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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment filed 08/05/2025 for application 17/946430.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 2 and 17 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-36 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON (WO 2022 213021) in view of TIMKEN (USPGPUB 20210189254) and HODGINS et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0062096) and RAMAMURTHY (USPGPUB 2020/0017773) and FUJIMOTO et al. (USPGPUB 2007/0173673).
ANDERSON was published on 10/06/2022 but was filed 03/17/2022 which qualifies under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
ANDERSON teaches blended fuel compositions including plastic pyrolysis oil and the methods to make the blended fuel compositions.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the plastic pyrolysis oils is taught in paragraph 14 to be derived from a plastic source that is at least 50 wt%. (inlet stream of a plastic feedstock consisting of plastics) The process is taught in paragraph 36 wherein pyrolysis is conducted to produce a liquid stream. (conducting pyrolysis of a plastic feedstock). Pyrolysis of plastic feedstock is taught in paragraph 36 to be performed by known systems. (plastic pyrolysis unit).
One known system is taught in TIMKEN. TIMKEN teaches pyrolysis of waste plastics.
TIMKEN teaches in table 1 and paragraph 49 that the composition of oil from pyrolysis of waste plastics changed based on the process conditions of the pyrolysis process and include a range of 5% to 23 vol% of aromatics and mid 20 vol% to mid 50 vol% of paraffinic content. The combined olefins and naphthenes vol% were shown to be less than 42.4% for pyrolysis oil sample C and pyrolysis sample D.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to produce and apply pyrolysis oil with up to 50 wt% of paraffins, up to 50 wt% of olefins, up to 45 wt% of naphthenes, and up to 10 wt% aromatics as the pyrolysis oil for ANDERSON since it has been that held that wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
The plastics source is taught in paragraph 38 to include polymers of ethylene or propylene as well as polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride. (plastic feedstock selected from one or more of polyethylene or polypropylene or polystyrene and/or polyvinyl chloride)
The blended fuel composition is taught in paragraphs 5-6 to comprise about 1 – about 20 vol% of a plastic pyrolysis oil and about 80 – about 99% vol% of a blendstock fuel. The plastic pyrolysis oil may be a naphtha fraction of the plastic pyrolysis oil. The process is taught in paragraph 36 wherein the liquid stream from pyrolysis is distilled and separated into one or more fractions including a naphtha fraction and a distillate fraction. (first fractionator)
Naphtha fraction is taught in paragraph 15 to have a boiling point of between -6°C to about 193°C. Distillate fraction is taught in paragraph 16 to have a boiling point between about 193°C to about 371°C.
The distillate fraction has a boiling point temperature range that overlaps the one that is set and has been construed as above the first cut temperature range. This distillate fraction taught in ANDERSON has been construed as the topped pyrolysis production fraction presently claimed.
The naphtha fraction also has a boiling point temperature range that overlap the ranges that is claimed for the distillate fraction boiling in a range from 36°C to the first cut temperature. This naphtha fraction taught in ANDERSON has been construed as the distillate fraction presently claimed.
it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a first cut temperature for fractionation between -6°C to about 193°C (such as under 80°C) for collection of a naphtha stream and a distillate stream.
The blended fuel composition is also taught in paragraph 8 to include fractions of plastic pyrolysis oil with blendstock fuels such as gasoline, diesel and the like. (fuel blending unit)
ANDERSON teach in paragraph 9 that the motivation to combine the pyrolysis oil or fractions thereof with blendstocks is to meet desired properties of the resultant blended fuel compositions.
ANDERSON teaches in paragraph 6 that the distillate fraction taught in ANDERSON (topped pyrolysis production fraction) may be combined with diesel or marine fuel.
Diesel fuel is known in the art for have a boiling point range that overlaps those of kerosene.
ANDERSON also teaches in paragraphs 9 and 55 and Table 1 to include light cycle oils.
Vacuum residue oil, kerosene, light gas oil, and fluid catalytic cracking cycle and decant oil (FCC DCO) have boiling points that are known in the art.
It is known in the art to blend marine fuel with other blends of hydrocarbon streams.
For example, HODGINS et al. teach in paragraph 2 that marine fuel oils are typically blends of various hydrocarbon streams including vacuum residue oil, kerosene, light gas oil, and fluid catalytic cracking cycle and decant oil (FCC DCO), visbroken residues, and delayed coking liquids.
HODGKINS et al. teach in paragraph 4 that aromatic bottoms may be used in lieu of more valuable components such as kerosene and light gas oil.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fraction taught in ANDERSON with other hydrocarbon streams such as vacuum residue oil, kerosene to be blended with marine fuel.
The motivation to do so can be found in paragraph 2 of HODGKINS et al.
HODGKINS et al. teach that other various hydrocarbon streams are blended with marine fuel such that the marine fuel can meet certain specifications.
Although ANDERSON teaches in paragraph 10 that plastic pyrolysis oil may be blended with fuel without additional purification, RAMAMURTHY teaches in paragraphs 16 a pyrolysis unit followed by a hydroprocessing unit. The hydroprocessing unit is taught in paragraph 40 to dechlorinate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a hydroprocessing unit to dechlorinate the pyrolysis oil (pretreater) after the pyrolysis unit in ANDERSON.
RAMAMURTHY recognizes in paragraph 27 that dechlorination minimizes the chloride in units downstream of the pyrolysis unit.
Further motivation can be found in FUJIMOTO et al. FUJIMOTO et al. teach in paragraph 2 that chlorine poses a fear of generating dioxins.
