DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 6 March 2026 containing remarks.
Claims 1 and 61-84 are pending. Claims 66-79 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Consequently, only claims 1, 61-65, and 80-84 are pending for examination.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks and Examiner’s reconsideration of the record.
New grounds for rejection is entered under 35 U.S.C. 103. The rejection follows.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, “steam cracker” in the limitation “steam cracker feedstock” is not given any patentable weight as it merely describes a statement of intended use without limiting any of the components of the claimed composition per se.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 61-65, and 80-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassargy (C. Kassargy et al., 127 J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 31-37 (2017)), Kumar (S. Kumar and R. K. Singh, J. Petroleum Eng. (2013)), Ding (W. Ding et al., 51 Fuel Process. Technol. 47-62 (1997)), and Gala (A. Gala et al., 34 Energy Fuels 5969-5982 (2020)).
With respect to claims 1, 61-65, and 80-84, the limitations as specified in the claims recite well known characteristics exhibited by any plastics-derived pyrolysis oil as clearly evidenced by the cited references. Specifically, Kassargy explains that such oil is known to provide products having carbon numbers ranging from C8 to C39 with a maximum fraction falling in the C18 to C21 range (see Kassargy, page 34, right column). In addition, it is known that the 90% boiling point is 350C (see Kassargy, Table 4). Similarly, Kumar notes that the T0 of such oils derived from HDPE is 72C, while the T100 of such oil is 364C (see Kumar, Table 6), thus indicating that the T50 would be expected to fall somewhere between 72C and 364C. Ding confirms the carbon range of products obtained similar to that of Kassargy (see Ding, page 51, second paragraph). In addition, Ding notes the weight percent yield of various carbon range fractions meeting the limitations of claims 80-84 and notes that the exact percentages are dependent on the exact nature of the plastics being pyrolyzed (see Ding, Fig. 5 and Fig. 7). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the exact range of Cx-Cy in the product by simply varying the plastic types or mixtures thereof being pyrolyzed. Finally, Gala confirms the 95% boiling point of plastics derived pyrolysis oil being in excess of 350C (see Gala, Table 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights