DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
The previously applied objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn based on newly submitted drawings, submitted 3/18/26.
The previously applied 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn based on Applicant’s clarifying remarks and amendments, submitted 3/18/26.
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 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2020/0017772 A1) in view of Keusenkothen et al. (US 2014/0163271 A1).
Regarding Claims 34 and 37, Ramamurthy teaches a process for producing high value products that include a propylene stream, an ethylene stream, and a cumene stream that are converted and created by pyrolysis from recycled plastic waste streams (Ramamurthy, Abstract, [0007], [0012]-[0020], [0029], [0092]-[0100], [0107], [0112]-[0113], [0137]). Ramamurthy additionally teaches that the output stream may include aromatics in an amount of 5 wt% ([0037]). Ramamurthy additionally teaches that the pyrolysis may be done at a temperature of above 450C, which would include temperatures of greater than 775C (including ranges of up to 750C, [0027]; additionally see [0066], wherein cracking at very high temperatures of 800C or more may be implemented). The Examiner notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Ramamurthy remains silent regarding utilizing the aforementioned product streams in a polymerization reactor to form a propylene-ethylene copolymer. Keusenkothen, however, teaches a process for copolymerizing monomers that include ethylene and propylene in a polymerization reactor after a pyrolysis process to form monomer precursor components (Keusenkothen, Abstract, [0003]-[0010], [0038], [0072]-[0074]). Keusenkothen teaches the process can utilize recycle streams of hydrocarbons into process mixtures (Keusenkothen, [0053], [0112]). Since Ramamurthy and Keusenkothen both disclose pyrolysis processes for producing hydrocarbon products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have subsequently polymerized Ramamurthy pyrolysis product streams (such as ethylene and propylene) via a method for polymerizing propylene and ethylene in a reactor to form a copolymer as taught by Keusenkothen to yield a process that can operate within a wide range of pyrolysis conditions, that provides conditions able to increase relative amounts of C2 and C3 unsaturated hydrocarbons (i.e., ethylene and propylene), and that operates with residence time conditions that optimize performance and product stream conversions (Keusenkothen, [0034]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Ramamurthy teaches the propylene stream and an ethylene stream are converted and created by pyrolysis from recycled plastic waste streams by cracking a recycled waste pyrolysis gas (Ramamurthy, Abstract, [0001], [0007], [0017]-[0030], [0092]-[0100], [0112]-[0113], [0137]). Modified Ramamurthy teaches at least a portion of the pyrolysis hydrocarbon streams can be recycled back to the pyrolysis unit (Ramamurthy, [0029], [0107], Fig 2).
Regarding Claims 43 and 46, modified Ramamurthy teaches the propylene stream and an ethylene stream are converted and created by pyrolysis from recycled plastic waste streams by cracking a recycled waste pyrolysis oil in a gas cracking furnace (Ramamurthy, Abstract, [0001], [0021], [0026]-[0032], [0047], [0066], [0099]-[0108]).
Regarding Claims 49 and 52, modified Ramamurthy teaches the propylene-ethylene copolymer is formed from the propylene stream and an ethylene streams that are converted and created by pyrolysis from recycled plastic waste streams, where at least a portion of the pyrolysis hydrocarbon streams can also be recycled back to the pyrolysis unit (Ramamurthy, Abstract, [0003], [0007], [0012]-[0020], [0029], [0092]-[0100], [0107], [0112]-[0113], [0137]; Keusenkothen, Abstract, [0003]-[0010], [0038], [0053], [0072]-[0074], [0112]).
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy in view of Keusenkothen as applied to claim 34, above, and further in view of Ullom et al. (US 2016/0024390, “Ullom”).
Regarding claim 54, the combination remains as applied to claim 34, above, however Ramamurthy fails to specifically teach to dehalogenate the waste plastic prior to the pyrolysis. However, this step is known in the prior art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of recycling systems and methods ([0001] – [0005]), Ullom teaches it is known and helpful to dehalogenate hydrocarbonaceous material prior to pyrolysis as an effective manner of reducing halogens from the raw materials and it therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have done so ([0017], [0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/18/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Ramamurthy does not teach pyrolysis at a temperature reading on the claimed range of from 775C to 1100C. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ramamurthy describes high temperature pyrolysis including ranges of greater than 450C (e.g., [0027], [0066]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "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). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Applicant further argues that aromatics would be present at a higher amount than 5% by weight if the pyrolysis were to be undergone at higher temperatures. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Ramamurthy teaches that this is necessarily so. Ramamurthy teaches that higher temperature pyrolysis may produce pyrolysis oils rich in aromatics. But Ramamurthy teaches that the content of aromatics in this stream may be as low as 5% by weight ([0037]) and that high severity pyrolysis is preferable for producing propylene ([0027]). “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Please see MPEP §2123.
Therefore, claims 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 54 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights