizing because both are directed to paraxylene and oxidation to TPA, Linck teaches producing recycled paraxylene and utilizing the r-paraxylene in an oxidation process for producing TPA and Izumisawa teaches said process. The combination of the two processes in sequence provides the benefit of conversion of the r-paraxylene product of Linck to a valuable product of TPA as desired in Linck, and combines the known steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Linck discloses producing a stream comprising aromatics including benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene and separating paraxylene from the produced aromatic product using e.g. distillation, extraction or other known processes, but is silent regarding separating in an aromatics complex. An aromatics complex is a system for processing aromatic streams. In the process claimed, it is not seen how separating in an aromatic complex would produce different results than separating the paraxylene outside the aromatics complex. Additionally, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Linck by separating the paraxylene and other components of the aromatics product using an aromatic complex because, the claims are directed to a process and any system or apparatus capable of performing the separating paraxylene from the aromatics stream is expected to perform the desired separation, both are directed to separation of aromatics streams comprising at least benzene and paraxylene, and the combination would do no more than combined known steps in a known way to produce expected results of isolation of the paraxylene compound from other components of the aromatics process for further use.
With respect to claim 13, Linck discloses wherein the upgrading may include pyrolysis, e.g. thermally cracking, with hydrodeoxygenation. Par. [0041].
With respect to claim 16, Linck discloses producing high purity paraxylene. Izumisawa discloses wherein the PTA includes terephthalic acid in a range overlapping that claimed. See Tables 1 and 4.
With respect to claim 17, Linck states the processes “contribute to favorable economics as needed for commercial scale operations.” Par. [0052].
Claim(s) 10-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck (US 2021/0348063) in view of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Ramamurthy (US 2019/0367428).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 9-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2019/0367428) in view of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Linck teaches wherein the conversion facility may include a partial degrading facility such as hydrolysis, pyrolysis, hydrogenation or gasification, followed by HDO to produce the hydrocarbon product stream (0041). From the product stream may be isolated streams such as an aromatic stream, aromatic and aliphatic components together such as gasoline or diesel, and gaseous fractions with ethane boiling components. Par. [0029]. These streams are interpreted as the recycled hydrocarbon streams of the claims, including a pyoil, pygas, or light gas (ethane) or naphtha (pyrolysis gasoline).
Linck is silent regarding further conversion of the recycled hydrocarbon stream in a steam cracking facility and wherein the aromatics stream comprises pyrosis gasoline produced by steam cracking.
Ramamurthy (US 20190367428), directed to the conversion of waste plastic, discloses a process comprising pyrolysis of waste plastic, hydroprocessing the pyrolysis liquid stream, and sending portion of the liquid pyrolysis oil to steam cracking. Par. [0097]-[0103]. Depending on the pyrolysis liquid composition, aromatics separation may occur before the steam cracking, sending the non-aromatics portion, or after steam cracking, to recover high value chemicals like benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzene. Par. [0103]. The steam cracking can be performed on a light gas portion in a gas cracker, on the naphtha range portion in a liquid/naphtha cracker. The specific gas steam cracker or naphtha steam cracker and conditions will be selected based on the desired product. Par. [0097]-[0103]. “The unconverted saturates can be recycled back to the cracker for further cracking and formation of light gas olefins. The pygas obtained from the naphtha cracker would be rich in aromatics which would be sent to aromatic extraction for separations of benzene, toluene, xylene (BTX) and ethylbenzene (EB) (BTX+EB).” Par. [0106].
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Linck in view of Izumisawa by applying steam cracking of the conversion gas and naphtha byproducts as taught in Ramamurthy because both are directed to the production of aromatics from waste plastics, Linck teaches production of aromatics along with gasoline range streams containing non-aromatics and light gas streams and Ramamurthy teaches that these light gas and naphtha ranges streams may be separated from the aromatics of waste plastic conversion oil and sent to steam cracking for further conversion to valuable olefin and aromatic chemicals. The integration of the steam cracking unit with the process of Linck and Izumisawa would integrate known process steps in a known manner to produce expected results.
