DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The response dated 9/11/2025 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 30-36, 38-42, 44-47, and 49-50 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 30, 32, 33, 35-36, 38-39, 41-42, 44-47, and 49 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 31 and 34, is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 50 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-29, 37, 43, and 48 is/are acknowledged as cancelled.
NOTE: Claim 34 was grouped with Group II in the Restriction Requirement dated 5/13/2025. The election dated 5/21/2025 elected Group II, but contained an incomplete listing of claims within the group, omitting Claim 34. In this sense, the election was incomplete and/or non-compliant. The omission of Claim 34 was carried forward in the Non-Final Office Action, and Claim 34 was not treated. In this response, Claim 34 is amended to add the missing article (“A”). The Remarks do not otherwise address Claim 34 or note its status.
Claim 34 is a very broadly phrased product-by-process claim, drawn to hydrogen. Language requiring this hydrogen be produced was addressed in Claim 30, the process claim from which Claim 34 depends / incorporates. The rejection is updated below to rely on the same passage used in rejecting Claim 30 for Claim 34. The Remarks do not appear to be making the production of hydrogen central to their case for patentability and are not prejudiced by relying upon the same passage used in rejecting Claim 30 (which was not traversed or otherwise addressed).
Hydrogen is in the periodic table of elements. Candidly speaking, a product-by-process claim to hydrogen (for which the Office bears a lower burden of proof, see MPEP 2113) can be rejected any number of ways, with a multitude of references.
The action is FINAL.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 50 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 50 is drawn to steam cracking (C07C 4/025). There is an a priori lack of unity. Alternatively or additionally, to the extent the “r-hydrogen” is the common technical feature (which, as noted in the restriction, it isn’t), the Ramamurthy reference discussed below is evidence that r-hydrogen does not define a contribution over the art.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 50 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
A large number of references and related applications have been filed. Applicants are invited to call out references believed to be particularly relevant.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102
I. With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 31, 37, 40, 43, 48 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0017773 to Ramamurthy, et al., after quoting the rejection, the Remarks state:
In response, Applicant first refers to the requested amendment to Claim 31, which limits the method to that involving pyrolysis of waste plastic, to form an r-pygas and r-pyoil product. Claim 31 as amended also clarifies that the r-hydrogen is derived from the cracking of r-pygas and/or r-pyoil.
(Remarks of 9/11/2025 at 7). In response, this is not commensurate with Claim 31. Claim 31 states that “at least a portion of” [the recycle content cracker feed composition] is derived from pyrolyzing a waste plastic. Furthermore, while the first sentence quoted above refers to “an r-pygas and r-pyoil product,” the second sentence and the amendment to Claim 31 refers to “r-pygas and/or r-pyoil.”
The Remarks traverse application of Ramamurthy, stating: “in particular the utilization of a reformer and its off-gas H2 stream (stream 43) as comprising r-hydrogen is erroneous.” (Remarks of 9/11/2025 at 7). The Remarks go on, stating “[i]t is simply incorrect to characterize the H₂ stream as a waste plastic recycle content hydrogen because stream 23 is simply whatever hydrogen is recovered as unreacted from the hydroprocessing and reformer processes; it is not derived from the cracking of r-pyoil and/or r-pygas, which are in turn, derived from the pyrolysis of waste plastic.” Id. In response, this was not erroneous for the claim as filed. Claim 31 did not require cracking. The new cracking language is not persuasive here.
Ramamurthy states:
[0020] The pyrolysis unit 10 may be any suitable vessel configured to convert waste plastics into gas phase and liquid phase products (e.g., simultaneously). The vessel may be configured for gas phase, liquid phase, vapor-liquid phase, gas-solid phase, liquid-solid phase, or slurry phase operation. The vessel may contain one or more beds of inert material or pyrolysis catalyst comprising sand, zeolite, alumina, a catalytic cracking catalyst, or combinations thereof. Generally, the pyrolysis catalyst is capable of transferring heat to the components subjected to the pyrolysis process in the pyrolysis unit 10. Alternatively, the pyrolysis unit 10 can be operated without any catalyst (e.g., pure thermal pyrolysis). The pyrolysis unit 10 may be operated adiabatically, isothermally, nonadiabatically, non-isothermally, or combinations thereof. The pyrolysis reactions of this disclosure may be carried out in a single stage or in multiple stages. For example, the pyrolysis unit 10 can be two reactor vessels fluidly connected in series.
[0021] In a configuration where the pyrolysis unit 10 comprises two vessels, the pyrolysis process may be divided into a first stage which is performed in a first vessel and in a second stage fluidly connected downstream of the first stage which is performed in the second vessel. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, and with the help of this disclosure, the second stage may enhance the pyrolysis of an intermediate pyrolysis product stream flowing from the first stage into the second stage, to yield a pyrolysis product flowing from the second stage. In some configurations, the first stage may utilize thermal cracking of the waste plastics, and the second stage may utilize thermal or catalytic cracking of the waste plastics to yield the pyrolysis product flowing from the second stage. Alternatively, the first stage may utilize catalytic cracking of the waste plastics, and the second stage may utilize thermal or catalytic cracking of the waste plastics to yield the pyrolysis product flowing from the second stage.
[0022] In some configurations, the pyrolysis unit 10 may include one or more equipment configured to convert mixed plastics into gas phase and liquid phase products. The one or more equipment may or may not contain an inert material or pyrolysis catalyst as described above. Examples of such equipment include one or more of heated extruders, heated rotating kiln, heated tank-type reactors, packed bed reactors, bubbling fluidized bed reactors, circulating fluidized bed reactors, empty heated vessels, enclosed heated surfaces where plastic flows down along the wall and cracks, vessels surrounded by ovens or furnaces, or any other suitable equipment offering a heated surface to assist in cracking.
(Ramamurthy 3: [0020] – [0022]). Whatever is leaving the first cracker / first stage is interpreted as “r-pygas and/or r-pyoil” that is cracked in the second cracker / second stage. Alternatively or additionally, Ramamurthy teaches other equipment to convert to plastic to gas phase and liquid phase products. (Ramamurthy 3: [0022]). This can also be interpreted as “r-pygas and/or r-pyoil,” which is then cracked.
For completeness, Claim 40 claimed cracking and was rejected. Claim 40 is very broadly phrased (“derived directly or indirectly…”). This rejection was not traversed, and is presumed correct. The passages recited in the reference are reasserted as proper for the embodiment reflected in this claim. Hydrogen is clearly produced, ““directly or indirectly,”” etc. (Ramamurthy 7: [0058]; Fig. 1).
The rejection is MAINTAINED, updated to address the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
I. Claim(s) 31, 34, 37, 40 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0017773 to Ramamurthy, et al.
With respect to Claim 31, this claim requires “processing a recycle content cracker feed composition, at least a portion of which is derived directly or indirectly from pyrolyzing, gasifying, and/or solvolyzing a waste plastic.” Ramamurthy teaches pyrolyzing plastic waste. (Ramamurthy 3: [0023] – pyrolysis unit; 3: [0019] – plastic waste; Fig. 1). This creates a liquid hydrocarbon stream 13. (Ramamurthy 4: [0030]; 4: [0032] – 5: [0038]). This is interpreted as a “recycle content cracker feed composition,” as claimed. This composition is “processed” by any number of unit operations in Ramamurthy, e.g. the hydroprocessor or the reformer. (Ramamurthy 5: [0040] et seq.; Fig. 1).
Claim 31 further requires “produc[ing] a hydrogen stream comprising r-hydrogen.” Hydrogen 43 is produced at least from the reforming unit 40. (Ramamurthy 7: [0058]; Fig. 1). This is interpreted as comprising “r-hydrogen.”
Claim 31 has been amended to further require “said r-hydrogen is derived from cracking r-pygas and/or r-pyoil.” Ramamurthy states:
[0020] The pyrolysis unit 10 may be any suitable vessel configured to convert waste plastics into gas phase and liquid phase products (e.g., simultaneously). The vessel may be configured for gas phase, liquid phase, vapor-liquid phase, gas-solid phase, liquid-solid phase, or slurry phase operation. The vessel may contain one or more beds of inert material or pyrolysis catalyst comprising sand, zeolite, alumina, a catalytic cracking catalyst, or combinations thereof. Generally, the pyrolysis catalyst is capable of transferring heat to the components subjected to the pyrolysis process in the pyrolysis unit 10. Alternatively, the pyrolysis unit 10 can be operated without any catalyst (e.g., pure thermal pyrolysis). The pyrolysis unit 10 may be operated adiabatically, isothermally, nonadiabatically, non-isothermally, or combinations thereof. The pyrolysis reactions of this disclosure may be carried out in a single stage or in multiple stages. For example, the pyrolysis unit 10 can be two reactor vessels fluidly connected in series.
[0021] In a configuration where the pyrolysis unit 10 comprises two vessels, the pyrolysis process may be divided into a first stage which is performed in a first vessel and in a second stage fluidly connected downstream of the first stage which is performed in the second vessel. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, and with the help of this disclosure, the second stage may enhance the pyrolysis of an intermediate pyrolysis product stream flowing from the first stage into the second stage, to yield a pyrolysis product flowing from the second stage. In some configurations, the first stage may utilize thermal cracking of the waste plastics, and the second stage may utilize thermal or catalytic cracking of the waste plastics to yield the pyrolysis product flowing from the second stage. Alternatively, the first stage may utilize catalytic cracking of the waste plastics, and the second stage may utilize thermal or catalytic cracking of the waste plastics to yield the pyrolysis product flowing from the second stage.
[0022] In some configurations, the pyrolysis unit 10 may include one or more equipment configured to convert mixed plastics into gas phase and liquid phase products. The one or more equipment may or may not contain an inert material or pyrolysis catalyst as described above. Examples of such equipment include one or more of heated extruders, heated rotating kiln, heated tank-type reactors, packed bed reactors, bubbling fluidized bed reactors, circulating fluidized bed reactors, empty heated vessels, enclosed heated surfaces where plastic flows down along the wall and cracks, vessels surrounded by ovens or furnaces, or any other suitable equipment offering a heated surface to assist in cracking.
(Ramamurthy 3: [0020] – [0022]) (emphasis added). Whatever is leaving the first cracker / first stage is interpreted as “r-pygas and/or r-pyoil” that is cracked in the second cracker / second stage. Alternatively or additionally, Ramamurthy teaches other equipment to convert to plastic to gas phase and liquid phase products. (Ramamurthy 3: [0022]). This can also be interpreted as “r-pygas and/or r-pyoil,” which is then cracked. The ““r-hydrogen”” is ““so derived,”” as discussed above.
As to Claim 34, hydrogen 43 is produced at least from the reforming unit 40. (Ramamurthy 7: [0058]; Fig. 1). This is interpreted as comprising “r-hydrogen.”
As to Claim 37, the liquid hydrocarbon from the pyrolysis unit is referred to as a pyrolysis oil. (Ramamurthy 4: [0028], [0032]). As discussed above, this is “processed” into hydrogen. As such, the “r-hydrogen” is derived directly or indirectly from r-pyroil.
As to Claim 40, the pyrolysis unit contains furnaces (Ramamurthy 3: [0022] – “vessels surrounded by ovens or furnaces, or any other suitable equipment offering a heated surface to assist in cracking”) and is configured to crack the composition. (Ramamurthy 3: [0023] – “configured to pyrolyse (e.g., crack)”). As such, the “r-hydrogen” is derived directly or indirectly from cracking r-pyoil.
II. Claim(s) 31, 34, 37, 40 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0017773 to Ramamurthy, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference. To the extent any of the cited passages can be characterized as combining embodiments, selecting from lists, etc. (no such concession is made), any such combination/selection is obvious. The articulated rationale is that it reflects application of known techniques, materials, elements, etc. consistent with known methods to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143.
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 DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736