Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/630,866

PROCESSES FOR PRODUCING SYNGAS STARTING FROM PRETREATED RECOVERY PLASTIC POLYMERS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 27, 2022
Examiner
SHERMAN, ERIC SCOTT
Art Unit
1736
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale Per La Scienza E Tecnologia Dei Materiali (Instm)
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
57 granted / 79 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
113
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 79 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 17-30 are pending and under consideration. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/26 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that claim 17 uses the term “consisting of” the recited steps, and that the hydrogenation step is explicitly recited as using hydrogen produced in the gasification step. In contrast, US 20080021121 (“Norbeck”) uses additional hydrogen produced in the steam reforming step, which is added to the feed during gasification. Upon review, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Accordingly, the pending rejections have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 was amended in the response of 7/11/25 to recite that the process of producing syngas “consists of” the recited steps. Examiner notes Applicant did not provide any specific location for support of this limitation at the time of the amendment. Applicant argues, and Examiner agrees, that this limitation means that no reactions beyond those explicitly recited can be included in the method. However, the original disclosure does not support this limitation. Page 6, lines 18-28 of the original specification describe that, during the hydrogenation step, other hydrocarbons besides methane are formed. This is confirmed in Table 2 on page 7, which shows each and every example of the gasification include some C2-C4 hydrocarbon formation. However, Table 3 on page 17 clearly shows that, when using the recited method, no C2-C4 hydrocarbons remain in the product gases. In order to end up with no C2-C4 hydrocarbons as described in the initial disclosure, the formed C2-C4 hydrocarbons must be either reacted or removed. Claim 17 does not recite a step to react or remove these C2-C4 hydrocarbons. Because claim 17 recites a method consisting of the recited steps, no additional steps, such as reacting or removing the C2-C4 hydrocarbons can be included. Accordingly, the method as recited in claim 17 cannot be the same method as described in the original specification. The remaining claims each depend from claim 17 and are not supported by the original disclosure for the same reasons. Allowable Subject Matter As described above, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). However, should these rejections be overcome, the claims would be allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 17 is US 20080021121 (“Norbeck”). Norbeck teaches hydrogasification of a carbon containing feedstock that can be waste plastic (see e.g. paragraphs [0007] and [0071]). The methane produced by the hydrogasification is then subjected to steam reforming to produce syngas (see e.g. paragraph [0016]). However, Norbeck teaches that at least a portion of the hydrogen used in the hydrogenation step is added to the mixture prior to gasification, and as such, this hydrogen is not the hydrogen produced during gasification (see e.g. paragraphs [0018]-[0019]). Because claim 17 recites that the process consists of the recited steps rather than comprises the recited steps, this additional reaction of Norbeck means that the process of Norbeck is fundamentally different than the claimed invention. Norbeck does not teach or suggest a method that only utilizes hydrogen produced by gasification of the feedstock as the hydrogen source for hydrogenation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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. /E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jul 11, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Feb 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603188
METHOD FOR DEHALOGENATION AND VITRIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE METAL HALIDE WASTES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590010
TITANIUM OXIDE POWDER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590257
TREATMENT OF HEAVY PYROLYSIS PRODUCTS BY PARTIAL OXIDATION GASIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576392
A MOLDING COMPRISING A MIXED OXIDE COMPRISING OXYGEN, LANTHANUM, ALUMINUM, AND COBALT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564830
POROUS METAL ORGANIC FRAMEWORK-POLYMER COMPOSITES FOR USE IN DETOXIFYING CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+8.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 79 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month