In an alternative rejection of claims 9-11, Ramamurthy teaches the limitations as disclosed, including pyrolysis of waste plastic, to produce aromatics, naphtha and gas (r-hydrocarbons), and sending the light gas directly to steam cracking or sending the liquid to hydroprocessing, followed by aromatics separation and then sending the naphtha or pygas or other product streams to steam cracking for further conversion to aromatics. The products are separated to recover cumene as well as paraxylene and other isolated aromatics as desired. Ramamurthy is silent regarding the downstream use of the paraxylene.
Izumisawa discloses a process for producing terephthalic acid including oxidizing paraxylene with molecular oxygen in an acetic acid solvent in the presence of a catalyst to produce a terephthalic acid slurry. Col. 2, lines 7+. The slurry is washed, separated, and mixed with water, and subject to hydrogenation for additional purification. Col. 2, lines 7+; col. 5, lines 9+. A purified terephthalic acid is produced. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ramamurthy by sending the paraxylene product produced to a process for conversion of paraxylene to terephthalic acid of Izumisawa for the benefit of production of terephthalic acid, combining two processes in series to covert an initial plastic waste to valuable intermediates including paraxylene and further conversion of the paraxylene to the chemical product terephthalic acid.
With respect to claim 14, Linck discloses producing “at least include portions of (i) one or more aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, xylenes, and/or ethylbenzene, and/or (ii) one or more aliphatic hydrocarbons such as C1-C10 straight chain or branched chain hydrocarbons, and more typically one or more C2-C5 straight chain or branched chain hydrocarbons.” Par. [0025]. Thus, both aromatics and raffinate. Ramamurthy teaches sending the pyrolyzed, hydroprocessed and/or steam cracked effluent to a unit for separation and treatment of aromatics. Figure 2A-B. This corresponds to the aromatics complex of the claims. Here the pyrolysis oil stream (r-hydrocarbons) is separated into a BTX-EB (r-aromatics) and saturates. Par. [0057]; [0059]. The saturates (i.e. r-raffinate) may be passed to a reforming unit or steam cracking unit to produce additional aromatic hydrocarbons. Par. [0060]; [0106].
With respect to claim 15, Linck teaches wherein the chemicals produced are high purity but is silent regarding explicit concentration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to isolate the fractions to the desired purity required for downstream use, including at least 85% as claimed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck (US 2021/0348063) in view of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Sorensen (US 2016/0304788).
With respect to claim 12, Linck is silent regarding wherein the conversion facility comprises a methanol-to-aromatics facility configured such that (i) waste plastic is converted to syngas through reforming or reforming a stream derived from waste plastic, (ii) syngas is converted to methanol, and (iii) the methanol is converted to aromatics in a methanol-to-aromatics facility.
In analogous art, Sorensen (US 2016/0304788) is directed to a process for producing aromatics, including paraxylene, from pyrolysis of hydrocarbon materials, including waste plastic. Par. [0026]; [0032]-[0033]. The hydrocarbon material fed to the pyrolysis reactor comprises a biomass material or plastic wastes, recycled plastics, among others. Par. [0032]. P-xylene may be produced in the reactor. Par. [0128]. “A p-xylene-rich fraction separated from the primary product mixture or a subsequent product mixture, or some combination of these can be integrated with a process for producing terephthalic acid (TPA) wherein the p-xylene rich fraction is oxidized to produce terephthalic acid.” Par. [0129]. The TPA may then be subject to a second purification step, such as hydrogenation in the presence of water. Par. [0131]. Purified TPA crystals may be recovered. Par. [0131]. With respect to the separated BTX, at least a portion of the benzene is subject to alkylation using the olefins produced in pyrolysis and at least a portion of the toluene is subject to methylation using methanol derived from the system. Par. [0011]. One byproduct of pyrolysis is syngas. Par. [0011]; [0019].The syngas may be converted to methanol. Id. The methanol is then used in methylating toluene to paraxylene. Par. [0011]. The paraxylene produced using methylation is then used along with the paraxylene from the aromatics stream in producing TPA. Par. [0025].
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any syngas produced in Linck (e.g. in the partial gasification or pyrolysis initial conversion step) to produce methanol and further conversion of toluene to paraxylene using the methanol as taught in Sorensen because both are directed to conversion of waste plastic to paraxylene and then to TPA, Sorensen teaches the added steps have the benefit of increasing paraxylene production using recycled waste byproducts, and the combination would do no more than combined known steps in a known way to produce expected results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linck (US 2021/0348063).
With respect to claim 18, Linck discloses a process for effective recycling of waste polymer into the same or different polymer. Par. [0075]. “[H]ydrodeoxygenation of PET can be used to recover para-xylene, which may, in turn, be conveniently processed to upgraded PET according to known methods involving oxidation of para-xylene to its dicarboxylic acid derivative, namely terephthalic acid (TPA), optionally followed by esterification or possibly transesterification of an esterified intermediate, and then copolymerization with ethylene glycol.” Par. [0075].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck (US 2021/0348063).
With respect to claim 19, Linck wherein the product may include an aromatics stream from which paraxylene is obtained. The waste plastic may comprise or consist of PET. The aromatics are produced using hydrodeoxygenation and optionally pyrolysis (i.e. thermal cracking). Par. [0041]. Thus, it would have been obvious to partially convert the PET in the pyrolysis reactor upstream of the deoxygenation reactor. Linck discloses producing a stream comprising aromatics including benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene and separating paraxylene from the produced aromatic product using e.g. distillation, extraction or other known processes, but is silent regarding separating in an aromatics complex. An aromatics complex is a system for processing aromatic streams. In the process claimed, it is not seen how separating in an aromatic complex would produce different results than separating the paraxylene outside the aromatics complex. Additionally, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Linck by separating the paraxylene and other components of the aromatics product using an aromatic complex because, the claims are directed to a process and any system or apparatus capable of performing the separating paraxylene from the aromatics stream is expected to perform the desired separation, both are directed to separation of aromatics streams comprising at least benzene and paraxylene, and the combination would do no more than combined known steps in a known way to produce expected results of isolation of the paraxylene compound from other components of the aromatics process for further use.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linck (US 2021/0348063) in view of Izumisawa (US 5,557,009).
With respect to claim 20, Linck discloses producing CTA from paraxylene oxidation, but is silent regarding the details including using acetic acid solvent and producing a CTA slurry.
Izumisawa is directed to production of CTA through paraxylene oxidation and discloses (c) oxidizing paraxylene with molecular oxygen in an acetic acid solvent in the presence of a catalyst to produce a terephthalic acid slurry. Col. 2, lines 7+. (d) The slurry is washed, separated, and mixed with water, and subject to hydrogenation for additional purification. Col. 2, lines 7+; col. 5, lines 9+. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as the oxidation process for producing TPA in Linck the process of Izumisawa because Linck teaches producing recycled paraxylene and utilizing the r-paraxylene in an oxidation process for producing TPA and Izumisawa teaches said process. The combination of the two processes in sequence provides the benefit of conversion of the r-paraxylene product of Linck to a valuable product of TPA as desired in Linck, and combines the known steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/100,206 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely fails to disclose crystalizing the purified TPA, however, such is common process and a step well known in the art of TPA production. The remaining claims merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/100,011 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely fails to disclose crystalizing the purified TPA, however, such is common process and a step well known in the art of TPA production. The remaining claims merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/099,077 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely fails to disclose crystalizing the purified TPA; however, such is common process and a step well known in the art of TPA production. The art fails to disclose producing PET from the TPA; however, TPA is most commonly used in production of plastics such as PET. The remaining claims merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/100,211 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely fails to disclose crystalizing the purified TPA, however, such is common process and a step well known in the art of TPA production. The remaining claims merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/100,211 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely fails to disclose crystalizing the purified TPA, however, such is common process and a step well known in the art of TPA production. The remaining claims merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 19/100,204 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely fails to disclose crystalizing the purified TPA, however, such is common process and a step well known in the art of TPA production. The remaining claims merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights