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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 62-65, 68, and 69 are pending.
Claims 62, 68, and 69 are amended.
Claims 70-74 are new.
Claims 2 and 56-61 are previously withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-55, 66, and 67 are previously cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
As indicated in the previous office action dated 07 February 2025, unity is lacking for the reasons set forth in the action mailed on 15 November 2024. The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is still deemed FINAL. Therefore, claims 2 and 56-61 are still withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups I and II, and applicant's election with traverse of Group III, claims 62-67, in the reply filed on 15 January 2025 is still acknowledged. Herein, claims 62-65 and 68-74 are currently examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 08 December 2025 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to claim 62 are sufficient to overcome the objections of the claim. Claim 62 has been amended to clarify the conjunction “and”, and the mismatched alphabetical bullet identifications. The objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to claim 62 adding a pretreated plastic feed and the receiving thereof from a source not specifically taught by Narayanaswamy and Puckette are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 62-65, 68, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US20180216009, hereinafter Narayanaswamy) in view of Puckette et al. (US20040267036, hereinafter Puckette). Due to the amendment to claim 62 adding a pretreated plastic feed and the receiving thereof from a source not specifically taught by Narayanaswamy and Puckette, the rejection is withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is/are provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are rendered moot.
Applicant’s argue that Narayanaswamy and Puckette do not disclose the limitations as recited in amended claim 62. Applicant’s arguments on page 6 of the remarks filed on 08 December 2025 are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Narayanaswamy and Puckette applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
New Rejections Based on the RCE filed on 08 December 2025
Claim Objections
Claims 62-65, 69, 73, and 74 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 62-65, 73, and 74 differ in the antecedent basis identifiers of “said” and “the”. For consistency amongst the claims, the antecedent basis identifier throughout the claims should be limited to either “said” or “the”.
For example, claims 62-65 state “said glycol ester composition”; while, claim 74 states “the glycol ester composition”, claim 62 states “said inventory”; while, claims 73 and 74 state “the recycle inventory”, claim 62 states “said glycol ester”; while, claim 74 states “the glycol ester”, claim 62 states “said value” and “said r-glycol ester”; while, claims 73 and 74 state “the recycle content value” and claim 74 states “the r-glycol ester”, etc.
Claim 62 step (a) states (r-pyoil). For consistency amongst the parenthetical identifiers, (r-pyoil) is interpreted as (“r-pyoil”).
Claim 62 step (a) states “to thereby form pyrolysis effluent”, which appears to include a typographical mistake. The limitation is interpreted to state, “to thereby form a pyrolysis effluent”.
Claim 62 step (e) states “said inventory” and “said value”, which appear to include typographical mistakes. Based on new claim 74, the limitations are interpreted to state, “the recycle inventory” and “the recycle content value”.
Claim 69 states “the plastic source”, which appears to include a typographical mistake. The limitation is interpreted to state, “the waste plastic source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
In the Spirit of Compact Prosecution
While the examiner has attempted to identify all objections and clarity issues amongst the claims, applicant is advised that some objections and clarity issues may still remain. Going forward, the examiner respectfully requests applicant to perform a detailed review of the claims regarding clarity, grammar, antecedent basis, word spacing, and spelling issues.
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 62-65 and 68-72 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US20180216009, published 02 August 2018, hereinafter Narayanaswamy) in view of Puckette et al. (US20040267036, published 30 December 2004, hereinafter Puckette) and further in view of Xiaoquan et al. (CN102718383, published 10 October 2012, see machine translation, hereinafter Xiaoquan).
Narayanaswamy is in the known prior art field of a method for producing recycle content olefins and aromatic compounds, such as propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, and polyesters aka glycol esters, from waste solid plastic feedstocks and/or waste plastic pyrolysis oils, see Abstract; Paras. [0004];[0010]-[0013];[0032];[0051];[0053];[0059];[0079], Table 1; Figs. 3A-3E.
Regarding instant application claims 62 and 70, Narayanaswamy teaches a method of making a waste plastic recycle content propylene glycol aka a glycol ester composition with up to 100% recycle content value from the conversion of waste plastic recycle content propylene, see Fig. 3B and Paras. [0004];[0009];[0032];[0079]; Table 1, meeting:
The recycle content glycol ester composition in instant application claim 62.
The hydrocarbon rich phase derived from plastic and the hydrocarbon lean phase produced from pyrolysis oils as a result of pyrolysis of plastics is supplied to a hydropyrolysis system producing a recycle content pyrolysis oil hydrocarbonaceous stream and a recycle content pyrolysis gas, see Paras. [0009]-[0010];[0051];[0053];[0055] and Claims 16, 23, and 25. The feed waste plastic has a particle size of a 200 micron plastic powder, see Paras. [0004];[0080], suggesting a particle size reduction pre-treatment of the solid waste plastic, meeting:
Step (a) pyrolyzing in instant application claim 62; and,
The solid particle plastic waste in instant application claim 70.
The recycle content pyrolysis oil hydrocarbonaceous stream is then cracked in a thermal steam cracker including a C1 to C4 hydrocarbon carrier gas, where the carrier gas may be from a recycle process or not, i.e., a non-recyclable hydrocarbon, within the hydropyrolysis system to produce a recycle content olefin with up to 100% recycle content value, i.e., minus the non-recycled carrier gas content, such as recycle content propylene, see Claims 23, 24, and Paras. [0010];[0013];[0019];[0022];[0055]-[0056];[0059]-[0061]; Fig. 3B. The feed waste plastic has a particle size of a 200 micron plastic powder, meeting:
Step (b)(i) of cracking in instant application claim 62.
Regarding instant application claims 62-64, as stated above, Narayanaswamy teaches the hydrocarbon lean phase produced from pyrolysis oils as a result of pyrolysis of waste plastics is supplied to a hydropyrolysis system producing a recycle content pyrolysis oil hydrocarbonaceous stream that is then cracked in a thermal steam cracker to produce a recycle content olefin from recycle content pyrolysis oil leading to an up to 100% recycle content value for the glycol ester composition from the conversion of the recycle content olefin, see Paras. [0004];[0011]-[0013];[0051]; Figs. 3A-3E, meeting:
Step (e) a recycle content glycol ester produced from a recycle content olefin produces from recycle content pyrolysis oil in instant application claim 62 and in instant application 63; and,
The thermal steam cracker in instant application claim 64.
Regarding instant application claims 62, 65, and 68, Narayanaswamy teaches a method of making a waste plastic recycle content propylene glycol aka a glycol ester composition with up to 100% recycle content value from the conversion of recycle content propylene, see Fig. 3B and Paras. [0004];[0009];[0032];[0079]; Table 1, and processing the recycle content produced olefins and aromatics into additional downstream products that are desired in the chemical industry, such as recycle content glycol esters, see Paras. [0004];[0009];[0032];[0056]; Figs. 3A-3E, meeting:
The recycle content olefin in Step (c) in instant application claim 62;
The recycle content olefin in instant application claim 65; and,
The recycle content glycol ester in instant application claim 68.
Regarding instant application claim 62, the scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure, see MPEP 2111.04. In this case, the “wherein” clause drawn to the recycled waste does not appear to give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”, see MPEP 2111.04, and many of the steps include optional limitations separated by the conjunction “or”.
Narayanaswamy does not teach:
The instant application claim 1 limitations of specifically wherein the solid waste material comprises a pretreated plastic feed; (c) reacting said cracker effluent comprising olefins in a synthetic process to make an aldehyde composition; (d) reacting at least a portion of said aldehyde composition in a synthetic process to make a glycol ester composition; and, receiving a solid waste plastic from a waste plastic source and pretreating the solid waste;
The remainder of the limitations in instant application claims 65 and 68; and
The limitations of instant application claims 69, 71, and 72.
Puckette is in the known prior art field of the hydroformylation of olefins to produce aldehydes which are converted to glycol esters, see Abstract; Paras. [0003];[0006];[0048].
Regarding instant application claims 62, 65, and 68, Puckette teaches the hydroformylation of an olefin feedstock, such as propylene, to produce an aldehyde which is converted into the mono-isobutyrate and di-isobutyrate esters of 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-propanediol, see Paras. [0003];[0006];[0048], meeting:
Step (c) and Step (d) in instant application claim 62;
The hydroformylation in instant application step 65; and,
The specific glycol esters in instant application claim 68.
Xiaoquan is in the known prior art field of a pyrolysis device for in-situ conversion of carbon-containing resources, such as plastic waste, into desirable chemical products, see Abstract; Paras. [0033];[0041]-[0042];[0048];[0092];[0114].
Regarding instant application claims 62 and 68-71, Xiaoquan teaches the first step is to move the pyrolysis unit mounted on the trailer to a location near the carbon-containing resource site, such as the site of the waste production or supply location, i.e., also a storage site; pre-treat the raw materials; and store the pre-treated raw materials in the silo/hopper 1 of the pyrolysis unit, where the pretreatment of plastic waste raw materials results in the crushing/pelletizing reduction of particle size to obtain a uniform particle size and moisture removal before entering pyrolysis reactor 3, see Paras. [0011];[0017]-[0020];[0050];[0093];[0113]-[0122]; Fig. 2, meeting:
The solid waste plastic from a solid waste plastic source and the pretreated solid plastic waste in instant application claim 62;
The hopper or trailer source for holding or storing the solid waste plastic in instant application claim 68 and in instant application claim 69;
The solid waste plastic particles in instant application claim 70; and,
The pretreatment mechanical agitation size reduction in instant application claim 71.
Regarding instant application claim 72, Xiaoquan teaches the second step is to transport the raw materials to the microwave-assisted pyrolysis reactor 3, where the raw materials stored in the silo/hopper 1 are transported to the microwave-assisted pyrolysis reactor through the solid conveying device feeding system 2, such as a bucket elevator, a screw feeder, or a vacuum conveying device, in order to convey the solid plastic waste particles in to the pyrolysis reactor 3, see Paras. [0021]-[0022];[0093];[0123]; Fig. 2, meeting the plastic feed system in instant application claim 72.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Narayanaswamy to further process the recycled olefin as taught by Puckette and to source and pretreat the plastic waste as taught by Xiaoquan with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently processing waste plastic by pyrolysis in order to produced recycle content chemical products, see Xiaoquan, Paras. [0010];[0050];[0113]-[0126], and to convert the chemical products, such as olefins, in to chemicals that are desired within the chemical industry with enhanced selectivity and reduced contaminants in the products, see Puckette, Paras. [0002]-[0003];[0048]-[0049].
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both Narayanaswamy and Puckette teach the conversion of olefins into glycol esters, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Narayanaswamy by relying upon Puckette before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the olefin conversion art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently converting olefins in to chemicals that are desired within the chemical industry with enhance selectivity and reduced contaminants, see Puckette, Paras. [0002]-[0003];[0048]-[0049] and MPEP 2141.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and both Narayanaswamy and Xiaoquan teach the conversion of plastic waste into desirable chemicals via pyrolysis, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Narayanaswamy by relying upon Xiaoquan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the plastic waste pyrolysis art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently processing waste plastic by pyrolysis in order to produced recycle content chemical products, see Xiaoquan, Paras. [0010];[0050];[0114]-[0126].
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Selection of a known material, such as a plastic waste source and a pretreated plastic waste, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 62-65 and 68-74 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al. (US20180216009, published 02 August 2018, hereinafter Narayanaswamy) in view of Puckette et al. (US20040267036, published 30 December 2004, hereinafter Puckette) and further in view of Xiaoquan et al. (CN102718383, published 10 October 2012, see machine translation, hereinafter Xiaoquan), as applied to claims 62-65 and 68-72 in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, in further view of Rohlfs (US20160155132, published 02 June 2016).
Narayanaswamy teaches the known prior art of producing recycle content olefins and aromatic compounds, such as propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, and polyesters aka glycol esters, from waste solid plastic feedstocks and plastic pyrolysis oils, see Abstract; Paras. [0010]-[0013];[0032];[0051];[0053];[0059];[0079], Table 1; Figs. 3A-3E, and the economic value of recycling waste plastic into these valuable recycle content chemicals, see Paras. [0004]-[0005];[0008]-[0009];[0072].
Regarding instant application claim 73, Narayanaswamy teaches hydropyrolyzing a hydrogen donor/rich feed with or without the presence of a hydrogen lean carbon containing feed to obtain an olefin, such as ethylene, see Paras. [0008]-[0009], where the hydrogen lean feed may be C1 to C4 gases or waste plastic and the hydrogen donor/rich feed is waste plastic resulting in a recycle content olefin, see Paras. [0004];[0009]-[0010]; Claim 16, meeting the cracking a waste plastic feed without pyrolysis oil to obtain recycle content olefins in instant application claim 73.
Regarding instant application claim 74, as stated above, Narayanaswamy teaches the hydrocarbon lean phase produced from pyrolysis oils as a result of pyrolysis of plastics, such as municipal solid waste, is supplied to a hydropyrolysis system producing a recycle content pyrolysis oil hydrocarbonaceous stream that is then cracked in a thermal steam cracker to produce a recycle content olefin from recycle content pyrolysis oil leading to an up to 100% recycle content value for the glycol ester composition, see Paras. [0011]-[0013];[0051]; Fig. 3A-3E, meeting the recycle content value of the glycol ester composition to obtain a recycle content glycol ester in instant application claim 74.
Narayanaswamy does not teach:
The instant application claim 62 optional limitations of Step (b)(ii) applying a recycle content value by deducting a recycle content value from a recycle inventory; and, Step (e) based on depositing a portion of an allotment into a recycle inventory and deducting a recycle content value from a recycle inventory; and,
The remainder of the limitations of instant application claims 73 and 74.
Xiaoquan teaches the known prior art that municipal solid waste includes waste tires and waste plastics, see Paras. [0014];[0032]-[0033].
Rohlfs is in the known prior art field of assigning the underlying value associated with carbon containing feed materials (OCCFM), such as municipal solid waste (“MSW”) and biomass materials, which are recycled by thermochemical conversion processes, such as pyrolysis, into valuable solids, liquid fuels and gases that can be reclaimed, separated, extracted and sold for internal and external commercial use, see Abstract; Paras. [0037]-[0042].
Regarding instant application claims 62, 73, and 74, Rohlfs teaches one or more specific algorithms for evaluating specific characteristics, such as determining the recycle content financial/market value, of OCCFM materials, such as MSW, processed using recycling/recovery processes, such as a pyrolytic, hydrotreating, and hydrocracking processes, in order to determine the recycle content quality/value of the particulates and other residues that are recovered and recycled, i.e., the recycled allotment, see Paras. [0037];[0075]-[0076];[0097]-[0098]; Claims 13, 14, 21, and 22. The assigned value is stored for use in connection with the formation of hybrid incentivized trade instruments of the pyrolytic processed recycled MSW valuable solids, liquid fuels and gases that are reclaimed, separated, extracted and sold for internal and external commercial use, see Paras. [0037]-[0042];[0095]-[0098], i.e., recycled content MSW cracker product, such as recycled olefines, and recycle content MSW hydrotreating product, such as recycled glycol esters, meeting the applying a recycle content value by deducting a recycle content value from a recycle inventory and depositing a portion of an allotment into a recycle inventory and deducting a recycle content value from a recycle inventory in instant application claim 62, in instant application claim 73, and in instant application claim 74.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Narayanaswamy to further assign a recycle content valuation to the recycled products as taught by Rohlfs with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently producing valuable chemical products from MSW, such as plastic, by assigning an underlying value associated with the recycled plastic waste produced valuable chemical products for internal and external commercial use; while, creating trade instruments, such as certificates, futures, options, forwards, swaps, and spreads, associated with the buying and selling of the recycled plastic waste produced valuable chemical products, see Rohlfs, Abstract; Paras. [0037]-[0042] and Xiaoquan, Paras. [0014];[0032]-[0033].
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Narayanaswamy, Xiaoquan, and Rohlfs all teach the conversion of MSW, such as plastic, in to recycled plastic waste produced valuable chemical products, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Narayanaswamy by relying upon Xiaoquan and Rohlfs before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the recycled plastic waste produced valuable chemical products art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently producing valuable chemical products from MSW, such as plastic, by assigning an underlying value associated with the recycled plastic waste produced valuable chemical products for internal and external commercial use; while, creating trade instruments, such as certificates, futures, options, forwards, swaps, and spreads, associated with the buying and selling of the recycled plastic waste produced valuable chemical products, see Rohlfs, Abstract; Paras. [0037]-[0042] and Xiaoquan, Paras. [0014];[0032]-[0033] and MPEP 2141.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699