DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a response filed on September 10, 2025. Claims 33-47 and 50 were canceled and new claims 53-56 were added. Claims 48, 49, and 51-56 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, delete “the” which precedes “pyrolysis”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 4, please replace “preprocessing” with “processing” (two occurrences). The waste plastic stream is subjected to processing. There is no successive processing step that necessitates use of the fabricated term “preprocessing”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “and separation” with “or separation”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, please replace “and methanolysis” with “or methanolysis”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 11, please replace “the principal” with “a principal”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, please replace “the principal” with “a principal”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, please replace “facility, or the” with “facility, or a”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 18, please insert the definition “recycle pyrolysis oil” prior to “r-pyoil”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 18, please insert the definition “recycle pyrolysis gas” prior to “r-pygas”.
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 20, please insert the definition “recycle propylene” prior to “r-propylene”.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 55 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, please replace “and LPG” with “or LPG”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 48, 49, and 51-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. There is no antecedent basis for the term “the solvolysis facility” in lines 12 and 13 of claim 53. Dependent claims are subsumed under the rejection.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The nexus between “pyrolysis effluent” in step (c) and “cracker feed stream” in step (d) is not well-established. Both contain r-pyoil and r-pygas, but it is unclear how said “pyrolysis effluent” is transformed into said “cracker feed stream” or how the two terms are related sequentially.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim is drawn to a method for preparing polypropylene, but it is unclear in step (e) whether said polypropylene is made. Claim merely describes a step of feeding r-propylene to a reactor. Replacing the adverbial phrase “in which polypropylene is made” with a follow up sentence containing an action verb such as “and making said polypropylene” or “polymerizing said r-propylene to make said polypropylene” is suggested.
Drawings
Figure 4 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference numeral 128 not mentioned in the description. Please see annotated drawing below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
836
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in paragraphs 375 to 399 of the previous office action dated July 10, 2025, have been withdrawn in view of cancelation of claims.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in paragraph 401 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn in view of cancelation of claims.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Zijl et al. (US 11,667,854), set forth in paragraph 405 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn in view of cancelation of claims.
The rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanislaus et al. (WO 2018/025104) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 9,428,695), and further in view of Weber et al. (US 3,326,872), set forth in paragraphs 406 and 407 of the previous office action, have been withdrawn in view of cancelation of claims.
The rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitting et al. (US 11,946,000) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 9,428,695), and further in view Weber et al. (US 3,326,872), set forth in paragraphs 408 and 409 of the previous office action, have been withdrawn in view of cancelation of claims.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting over claims of copending Application No. 17/995,715, set forth in paragraphs 411 and 412 of the previous office action, has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject of instant claims is patentably distinct over prior art cited in Applicant’s PTO-1449 and references listed in accompanying PTO-892. None of the references teaches claimed method, however, claims are not in condition for allowance.
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 Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights