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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 5, 45, 48, and 49 are amended. Claims 50-57 are new. Claims 1-4 and 6-44 are previously cancelled.
Claims 5 and 45-57 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 and 45-49 under USC 103 over Ward in view of Yuan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Ward does not explicitly teach the C8+ content of the pyrolysis oil for independent claims 5 and 48 or that the combined cracker feed of ethane and pyrolysis oil comprises predominantly ethane for independent claims 5, 45, and 48, where predominantly is defined in the instant specification as meaning more than 50% by weight (paragraph [0070] as filed). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new prior art in view of the amendments.
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 5 and 45-57 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.
With regard to claims 5 and 48, the claims each recite that the recycle content pyrolysis oil comprises “predominantly C8+ hydrocarbons”. Applicant has kindly cited a variety of locations for support for the new limitations, specifically paragraphs 48-52, 242-244, 254, 260-264, 271, 273, 274, 276, 309, 310, 322, 323, 497, and 498, as well as Tables 1 and 10, where the paragraphs are determined to refer to the Pre-Grant Publication (PGPub) version of the specification. After reviewing the cited paragraphs and Tables, as well as the remainder of the instant specification, the Examiner does not find support for the language of “predominantly” as applied to the C8+ content. Table 1 recites the C8+ percentage for Pyrolysis Oils 1-4, which are 74.86, 67.50, 67.50, and 66.69 % respectively (PGPub page 41, Table 1 continued). The specification defines predominantly in general as more than 50 wt% (paragraph [0068]). However, the term “predominantly” is not used in combination with the C8+ content of the pyrolysis oil. Thus, the instant specification as filed only has support for the 4 specific amounts of C8+ content in Table 1, and the use of the term “predominantly” to describe the C8+ content in the pyrolysis oil is new matter.
With regard to claims 5, 46, and 48, the claims each recite that “the output comprises at least 40 weight percent of ethylene based on a total weight of the output.” After reviewing the cited paragraphs and the remainder of the specification, the Examiner does not find support for the concept of the output comprising at least 40 wt% ethylene. Paragraph [0367] of the PGPub states that the olefin-containing effluent stream comprises at least 40 wt% “ethylene, propylene, or ethylene and propylene, based on a total weight of the olefin-containing effluent stream.” However, paragraph [0335] defines output as “the production of the target compounds in weight per unit time…”. Thus, the output is not equivalent to the olefin-containing effluent. There is no mention in the specification of the amount of ethylene within the output. Therefore, there is no support for the output containing at least 40 wt% ethylene, and the limitation is new matter.
With regard to claim 51, the claim recites “wherein, prior to cracking, the first stream is combined with the second stream at the second coil to form the cracker feed stream”. After reviewing the specification, the Examiner does not find support for the concept of combining the first and second stream at the second coil. Paragraphs [0272]-[0275] discuss various locations for introducing the pyoil stream and cracker feed stream into the furnace. Paragraph [0273] and Figure 7 depict an embodiment where the pyoil feed 550 is introduced into the cracker feed stream 552 as it passes through a furnace coil in convection section 510 and crossover section 530, forming stream 514a. Paragraph [0273] discusses a different embodiment where the pyoil is introduced into a first coil and the cracker feed is introduced into a second coil, and the streams travel in parallel throughout the whole process. However, there is no recitation of the combination of passing the ethane to a first coil and the pyrolysis oil to a second coil, where the pyrolysis is combined with the ethane at the second coil, as required by instant claim 51. Thus, this limitation is new matter.
With regard to claims 52 and 54, the claim recites “the first stream and the second stream are combined at an outlet of the cracker furnace.” After reviewing the specification, the Examiner does not find support for this limitation. Paragraph [0273] recites that the first and second streams can run in parallel from the inlet to the outlet of the furnace, and does not teach combining the streams. Thus, there is no support for combining the first stream and the second stream at the outlet of the cracker furnace, and the limitation is new matter.
With regard to claim 56, the claim recite “wherein the column feed stream further comprises a recycle content pyrolysis gas.” The Examiner does not find support for adding the recycle content pyrolysis gas to the C2 separation column. While the instant specification does recite that a recycle content pyrolysis gas stream is produced during pyrolysis and is separated from the pyrolysis oil (paragraphs [0156] and [0173]) and that the pyrolysis gas may be used in various downstream applications (paragraphs [0176] and [0200]), there is no further description of the downstream applications for the pyrolysis gas. Thus, there is no support for introducing the pyrolysis gas into the C2 separation column, and the limitation is new matter.
With regard to claims 45, 47, 49, 50, 53, and 55, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 5 and 45-57 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.
With regard to claims 5, 46, and 48, in the last two lines each claim recites “wherein the output comprises at least 40 weight percent of ethylene based on a total weight of the output.” However, the instant specification defines output as “the production of the target compounds in weight per unit time…” (paragraph [0335] of the PGPub). Thus, the output is not a composition of matter, it is unclear how the output can comprise 40 wt% ethylene, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, as discussed in the 112(a) section above, paragraph [0367] of the PGPub states that the olefin-containing effluent stream comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene, based on a total weight of the olefin-containing effluent stream. Thus, the Examiner will consider that the claims recite that the olefin-containing effluent stream (for claims 1 and 46) or the cracker effluent stream (for claim 48) comprises the at least 40 wt% ethylene.
With regard to claim 48, the claim recites in lines 8-9 “a cracker feedstock comprising predominantly C2 to C4 composition…” It is unclear whether this is saying that the cracker feed comprises predominantly (more than 50 wt% paragraph [0070]) of a C2-C4 composition, or that the composition comprises predominantly C2 to C4 hydrocarbons. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the claim is intended to recite that the cracker feedstock comprises “a predominantly C2 to C4 hydrocarbon containing composition” (paragraph [0243] of the PGPub). The Examiner suggests replacing “predominantly C2 to C4 composition” with the language “a predominantly C2 to C4 hydrocarbon containing composition” as in the cited paragraph [0243].
Also with regard to claim 48, the claim recites “said olefin-containing effluent…” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, while claim 48 recites a “cracker effluent” in line 7, independent claims 5 and 56 use the “olefin-containing effluent” language. Thus, for consistency among the claims and to correct the antecedent basis issue, the Examiner suggests changing “cracker effluent” in line 7 of claim 48 to “olefin-containing effluent”.
With regard to claims 45, 47, and 49-57, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 5 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309) in view of Stabel et al. (US 5,731,483).
With regard to claim 5, Uppili teaches a method for pyrolysis and steam cracking (paragraph [0007]) comprising:
a) steam cracking a cracker feed comprising light hydrocarbons including ethane (paragraph [0047]) and recycled liquid hydrocarbons 354 from the plastic pyrolysis reactor (paragraph [0061]), where the cracking produces a product comprising ethylene and propylene (olefin-containing effluent) (paragraph [0042]). Uppili further teaches the feed to the steam cracker comprises light hydrocarbons and heavier hydrocarbons, where in an embodiment the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the steam cracker feed is 10 wt% or more (paragraph [0047]). Knowing that the feed comprises both heavier and light hydrocarbons, if the heavier hydrocarbons are included in an amount of at least 10 wt%, the amount of light hydrocarbons including ethane is up to 90 wt%. This range of up to 90 wt% overlaps the range of more than 50 wt% (predominantly, as defined in paragraph [0070] of the instant specification) of instant claim 5, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to the term “recycle content”, the instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis oil” as an oil obtained from pyrolysis and having recycled content (paragraph [0050]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Thus, the pyrolysis oil of Uppili is recycle content pyrolysis oil, as claimed.
b) and c) providing the steam cracking effluent to a separation train (paragraph [0069]) including a separator 261 (ethylene fractionator) which separates an overhead ethylene stream 265 and a bottoms ethane stream 269 (paragraph [0071], Fig. 2).
Uppili fails to explicitly teach i) that the ethane is non-recycle content ethane, ii) the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil, iii) that the mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the feed to the column 261 is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, iv) that the output of ethylene and propylene in the effluent is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, and v) that the olefin-containing effluent comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene.
With regard to the ethane being non-recycle content i), The instant specification recites that “non-recycle” means a composition which is not derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (specification paragraph [0082] as filed). Uppili is entirely silent regarding the source of the ethane (paragraph [0047]), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ethane could be selected from all known sources, where the sources are a finite list of recycle content and non-recycle content ethane. Further, there is no evidence that the ethane source is critical in the instant application as filed.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use non-recycle content ethane in the steam cracker feed of Uppili, as claimed, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, because the non-recycle content ethane is an obvious selection from the finite list non-recycle content and recycle content ethane and because any ethane from any source is expected to function in the process of Uppili, because Uppili generally teaches ethane as part of the steam cracker feed but is silent regarding the source (paragraph [0047]), absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil ii), Uppili teaches the plastics feed to the pyrolysis is a mixture of polyolefins including polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0016]) but is completely silent as to the composition of the plastic pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine the composition of the oil produced by the pyrolysis .
Stabel teaches a process for conversion of waste plastics comprising polyethylene and polypropylene (column 7, lines 12-13) into a distillate product (pyrolysis oil) followed by steam cracking the distillate product (column 2, lines 36-50). Stabel further teaches that the distillate product (pyrolysis oil) comprises 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons (column 8, Table 1) and that the steam cracker product comprises ethylene and propylene (column 9, Table 3). This amount of 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons is within the range of predominantly (at least 50 wt%) C8+ hydrocarbons of instant claim 5. Thus, Stabel teaches that pyrolysis oil comprising the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons is known to be produced from plastic pyrolysis and is a suitable steam cracker feed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the process of Uppili also produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of c8+ hydrocarbons, because each of Uppili and Stabel teach pyrolysis of polyolefins to produce an oil product, followed by steam cracking the product, Uppili is silent regarding the composition of the pyrolysis oil, and Stable teaches that the claimed pyrolysis produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons which can be used as a steam cracker feed (Column 8, Table 1).
With regard to the mole ratio, output, and ethylene content iii), iv), and v), Uppili in view of Stabel teaches the same step of steam cracking a similar feed comprising the same non-recycle content ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil having predominantly C8+ hydrocarbons to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same claimed results, namely a higher mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the feed to the separator than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; a higher output of ethylene and propylene in the olefin-containing effluent than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; and an amount of at least 40 wt% ethylene in the olefin-containing effluent absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 48, Uppili teaches a method for pyrolysis and steam cracking (paragraph [0007]) comprising:
a) steam cracking a cracker feed comprising light hydrocarbons including ethane (paragraph [0047]) and recycled liquid hydrocarbons 354 from the plastic pyrolysis reactor (paragraph [0061]), where the cracking produces a product comprising ethylene and propylene (olefin-containing effluent) (paragraph [0042]). Uppili further teaches the feed to the steam cracker comprises light hydrocarbons and heavier hydrocarbons, where in an embodiment the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the steam cracker feed is 10 wt% or more (paragraph [0047]). Knowing that the feed comprises both heavier and light hydrocarbons, if the heavier hydrocarbons are included in an amount of at least 10 wt%, the amount of light hydrocarbons including ethane is up to 90 wt%. This range of up to 90 wt% overlaps the range of more than 50 wt% (predominantly, as defined in paragraph [0070] of the instant specification) of instant claim 48, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to the term “recycle content”, the instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis oil” as an oil obtained from pyrolysis and having recycled content (paragraph [0050]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Thus, the pyrolysis oil of Uppili is recycle content pyrolysis oil, as claimed.
b) and c) providing the steam cracking effluent to a separation train (paragraph [0069]) including a separator 261 (ethylene fractionator) which separates an overhead ethylene stream 265 and a bottoms ethane stream 269 (paragraph [0071], Fig. 2).
Uppili fails to explicitly teach i) the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil, ii) that the volumetric or mass flow rate of liquid within column 261 is at least 0.1% lower than the flow rate if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, iii) that the output of ethylene and propylene in the effluent is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, and iv) that the olefin-containing effluent comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene.
With regard to the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil ii), Uppili teaches the plastics feed to the pyrolysis is a mixture of polyolefins including polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0016]) but is completely silent as to the composition of the plastic pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine the composition of the oil produced by the pyrolysis .
Stabel teaches a process for conversion of waste plastics comprising polyethylene and polypropylene (column 7, lines 12-13) into a distillate product (pyrolysis oil) followed by steam cracking the distillate product (column 2, lines 36-50). Stabel further teaches that the distillate product (pyrolysis oil) comprises 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons (column 8, Table 1) and that the steam cracker product comprises ethylene and propylene (column 9, Table 3). This amount of 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons is within the range of predominantly (at least 50 wt%) C8+ hydrocarbons of instant claim 5. Thus, Stabel teaches that pyrolysis oil comprising the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons is known to be produced from plastic pyrolysis and is a suitable steam cracker feed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the process of Uppili also produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of c8+ hydrocarbons, because each of Uppili and Stabel teach pyrolysis of polyolefins to produce an oil product, followed by steam cracking the product, Uppili is silent regarding the composition of the pyrolysis oil, and Stable teaches that the claimed pyrolysis produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons which can be used as a steam cracker feed (Column 8, Table 1).
With regard to the flow rate, output, and ethylene content ii), iii), and iv), Uppili in view of Stabel teaches the same step of steam cracking a similar feed comprising the same non-recycle content ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil having predominantly C8+ hydrocarbons to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same results, namely a lower volumetric or mass flow rate of liquid than the flow rate if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil; a higher output of ethylene and propylene in the olefin-containing effluent than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; and an amount of at least 40 wt% ethylene in the olefin-containing effluent, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 45, 49, 50, and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309) in view of Stabel et al. (US 5,731,483) as applied to claims 5 and 48 above, and further in view of Brewer et al. (US 2008/0029434).
With regard to claims 45 and 49, Uppili in view of Stabel teaches the method above, where a feed comprising ethane (C2) and pyrolysis oil from plastics is cracked in a steam cracker (paragraph [0047]).
Uppili in view of Stabel does not specifically teach that the cracker comprises a single radiant section comprising a first coil and a second coil, where the ethane is passed to a first coil and the pyrolysis oil is passed to a second coil separate from said first coil.
Brewer teaches a process for steam cracking of multiple hydrocarbon feeds (paragraph [0001]) where the cracking furnace comprises at least one fired radiant chamber which is divided into two separate independent radiant zones, and where each independent radiant zone comprises at least one process coil (paragraph [0008]). When the furnace comprises one fired radiant chamber, as taught by Brewer, this is equivalent to the claimed single radiant zone having two separate coils separate from each other as claimed. Brewer further teaches cracking two different feedstocks in the same radiant chamber at separate and independent conditions in the separate coils, thereby allowing improved flexibility (paragraph [0027]). Brewer additionally teaches that while certain feedstocks are exemplified, other feedstocks known to be used as feedstocks in steam cracking can be employed (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the steam cracker comprising a single radiant section with multiple separate coils of Brewer in the process of Ward to pass the ethane to a first coil and the pyrolysis oil to a second coil in a single radiant chamber as claimed, because Ward teaches a process for cracking ethane and pyrolysis oil in the same steam cracker, and Brewer teaches that using a furnace comprising at least one radiant section with distinct coils for cracking distinct feeds provides increased flexibility for a variety of cracking feedstocks and solves problems in prior art furnaces including increased capacity while using different reaction conditions (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]).
With regard to claims 50 and 53, Brewer teaches vaporizing the first feedstock before introducing to the radiant zone which comprises the first coil (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
With regard to claims 52 and 54, Brewer teaches the cracking takes place in the separate first and second coils in the single radiant zone (paragraph [0027]).
Uppili in view of Brewer does not specifically teach combining the effluents of each coil together at an outlet to the steam cracker. However, Uppili teaches that the steam cracking can steam crack a mixture of feeds, and that the product from the steam cracker is sent as a whole to the separation train (paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the effluents from the coils of Brewer at the outlet, as claimed, because each of Brewer and Uppili teaches steam cracking multiple feeds, Brewer teaches the separate coils, and Uppili teaches separation of the entire steam cracking product in the separation train (paragraph [0046])
Claims 46, 47, and 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309).
With regard to claims 46 and 47, Uppili teaches a method for pyrolysis and steam cracking (paragraph [0007]) comprising:
a) steam cracking a cracker feed comprising light hydrocarbons including ethane (C2) (paragraph [0047]) and recycled liquid hydrocarbons 354 from the plastic pyrolysis reactor (paragraph [0061]), where the cracking produces a product comprising ethylene and propylene (olefin-containing effluent) (paragraph [0042]). Uppili further teaches the feed to the steam cracker comprises light hydrocarbons and heavier hydrocarbons, where in an embodiment the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the steam cracker feed is 10 wt% or more (paragraph [0047]). Knowing that the feed comprises both heavier and light hydrocarbons, if the heavier hydrocarbons are included in an amount of at least 10 wt%, the amount of light hydrocarbons including ethane is up to 90 wt%. This range of up to 90 wt% overlaps the range of more than 50 wt% (predominantly, as defined in paragraph [0070] of the instant specification) of instant claim 46, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to the term “recycle content”, the instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis oil” as an oil obtained from pyrolysis and having recycled content (paragraph [0050]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Uppili teaches that the pyrolysis oil is from pyrolysis of plastics, and that the feed to the cracker comprises the pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0061]). Therefore, the pyrolysis oil is recycle content pyrolysis oil, as claimed, and the olefin-containing effluent from the steam cracker is recycle content ethylene, as claimed.
b) and c) providing the steam cracking effluent (olefin-containing effluent instant claim 47) to a separation train (paragraph [0069]) including a separator 261 (ethylene fractionator) which separates an overhead ethylene stream 265 and a bottoms ethane stream 269 (paragraph [0071], Fig. 2).
Uppili fails to explicitly teach i) that the mass flow rate of ethane in said ethylene stream 265 is at least 0.1% lower than if the feed to the separator did not include r-ethylene, ii) that the output of ethylene and propylene in the effluent is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, and iii) that the olefin-containing effluent comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene.
With regard to the flow rate, output, and ethylene content i), ii), and iii), Uppili teaches the same step of steam cracking a feed comprising the same non-recycle content ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same results, namely a lower mass flow rate of ethane in the overhead stream than if the effluent did not contain r-ethylene; a higher output of ethylene and propylene in the olefin-containing effluent than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; and an amount of at least 40 wt% ethylene in the olefin-containing effluent, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 55, Uppili does not specifically teach the mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the column feed stream is at least 0.1% higher than if the column feedstream did not include the recycle content ethylene but had the same mass flow rate. However, Uppili teaches the same step of steam cracking a similar feed comprising the same ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of a higher mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the feed to the separator than if the feed to the separator did not comprise the recycle content ethylene, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 56 and 57, Uppili teaches separating the pyrolysis effluent to produce the pyrolysis liquid fraction and a gaseous C4- fraction, which is then sent to the steam cracker process train (paragraph [0040]) which includes the C2 separator (paragraph [0071]). The instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis gas” as a fraction which is gaseous at 25°C and 1 atm obtained from pyrolysis and having recycle content (paragraphs [0051]-[0052]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Thus, gaseous product separated from the pyrolysis effluent of Uppili which is from pyrolysis of plastics is recycle content pyrolysis gas, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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 at 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 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772