DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 21 July 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 71-82, 84, 85, and 87-91 are pending. Claims 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, and 87-90 are withdrawn as being directed to unelected invention. Consequently, only claims 71, 74, 77, 80, and 91 are pending for examination.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The rejection follows.
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 71, 74, 77, 80, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tallman (US 7,128,827) in view of Angyal (A. Angyal et al., Production of Steam Cracking Feedstocks by Mild Cracking of Plastic Wastes, 91 Fuel Process. Technol. 1717-1724 (2010)).
With respect to claims 71, 80, and 91, Tallman discloses a method of making an ethylene/propylene stream by steam cracking a composition which may comprise light alkanes such as ethane, propane, and/or butane (e.g., 100 wt% propane) (see Tallman, column 3, lines 49-56; and column 4, lines 1-5); and recovering a cracked effluent comprising ethylene/propylene (see Tallman, column 3, lines 52-54).
Tallman does not explicitly disclose wherein the steam cracking feed additionally comprises a recycle content pyrolysis oil composition.
However, Tallman notes that the feed may additionally comprise other hydrocarbons such as naphthas, condensates, gas oils, mixtures thereof, and the like (see Tallman, column 4, lines 1-5), with the exact percentage of such hydrocarbons not being critical (see Tallman, entire disclosure). In this regard, Angyal discloses the use of plastic pyrolysis oil (recycle content pyrolysis oil) as steam cracking feed to ultimately produce ethylene/propylene products (see Angyal, Abstract). Angyal notes that the steam cracking of such feed provides a means by which to both decrease the accumulation of plastic wastes and lessen the energy dependence on crude oil sources (see Angyal, page 1717, left column; and page 1717, right column, first paragraph). The recycle content pyrolysis oil of Angyal exhibits a cumulative C8+ content of greater than 35 wt% (see Angyal, Fig. 5) and may comprise no more than about 30 wt% aromatics depending upon the source plastic for production of the recycle content pyrolysis oil (see Angyal, Table 2). The recycle content pyrolysis oil of Angyal is not hydrotreated prior to cracking (see Angyal, entire disclosure).
It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions (propane, recycle content pyrolysis oil) each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (as feed for steam cracking), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. Id. Moreover, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Tallman to provide a recycle content pyrolysis oil co-feed constituent to the steam cracking step of Tallman, such modification providing the explicit benefits noted by Angyal, namely: (1) the beneficial use of plastic waste material, and (2) the corresponding decreased dependency on fossil fuel feeds.
Finally, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the process of Tallman as described above because Tallman already provides for the incorporation of various supplemental feed materials and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claims 74 and 77, Tallman is not limited with respect to the exact source of the steam cracking feed(s). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that such feed could be obtained from any on-site or third-party source, and the source per se or the precise geographic location of production of such feed would not result in any new or unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Neither Tallman nor Angyal, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests wherein the r-pyoil has not been hydrotreated prior to cracking.
Tallman nor Angyal discloses or suggests a recycle content pyrolysis oil composition at all, much less such a composition having not more than 8 wt% aromatics and not having been hydrotreated prior to cracking.
The Office Action cannot explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would specifically select a r-pyoil having not more than 8 wt% aromatics and that has not been hydrotreated prior to cracking.
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, and third arguments, Applicant defines a recycle content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil) as one derived from the pyrolysis of recycled waste material, including waste plastic material (see Applicant’s corresponding PG-PUB (US 2022/0220389 A1), paragraphs [0007] and [0053]). In this regard, Angyal likewise discloses pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic waste material (see Angyal, Abstract). Thus, Angyal undoubtedly discloses a recycle content pyrolysis oil composition (r-pyoil) as defined by Applicant’s own specification. Moreover, Angyal clearly discloses wherein fractions of such r-pyoil may comprise not more than 8 wt% total aromatics (see Angyal, Table 2; specifically PE and PEPP samples).
Conclusion
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.
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
