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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/18/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/18/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANASWAMY et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0264885) as set forth in the last Office action because: showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant states that the examples in NARAYANASWAMY et al. do not produce the same amount of naphtha or kerosene as the presently claimed process.
The present claims have been amended and BITTING has been added to teach a pyrolysis oil with the specific boiling point distribution that is presently claimed.
Applicant states that the process that is presently claimed provides benefits of low impurities and lightening of pyrolysis oil derived from waste plastics and achieve efficiency improvement under milder conditions.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach a process comprising the same steps that are presently claimed with overlapping conditions and would be expected to also provides benefits of low impurities and lightening of pyrolysis oil derived from waste plastics and achieve efficiency improvement under milder conditions.
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANASWAMY et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0264885).
Regarding claims 10-13, applicant is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
[I]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Regarding claim 10, NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach an integrated process for the conversion of waste plastic to final petrochemical products and the apparatus for the integrated process.
The integrated process allows for operation with a hydroprocessing reactor which provides for simultaneous hydrogenation, dichlorination, and hydrocracking of components to specifications which meet steam cracker requirements.
A hydrocarbon stream is taught in paragraphs 37-38 to be sent to a hydroprocessing reactor where a series of reactions may occur that includes hydrogenation of olefins, removal of heteroatoms from heteroatom-containing hydrocarbons (e.g., dechlorination), hydrocracking of large paraffins or i-paraffins to Smaller hydrocarbon molecules, hydrocracking of aromatic hydrocarbons to Smaller cyclic or acyclic hydrocarbons, conversion of one or more aromatic compounds to one or more cycloparaffins, isomerization of one or more normal paraffins to one or more i-paraffins, selective ring opening of one or more cycloparaffins to one or more i-paraffins, or combinations thereof.
The hydroprocessing reactor is taught in paragraph 41 to include one or more beds of hydroprocessing catalyst. 2 or more stages of hydroprocessing may be contained in a single reactor. (reaction space having a first region and a second region)
Regarding claim 11, one example is given in paragraph 41 in which the first stage may dechlorinate and hydrogenate components of the hydrocarbon stream 12 to yield a first hydrocarbon product having a first level of chloride compounds and olefins.
The first hydrocarbon product may flow from the first stage (first region) to the second stage (second region), where other components of the first hydrocarbon product are dechlorinated and hydrogenated to yield a second hydrocarbon product stream having a second level of chloride compounds and olefins. (reactor has an inner space including the first region and second region with the second region formed below the first region)
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraph 38 that the hydroprocessing reactor is also configured to hydrocrack.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the conditions such that the second stage also hydrocracks or even configure both stages to hydrocrack the hydrocarbons as they pass through the stages.
Regarding claim 12, the pressure in the hydroprocessing reactor is taught in paragraph 45 to be from 1 barg to 200 barg.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. See 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).
Regarding claim 13, NARAYANASWAMY et al. do not explicitly teach the ratio of the LHSV between the 2 stages is controlled to a ratio of 1:1 to 10.
However, NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraph 45 that the weight hourly space velocity in the hydroprocessing reactor is between about 0.1 hr-1 to 10 hr-1.
It appears that the hourly space velocity of all stages in a hydroprocessing reactor may be the same and the ratio between the first stage and the second stage may be considered 1:1.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANASWAMY et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0264885) in view of BITTING (USPGPUB 2020/0369966).
BITTING teaches a recycle content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil).
The r-pyoil is taught in paragraph 42 to be defined as composition obtained from pyrolysis of recycled waste such as waste plastic.
BITTING teaches in paragraph 234 that pyrolysis oil in liquid form may be subjected to hydrogenation and hydrotreating.
BITTING teaches in Fig. 13 and paragraph 23 the boiling point curve of a r-pyoil.
The r-pyoil shows 30% less than 150 C (10 to 40 wt% of a first oil component having a boiling point of less than 150°C), about 22% of 150-265 (1 to 50 wt% of a second oil component having a boiling point of 150°C or higher and less than 265°C), about 26% of 265-340 (1 to 50 wt% of a third oil component having a boiling point of 265°C or higher and less than 340°C), and about 22% more than 340 C (1 to 60 wt% of a fourth oil component having a boiling point of 340°C or higher.).
The above discussion of NARAYANASWAMY et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach an integrated process for the conversion of waste plastic to final petrochemical products.
The integrated process allows for operation with a hydroprocessing reactor which provides for simultaneous hydrogenation, dichlorination, and hydrocracking of components to specifications which meet steam cracker requirements.
Regarding claim 1, NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraphs 13 and 18 that the waste plastic is first pyrolyzed in a pyrolysis unit to produce a hydrocarbon stream.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraph 22 the hydrocarbon stream includes one or more pyrolysis oil.
The hydrocarbon stream is taught in paragraphs 37-38 to be sent to a hydroprocessing reactor where a series of reactions may occur that includes hydrogenation of olefins, removal of heteroatoms from heteroatom-containing hydrocarbons (e.g., dechlorination), hydrocracking of large paraffins or i-paraffins to Smaller hydrocarbon molecules, hydrocracking of aromatic hydrocarbons to Smaller cyclic or acyclic hydrocarbons, conversion of one or more aromatic compounds to one or more cycloparaffins, isomerization of one or more normal paraffins to one or more i-paraffins, selective ring opening of one or more cycloparaffins to one or more i-paraffins, or combinations thereof.
The processing reactor is taught in paragraph 41 to include one or more beds of hydroprocessing catalyst. 2 or more stages of hydroprocessing may be contained in a single reactor. (reaction space having a first region and a second region)
One example is given in paragraph 41 in which the first stage may dechlorinate and hydrogenate components of the hydrocarbon stream 12 to yield a first hydrocarbon product (first refined oil) having a first level of chloride compounds and olefins. (hydrotreating step of producing first refined oil by performing a first hydrotreating reaction with a hydrotreating catalyst and hydrogen gas that removes impurities)
The first hydrocarbon product (first refined oil) may flow from the first stage to the second stage, where other components of the first hydrocarbon product are dechlorinated and hydrogenated to yield a second hydrocarbon product stream having a second level of chloride compounds and olefins.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraph 38 that the hydroprocessing reactor is also configured to hydrocrack.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the conditions such that the second stage also hydrocracks or even configure both stages to hydrocrack the hydrocarbons as they pass through the stages. (second step of hydrocracking)
It would be obvious to treat a r-pyoil with the boiling point curve taught in Fig. 13 that BITTING teaches with the process that is taught in NARAYANASWAMY et al.
The motivation to do so can be found in paragraph 310 of BITTING and paragraph 4 of NARAYANASWAMY et al.
BITTING teaches that the r-pyoil is sent to a steam cracker to produce olefin products.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraph 4 that the process treats a hydrocarbon stream to meet steam cracker requirements for chloride content, olefin content and boiling end point.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach that in paragraph 3 that waste pyrolysis oils may be treated to meet specifications for replacing naphtha used in steam crackers. NARAYANASWAMY et al. further teach in paragraph 40 that the hydroprocessing produces products with C1-C4 and C5+ liquid hydrocarbons.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. show in paragraph 124 the composition breakdown of a sample product that includes C5-C13 liquid hydrocarbons.
Naphtha comprises C5-C7 chain lengths and kerosene comprises C12-C15 chain lengths.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that both naphtha and kerosene products are produced by the process that NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach a process that produces naphtha with C5-C7 chain lengths and kerosene with C12-C15 chain lengths.
BITTING teaches a r-pyoil with the same boiling point distribution as presently claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust process to arrive at the desired weight distribution of products since it has been held that wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the pressure in the hydroprocessing reactor is taught in paragraph 45 to be from 1 barg to 200 barg.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. See 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).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, NARAYANASWAMY et al. do not explicitly teach the ratio of the LHSV between the 2 stages.
However, NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach in paragraph 45 that the weight hourly space velocity in the hydroprocessing reactor is between about 0.1 hr-1 to 10 hr-1.
It appears that the hourly space velocity of all stages in a hydroprocessing reactor may be the same and the ratio between the first stage and the second stage may be considered 1:1.
Regarding claim 4, the temperature of the hydroprocessing reactor is taught in paragraph 45 to be from 100 to 450°C.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. See 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).
Regarding claim 5, the flow rate between hydrogen to the hydrocarbon stream is taught in paragraph 45 to be from 10 to 3000 NL/L.
Regarding claim 8, the hydroprocessing catalysts are taught in paragraphs 47-48 to include cobalt and molybdenum on support such as alumina. The hydroprocessing catalysts are taught in paragraph 41 to be in a fixed bed.
Regarding claim 9, the hydroprocessing catalysts are taught in paragraph 47 to include cobalt and molybdenum on support such as alumina.
Regarding claim 11, the processing reactor is taught in paragraph 41 to include one or more beds of hydroprocessing catalyst. 2 or more stages of hydroprocessing may be contained in a single reactor. (reactor having an inner space including a first region and a second region)
One example is given in paragraph 41 in which the first stage may dechlorinate and hydrogenate components of the hydrocarbon stream 12 to yield a first hydrocarbon product having a first level of chloride compounds and olefins.
The first hydrocarbon product may flow from the first stage to the second stage, where other components of the first hydrocarbon product are dechlorinated and hydrogenated to yield a second hydrocarbon product stream having a second level of chloride compounds and olefins.
NARAYANASWAMY et al. further teach in paragraph 38 that the hydrocarbons stream may be directed through the hydroprocessing reactor in a downward flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 08/11/2025 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
BITTING (USPGPUB 20200369966) teaches a recycle content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil) produced from recycled waste such as waste plastic.
BITTING teaches in paragraph 234 that pyrolysis oil in liquid form may be subjected to hydrogenation and hydrotreating and sent to a steam cracker.
BITTING teaches in Fig. 13 and paragraph 23 the boiling point curve of one example of a r-pyoil.
The example of the r-pyoil shows 30% less than 150 C (10 to 40 wt% of a first oil component having a boiling point of less than 150°C), about 22% of 150-265 (1 to 50 wt% of a second oil component having a boiling point of 150°C or higher and less than 265°C), about 26% of 265-340 (1 to 50 wt% of a third oil component having a boiling point of 265°C or higher and less than 340°C), and about 22% more than 340 C (1 to 60 wt% of a fourth oil component having a boiling point of 340°C or higher.).
Given that NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach a process that treats a hydrocarbon stream comprising pyrolysis oil from waste plastic to conform to specifications for a steam cracker and BITTING teaches sending a pyrolysis oil to a steam cracker to produce products, it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to send r-pyoils that BITTING teach to be treated with the process that NARAYANASWAMY et al. teach.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771