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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 45-50 in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 51 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramamurthy et al. (US 20190177626 A1) (Ramamurthy).
Regarding claim 45, Ramamurthy teaches a process for producing olefins and aromatics, comprising converting plastics to a hydrocarbon product comprising a gas phase (Ramamurthy, Abstract), wherein the plastics are mixed plastics that may be waste plastics (i.e., recycled waste material). Ramamurthy teaches converting mixed plastics to a hydrocarbon product in a pyrolysis unit, wherein the hydrocarbon product comprises a gas phase and a liquid phase (i.e., recycle content pyrolysis oil) and separating the gas phase from the liquid phase (Ramamurthy, [0004]) (i.e., pyrolyzing a pyrolysis feed stream comprising recycled waste material to form a recycle content pyrolysis gas (r-pyrolysis gas) and a recycle content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil)).
Ramamurthy further teaches the hydrocarbon gas stream product from the pyrolysis unit is separated in a first separating unit into a 1st olefin gas stream and a 1st saturated hydrocarbon stream, wherein the 1st saturated hydrocarbon stream enters the gas steam cracker and the 1st olefin gas stream is combined with the gas steam cracker product stream in the second separating unit which is downstream from the outlet of the gas steam cracker (Ramamurthy, Figure 3). Further, the liquid stream (i.e., r-pyoil) enters the liquid steam cracker and mixes with both gas streams in the second separating unit (i.e., introducing at least a portion of said r-pyrolysis gas into a cracker facility in at least one location downstream of an outlet of a cracker furnace and at least a portion of said r-pyoil in the cracker facility to form a stream of recycle content olefin (r-olefin)).
While Ramamurthy does not explicitly teach the second separating unit is part of the cracker facility or that the two steam crackers are part of the same cracker facility, Figure 6 of the instant application shows the r-pyrolysis gas combining with the outlet of one furnace in the cracker facility before going into a separator, and an additional furnace, which is the same step Ramamurthy is teaching (Ramamurthy, [0010]). Therefore, the system of two cracking furnaces followed by a separator which the instant application defines as the “cracking facility” is met by the gas and liquid steam crackers followed by the second separator of Ramamurthy.
Regarding claim 46, Ramamurthy teaches the process of claim 45, wherein the 1st olefin stream (i.e., portion of the r-pyrolysis gas) is combined with the product stream of the gas steam cracker (Ramamurthy, Figure 3), and wherein the gas steam cracker product comprises olefins (Ramamurthy, [0003]) (i.e., combining at least a portion of said r-pyrolysis gas with an olefin-containing stream withdrawn from an outlet of said cracker facility).
Regarding claim 47, Ramamurthy teaches the process of claim 45, wherein the hydrocarbon gas stream from the pyrolysis unit (i.e., r-pyrolysis gas) is fed to a first separating unit which separates the gas into a 1st olefin gas stream and a 1st saturated hydrocarbon gas stream (Ramamurthy, Figure 3), wherein the first separating unit separates the gas stream into “fractions” of olefin and saturated hydrocarbons and therefore corresponds to the claimed fractionator.
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.
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy.
Regarding claim 48, Ramamurthy teaches the process of claim 45, wherein the hydrocarbon gas stream exiting the pyrolysis unit can comprise C1 to C4 hydrocarbons (e.g., saturated hydrocarbons, light gas olefins), hydrogen, inert gases, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, HCl, and the like, or combinations thereof, as well as at least a portion of the chloride of the mixed plastics stream (Ramamurthy, [0041]). While Ramamurthy does not explicitly teach a weight percentage of olefins in the hydrocarbon gas stream, the hydrocarbon gas stream is not limited to weight percentages of components and as it may comprise olefins in addition to numerous other components, it is clear that the weight percentage of olefins would overlap with the weight percentage of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Alternatively, as the hydrocarbon gas stream may comprise only saturated hydrocarbons and light gas olefins and is separated into saturated hydrocarbons and light gas olefins in the first separating unit, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a 1:1 ratio by weight of saturated hydrocarbons to light gas olefins in order to have sufficient amounts in the separated streams, which falls within the claimed range.
However, when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 49, Ramamurthy teaches the process of claim 48, wherein the first olefin gas stream comprises at least a portion of the hydrocarbon gas stream and wherein the first olefin gas stream comprises ethylene (i.e., the hydrocarbon gas stream comprises ethylene) (Ramamurthy, [0085]) (i.e., said olefin comprises predominantly ethylene).
Given that Ramamurthy discloses the process that overlaps the presently claimed process, including ethylene as the olefin in the hydrocarbon gas stream, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the ethylene, which is both disclosed by Ramamurthy and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 50, Ramamurthy teaches the process of claim 45, wherein the mixed plastics may comprise polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyolefins (PO), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or mixtures thereof (Ramamurthy, [0027]) (i.e., separating a stream of mixed waste plastic into a PET-enriched stream and a PO-enriched stream). Therefore, the mixed plastics may be PVC with PET (i.e., PET enriched with PVC) or polyolefins (i.e., PO-enriched).
Given that Ramamurthy discloses the process that overlaps the presently claimed process, including PVC with PET (i.e., PET enriched with PVC) or polyolefins (i.e., PO-enriched), it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the PVC with PET (i.e., PET enriched with PVC) or polyolefins (i.e., PO-enriched), which is both disclosed by Ramamurthy and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicants’ amendments, the previous claim objection over claim 46 is withdrawn from the record.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed process relates to integrating a pyrolysis facility with a cracker facility. In contrast, Ramamurthy discloses a pyrolysis unit that separates the hydrocarbon feed into a hydrocarbon gas stream and a hydrocarbon liquid stream that are treated separately by a gas stream cracker and a liquid steam cracker to yield light gas olefins and high gas olefins, respectively. Therefore, the hydrocarbon gas stream is separated from the hydrocarbon liquid stream at the pyrolysis unit and never merge afterwards to yield distinct products.
In contrast, integrating the pyrolysis unit with the cracker unit gives the opportunity to blend the r-pyrolysis gas with the r-pyoil after heating, but before the separation unit in contrast with Ramamurthy.”
Remarks, p. 9
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues that the hydrocarbon gas stream and hydrocarbon liquid stream of Ramamurthy never merge after pyrolysis, it is the examiner’s position that these streams merge entering the second separating unit. Further, as stated above, as the cracker furnace may comprise more than one cracker furnace, having the gas and liquid streams separately treated in two cracker furnaces meets the limitation of the cracker facility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights