DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. The election of species requirement is withdrawn.
4. Claims 122-125 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 29, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (dated December 19, 2025 and January 18, 2025 and April 27, 2022) were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 4 and 121-125 are pending. Claims 4 and 121 are elected. Claim 4 is independent.
Claim Interpretation
7. The claims were interpreted to be directed to a method of making ethylene oxide comprising obtaining ethylene from pyrolysis of recycle content allotment and further converting ethylene to ethylene oxide. The recitations including the obtaining from person or entity, transferring, depositing were not further interpreted as claim limitations because these recitations do not further narrow the reactant, reagent, product or process steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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
7. Claim(s) 4 and 121 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200369965 as applied to claims 4 and 121 above, in view of US 1,998,878 and McKetta. US 20200369965 has a date of May 24, 2019 based on US 62,852,358; US 1,998,878 has a date of 1935; McKetta has a date of 1984. The references antedate the present claims which have a filing date of November 16, 2020 and priority claim to provisional applications dated November 7, 2019.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
US 20200369965 teaches the following process of pyrolysis of plastic waste, cracking of resulting r-PyrOil and production of ethylene. See Figure 1, page 3 of US 62,852,358.
PNG
media_image1.png
154
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US 1,998,878 teaches the preparation of ethylene oxide by subjecting ethylene to the simultaneous action of oxygen and water in presence of a catalyst. Page 1. McKetta teaches the industrial use of ethylene oxide.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
The difference between the claims and US 20200369965 is that the reference does not teach the further preparation of ethylene oxide from ethylene.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art - considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness
The skilled artisan has the teaching, suggestion and motivation to combine the references to produce a product that has commercial/industrial value. Therefore, the present claims are prima facie obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JAE YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-9074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
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.
/SUN JAE YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights