DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on July 27, 2026.
Status of Claims
No claim has been amended. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 21-24 and 27-31 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 21-24 and 27-31 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 as amended and its dependent claims, are not anticipated or prima facie obvious over cited prior arts, Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1) and/or Usman et al. (ASPEN plus simulation of liquid–liquid equilibria data for the extraction of aromatics from waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline using organic and deep eutectic solvents: a comparative study, Applied Petrochemical Research (2021) 11:113–122).
(a) Applicants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine Usman's teaching with Zhang to arrive at claim 1 because Usman and claim 1 operate under opposite principles. According to the characterization in the Office Action, Usman uses diethylene glycol to extract and recover the desired aromatic products-benzene, toluene, and xylenes-from the feedstock. In stark contrast, claim 1 uses the extraction solvent to remove unwanted foulant into the extract phase and recovers the refined synthetic feedstock as the raffinate phase. Thus, Usman teaches using diethylene glycol to capture what is wanted, whereas claim 1 uses the extraction solvent to capture what is unwanted. A skilled artisan seeking to remove foulants from plastic pyrolysis oil would have had no reason to look to Usman's aromatics-recovery process for guidance, and the Office Action has articulated no rational underpinning bridging this fundamental difference in purpose. See Remarks filed 07/27/2026, pages 3-4.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that the Applicants' argument (a), set forth above, is not commensurate with the limitation recited in claim 1 of claimed invention. This is because the Applicants' argument directs “using diethylene glycol to capture what is wanted in Usman, whereas claim 1 uses the extraction solvent to capture what is unwanted”, however, claim 1 (and the examiner's arguments in regard to claim 1 presented in the Office action dated 04/28/2026) recites “adding an extraction solvent to the synthetic feedstock composition derived from plastic pyrolysis to provide an extract phase and a raffinate phase” that does not specify whether the extraction is conducted for extracting wanted or unwanted substacnes, and furthermore the detailed composition/properties of the extract and/or raffinate phases are not specified.
As discussions presentred in the Office action dated 04/28/2026 (see pages 5-6), Zhang discloses a process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase. These immiscible phases are separated to yield an upgraded pyrolysis oil product (the abstract, paragraphs 0058, 0075, 0079, 0096). Zhang discloses the polar organic upgrading solvent (i.e., an extraction solvent) comprises acetone (paragraph 00140), and/or diethylenetriamine (paragraph 00146).
Zhang does not disclose the extraction solvent such as diethylene glycol.
Usman discloses a method of extracting useful chemicals such as benzene, toluene and xylenes (BTX) from waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline (WTPG) (plastic pyrolysis oil) using organic solvents such as diethylene glycol (DEG) (page 113, Abstract; page 120, Conclusion).
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (MPEP 2141.01(a) I.). Therefore, it is still examiner’s position that the Usman reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem of using extraction solvent such as diethylene glycol in the process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase as recited in the claimed invention with motivations that diethylene glycol (DEG) an effective extraction solvent for plastic derived synthetic feedstock purification process as taught by Usman (page 113, Abstract; page 120, Conclusion).
In addition, per MPEP, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”). See MPEP 2144 IV. Consequently, in light of teachings from Zhang and Usman, one skilled in the art would reasonably design/operate the process taught by Zhang by using extraction solvent such as diethylene glycol in the process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase as taught by Usman based on the motivation(s) taught by taught by Usman (page 113, Abstract; page 120, Conclusion).
In response to applicants’ arguments regarding claim 28, especially regarding the recitation “wherein the extract phase comprises a foulant, wherein the foulant comprises a polyamide, and wherein the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group”, it is noted that Zhang does not disclose the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, and the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group.
However, Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil is derived from a thermoplastic polymers comprising polyamides and polyamideimide (paragraph [0051]).
Since the pyrolysis oil is derived from polymers comprising polyamides and polyamideimide, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the extract phase and/or raffinate phase comprises a certain amount of polyamide, thereby renders the recitation “the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide” recited in claim 28.
In addition, it is known in the art that polyamide comprises hydroxyl function group depending on the monomer material that comprises carboxylic acid functional group (-COOH) as evidenced by Tanaka et al. (Synthesis of Polyamides by Direct Polycondensation with Picryl Chloride. II. Reaction Conditions and Mechanism, Polymer Journal, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp 635-642 (1982), see page 636, Table 1), or Ogata et al. (The Reaction Mechanism of Polyamide Synthesis by Phosphorylation, Polymer Journal, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp 461-472 (1974)).
The recitation “the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, and the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group” is considered prima facie obvious over Zhang, and as evidenced by Tanaka et al. and/or Ogata et al.
(b) Applicants argue that the Office Action has improperly equated Usman's feedstock with the feedstock of claim 1. The Office Action parenthetically characterizes Usman's "waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline (WTPG)" as "plastic pyrolysis oil." Office Action, page 5. However, waste tyre feedstock is rubber-derived, not plastic-derived. Claim 1 is expressly directed to
"a method of refining a plastic-derived synthetic feedstock composition" wherein the synthetic feedstock composition is "derived from plastic pyrolysis." This mischaracterization undercuts both the analogous-art premise and any reasonable expectation of success in applying Usman's teaching to the claimed method. See Remarks filed 07/27/2026, page 4.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that plastic pyrolysis oil substantially comprises paraffins, olefins, naphthenes and aromatics as evidenced by Toraman et al. (Detailed compositional characterization of plastic waste pyrolysis oil by comprehensive two-dimensional gas-chromatography coupled to multiple detectors, Journal of Chromatography A, 1359 (2014) 237–246, see page 245, Table 7) and waste tire pyrolysis oil substantially comprises paraffins, olefins, naphthenes and aromatics as evidenced by Zhang et al. (Properties and utilization of waste tire pyrolysis oil: A mini review, Fuel Processing Technology 211 (2021) 106582).
Since both the plastic pyrolysis oil and waste tire pyrolysis oil substantially comprise paraffins, olefins, naphthenes and aromatics, as evidenced by Toraman et al. and Zhang et al., the combination of Zhang and Usman references is valid since the Zhang and Usman references are analogous arts.
(c) Applicants argue that even assuming arguendo that a skilled artisan would have considered combining Zhang and Usman, there would have been no reasonable expectation of success. Zhang itself endorses ethylene glycol among its preferred polar organic solvents. See Zhang, page 19 ("the polar organic solvent is selected from methanol, ethanol, ethylene glycol, propylene carbonate, sulfolane ... "). Yet the specification reports that "[e]thylene glycol and water were found to be ineffective as extraction solvents for the foulants." As Filed Specification, paragraph [0052]. Because ethylene glycol is the close structural analog of the claimed diethylene glycol-differing only by one additional ethylene oxide unit-this demonstrates that the art is unpredictable. A skilled artisan following Zhang's guidance would have had no basis to expect that diethylene glycol would succeed for foulant removal when the closely related ethylene glycol expressly failed.
Applicants further argue that ethylene glycol is a solvent that Zhang expressly identifies among its polar organic alcohols. See Zhang, paragraph [00125]. In contrast, the claimed diethylene glycol is effective. As described in Example 2 of the specification, treatment with diethylene glycol following ASTM D4625 procedural guidelines demonstrated that "foulant film formation did not occur in the samples that had been extracted, but film formation was readily apparent in the untreated, unextracted samples. 11 As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0077]-[0079]. This unexpected effectiveness of the specifically claimed solvents, in contrast to a Zhang-preferred solvent that is ineffective, establishes the criticality and rebuts any prima facie case of obviousness. See Remarks filed 07/27/2026, pages 4-5.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is first noted that Applicants have presented numerous arguments against the references individually. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have not provided any evidence that (i) the references are non-analogous, (ii) that the combined references fail to disclose all claim limitations, or (iii) that the results are new or unexpected compared with the results disclosed by the combined references. Therefore, the arguments against the individual references are not considered persuasive.
As set forth above, it is still the examiner’s assessment that in light of teachings from Zhang and Usman, one skilled in the art would reasonably design/operate the process taught by Zhang by using extraction solvent such as diethylene glycol in the process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase as taught by Usman based on the motivation(s) taught by Usman (page 113, Abstract; page 120, Conclusion).
(d) Applicants argue that regarding claim 28, Zhang does not disclose or render obvious that the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, let alone a polyamide comprising a hydroxyl group as recited in claim 28. Zhang is directed to reducing the olefin, heteroatom, and/or solid-residue content of pyrolysis oil and never characterizes any extract-phase foulant. See Zhang, paragraphs [0061 ], [0062], [0081]. The Office Action's reasoning that a polyamide-derived feedstock necessarily yields a hydroxyl-functional polyamide in the separated extract phase is speculative and unsupported by Zhang. Zhang merely discloses that pyrolysis oil may be derived from thermoplastic polymers comprising polyamides. See Zhang, paragraph [0051]. This does not establish that the extract phase necessarily contains a polyamide foulant, much less one comprising a hydroxyl group. The specification, by contrast, specifically characterizes the foulant as “polyamides with additional carboxylic acid and hydroxyl functional groups.” As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0046]-[0047]. The Office Action has not provided evidence that Zhang's process would necessarily produce such a foulant in the extract phase. See Remarks filed 07/27/2026, pages 4-5.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, and the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group.
However, Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil is derived from a thermoplastic polymers comprising polyamides and polyamideimide (paragraph [0051]).
Since the pyrolysis oil is derived from polymers comprising polyamides and polyamideimide, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the extract phase and/or raffinate phase comprises a certain amount of polyamide, thereby renders the recitation “the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide” recited in claim 28 obvious.
In addition, it is known in the art that polyamide comprises hydroxyl function group depending on the monomer material that comprises carboxylic acid functional group (-COOH) as evidenced by Tanaka et al. (Synthesis of Polyamides by Direct Polycondensation with Picryl Chloride. II. Reaction Conditions and Mechanism, Polymer Journal, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp 635-642 (1982), see page 636, Table 1), or Ogata et al. (The Reaction Mechanism of Polyamide Synthesis by Phosphorylation, Polymer Journal, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp 461-472 (1974)).
The recitation “the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, and the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group” is considered prima facie obvious over Zhang, and as evidenced by Tanaka et al. and/or Ogata et al.
It is the examiner’s position that applicants’ arguments/evidence had not been fully developed enough to overcome the rejection. In view of the foregoing, when all of the applicants’ arguments/evidence are considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Therefore, the previous rejections to claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 21-24 and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 14 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”), in view of Usman et al. (ASPEN plus simulation of liquid–liquid equilibria data for the extraction of aromatics from waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline using organic and deep eutectic solvents: a comparative study, Applied Petrochemical Research (2021) 11:113–122, hereinafter “Usman”).
In regard to claims 1 and 23, Zhang discloses a process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase. These immiscible phases are separated to yield an upgraded pyrolysis oil product (the abstract, paragraphs 0058, 0075, 0079, 0096).
Zhang discloses the polar organic upgrading solvent (i.e., an extraction solvent) comprises acetone (paragraph 00140), and/or diethylenetriamine (paragraph 00146).
But Zhang does not disclose the extraction solvent comprise diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, diethylene glycol, or any combination thereof.
However, Usman discloses a method of extracting useful chemicals such as benzene, toluene and xylenes (BTX) from waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline (WTPG) (plastic pyrolysis oil) using organic solvents such as diethylene glycol (DEG) (page 113, Abstract; page 120, Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process to provide the extraction solvent comprise diethylene glycol as taught by Usman to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process.
In regard to claim 2, Zhang discloses the synthetic feedstock composition comprises a pyrolysis oil (paragraph 0057).
In regard to claims 3 and 14, Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil is a derived from the pyrolysis of plastic or rubber, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0057).
Zhang does not disclose the synthetic feedstock comprising components as recited in claim 3 or the process of obtaining the synthetic feedstock as recited in claim 14. However, it is known that the components in the produce plastic-derived pyrolysis oil depends on the conditions of the pyrolysis condition (0052 of the specification of the application), and Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil is a derived from the pyrolysis of plastic or rubber, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process by selecting appropriate conditions of the pyrolysis to produce a pyrolysis oil having components as recited in claims 3 and 14 to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process except the criticality can be shown by applicants.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the upgrading solvent comprising about 90% NMP and about 10% water (paragraph 0172).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the mass ratio of synthetic feedstock to extraction solvent is about 95:5 to about 10:90. (paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Zhang does not disclose specifically where or when the upgrading solvent is added to the pyrolysis oil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process to add the solvent to where and/or when the upgrading process is needed to arrive at the applicants’ process except the criticality can be shown by applicants.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the upgrading solvent is added in ppm as recited in the claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process by adding appropriate ppm of solvent to the pyrolysis oil to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process except the criticality can be shown by applicants.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil contains unwanted substances which are removed during upgrading step. One of them is olefins (paragraphs 0061, 0062, 0081, 0111).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1) in view of Chen (Translation of CN 106118706 A) and Usman et al. (ASPEN plus simulation of liquid–liquid equilibria data for the extraction of aromatics from waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline using organic and deep eutectic solvents: a comparative study, Applied Petrochemical Research (2021) 11:113–122, hereinafter “Usman”).
Zhang discloses a process a discussed above.
But Zhang does not discloses: (I) adding a pour point depressant to pyrolysis product; and (II) the extraction solvent comprise diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, diethylene glycol, or any combination thereof.
However, regarding (I), Chen discloses adding pour point depressant to the waste biomass oil. It is noted herein that the pour point depressant was added to organic phase containing long chain alkane rich in hydrocarbon, not to the biomass (see claim 1-step (6) in English translation document).
Regarding (II), Usman discloses a method of extracting useful chemicals such as benzene, toluene and xylenes (BTX) from waste tyre pyrolysis gasoline (WTPG) (plastic pyrolysis oil) using organic solvents such as diethylene glycol (DEG) (page 113, Abstract; page 120, Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process to add pour point depressant to pyrolysis oil to upgrade the pyrolysis oil as taught by Chen and to provide the extraction solvent comprise diethylene glycol as taught by Usman to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Der Reed et al (US 2018/0010050 A1).