Regarding claim 3, ANDERSON teaches blends with marine fuel and marine fuel must meet certain specifications.
HODKINS et al. teach the specification of marine fuel in Table 4-C
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the blends with marine fuel that ANDERSON teach would meet the specifications of marine fuel in Table 4-C which include specific gravity, sulfur content, viscosity, flash point and carbon residue.
The motivation to do so would be to use the blend as a marine fuel.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 4, ANDERSON teaches in paragraph 38 that the plastic source may comprise one or more polymers which is a differing composition.
Regarding claim 5, ANDERSON teaches in paragraph 36 that the pyrolysis is conducted a temperature that is between 400°C to 850°C.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
ANDERSON does not explicitly teach a catalyst in the pyrolysis. However, using a catalyst in pyrolysis is well known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would add a catalyst with an expectation of success absent evidence to the contrary.
A catalyst is known in the art for increasing the rate of a chemical reaction without underdoing permanent chemical change and would be beneficial to the pyrolysis reaction.
Regarding claims 6-9 and 18-19, the naphtha fraction is taught in paragraph 15 to have a boiling point of between -6°C to about 193°C. The distillate fraction is taught in paragraph 16 to have a boiling point between about 193°C to about 371°C.
Choosing a cut temperature at greater than 80°C, greater than 160°C, greater than 180°C or greater than 240°C would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given that the distillate fraction taught in ANDERSON (topped pyrolysis production fraction) has a boiling point between about 193°C to about 371°C.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the blended fuel composition is taught in paragraphs 5-6 to comprise about 1 to about 20 vol% of a plastic pyrolysis oil and about 80 – about 99% vol% of a blendstock fuel.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Regarding claim 11, plastic pyrolysis oil is taught in paragraph 10 to have very low sulfur and taught in paragraph 41 to have a sulfur content of less than 100ppm.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, plastic pyrolysis oil is taught in paragraph 35 to be produced at one location and the blending may be performed at another location.
The plastic pyrolysis oil and blendstock fuel would be expected to be separate streams.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, the claims are written such that the blending may be only one stream.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection.
TIMKEN teaches pyrolysis of waste plastics.
TIMKEN teaches in table 1 and paragraph 49 that the composition of oil from pyrolysis of waste plastics changed based on the process conditions of the pyrolysis process and include a range of 5% to 23 vol% of aromatics and mid 20 vol% to mid 50 vol% of paraffinic content. The combined olefins and naphthenes vol% were shown to be less than 42.4% for pyrolysis oil sample C and pyrolysis sample D.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to produce and apply pyrolysis oil with up to 50 wt% of paraffins, up to 50 wt% of olefins, up to 45 wt% of naphthenes, and up to 10 wt% aromatics as the pyrolysis oil for ANDERSON since it has been that held that wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Given that in the presently claimed process and system, the pyrolysis oil is further processed, applicant has not provided the criticality of producing a pyrolysis oil meeting the limitation of up to 50 wt% of paraffins, up to 50 wt% of olefins, up to 45 wt% of naphthenes, and up to 10 wt% aromatics to be then fractionated.
Applicant's other arguments regarding the hydroprocessing unit of RAMAMURTHY filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is flawed to add the hydroprocessing unit of RAMAMURTHY to dechlorinate the pyrolysis oil after the pyrolysis unit in ANDERSON.
Applicant argues that the hydroprocessing unit that RAMAMURTHY teaches is a cracker such as hydrocracker, a catalytic cracker operated in hydropyrolysis mode, a fluid catalytic cracker operated in hydropyrolysis.
Applicant argues that the teaching in paragraph 40 of RAMAMURHTY states that the hydroprocessing unit 20 is configured to hydrocrack long chain molecules and that it is not indicated as “one or more embodiments”, “in some aspects,” or “may.”
This is not persuasive as the hydroprocessing unit in RAMAMURTHY is taught in paragraph 40 to be any suitable hydroprocessing reactor that includes a hydrotreater.
Examples of reactions which may occur in the hydroprocessing unit 20 are taught in paragraph 42 to include, but are not limited to, the 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.
Given the totality of the teachings of RAMAMURTHY, one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that a hydroprocessing unit that is a hydrotreater may be used to only dechlorinate.
ANDERSON is not being modified by the addition of a hydroprocessing unit that is used in the process and system taught by RAMAMURTHY that both hydrocracks and hydrodechlorinates.
ANDERSON is modified by the addition of a hydrotreater to hydrodechlorinate the pyrolysis oil, which is suggested by RAMAMURTHY.
The motivation to add a hydrotreater after the plastic pyrolysis unit is listed below.
RAMAMURTHY recognizes in paragraph 27 that dechlorination minimizes the chloride in units downstream of the pyrolysis unit.
Further motivation can be found in FUJIMOTO et al. FUJIMOTO et al. teach in paragraph 2 that chlorine poses a fear of generating dioxins.
Applicant argues that removing chlorine with a hydrotreater is problematic.
This is not persuasive as hydrodechlorination with a hydrotreater is known in the art.
Paragraph 49 of the current specification also lists hydrotreating for removing chlorine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TODO et al. (JPH1161147A) teach treatment of waste plastic. Waste plastics are treated by a pyrolytic unit to form a pyrolyzed distillate oil. The pyrolyzed distillate oil is then hydrogenated to free chlorine to form a dechlorinated oil.
NARAYANASWAMY (USPGPUB 20160264880) teaches a process for the only the dechlorination of a plastic pyrolysis oil with a hydroprocessing catalyst.
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 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