Zhang discloses a process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase. These immiscible phases are separated to yield an upgraded pyrolysis oil product (the abstract, 0058, 0075, 0079, 0096).
Zhang does not disclose adding an antioxidant or pour point depressant to the pyrolysis oil. However, Van Der Ree discloses adding a radical inhibitor to product of pyrolysis of plastic (paragraphs 0078; 0119) to prevent formation of long chain paraffins as reflux via stream 17 (0116 to 0119; see the figure). Note that the hydrocarbons in the column 13, 14, 15, and 16 are pyrolysis oils. The stream “Oil Product” from the column is the pyrolysis oil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process to add antioxidants to the pyrolysis oil to prevent the formation of long chain paraffins as taught by Van Der Ree to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process.
Claim(s) 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1) in view of Chen et al. (Bioaugmentation for treatment of full-scale diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGBE) wastewater by Serratia sp. BDG-2, Journal of Hazardous Materials 309 (2016) 20–26, hereinafter “Chen_2016”) and ESATMAN (EASTMAN Products- EB solvent (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether).
Zhang discloses a process a discussed above.
But Zhang does not disclose the extraction solvent comprise diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, or ethylene glycol monobutyl ether.
However, Chen_2016 discloses diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGBE) is widely used as a solvent for industrial production of chemicals (page 20, 1. Introduction) and ESATMAN discloses ethylene glycol monobutyl ether is widely used as a solvent for industrial production of chemicals (pages 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process to provide the extraction solvent comprise diethylene glycol monobutyl ether as taught by Chen_2016, or ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as taught by ESATMAN to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
In regard to claims 28 and 29, Zhang discloses a process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase. These immiscible phases are separated to yield an upgraded pyrolysis oil product (the abstract, paragraphs 0058, 0075, 0079, 0096).
Zhang discloses the polar organic upgrading solvent (i.e., an extraction solvent) comprises acetone (paragraph 00140), and/or diethylenetriamine (paragraph 00146).
But Zhang does not disclose the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, and the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group.
However, Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil is derived from a thermoplastic polymers comprising polyamides and polyamideimide (paragraph [0051]).
Since the pyrolysis oil is derived from polymers comprising polyamides and polyamideimide, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the extract phase and/or raffinate phase comprises a certain amount of polyamide, thereby renders the recitation “the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide” recited in claim 28.
In addition, it is known in the art that polyamide comprises hydroxyl function group depending on the monomer material that comprises carboxylic acid functional group (-COOH) as evidenced by Tanaka et al. (Synthesis of Polyamides by Direct Polycondensation with Picryl Chloride. II. Reaction Conditions and Mechanism, Polymer Journal, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp 635-642 (1982), see page 636, Table 1), or Ogata et al. (The Reaction Mechanism of Polyamide Synthesis by Phosphorylation, Polymer Journal, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp 461-472 (1974)).
The recitation “the extract phase comprises a foulant comprising a polyamide, and the polyamide comprises a hydroxyl group” is considered prima facie obvious over Zhang, and as evidenced by Tanaka et al. and/or Ogata et al.
The composition of polyamide recited in claim 29 is also considered obvious by selecting appropriate polyamides with appropriate monomer and reaction mechanisms over Zhang, and as evidenced by Tanaka et al. and/or Ogata et al.
Regarding claim 30, Zhang discloses the pyrolysis oil contains unwanted substances which are removed during upgrading step. One of them is olefins (paragraphs 0061, 0062, 0081, 0111).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (WO 2020/178599 A1), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Van Der Reed et al (US 2018/0010050 A1).
Zhang discloses a process of upgrading a pyrolysis oil derived from the pyrolysis of plastic comprising adding a polar organic upgrading solvent immiscible in the pyrolysis oil to produce an extract phase and a raffinate phase. These immiscible phases are separated to yield an upgraded pyrolysis oil product (the abstract, 0058, 0075, 0079, 0096).
Zhang does not disclose adding an antioxidant or pour point depressant to the pyrolysis oil. However, Van Der Ree discloses adding a radical inhibitor to product of pyrolysis of plastic (paragraphs 0078; 0119) to prevent formation of long chain paraffins as reflux via stream 17 (0116 to 0119; see the figure). Note that the hydrocarbons in the column 13, 14, 15, and 16 are pyrolysis oils. The stream “Oil Product” from the column is the pyrolysis oil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Zhang process to add antioxidants to the pyrolysis oil to prevent the formation of long chain paraffins as taught by Van Der Ree to arrive at the applicants’ claimed process.
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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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 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.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights