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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 33-34, 36-37, 39-40, 42-43, 45-46 and 48-49, in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 35, 38, 41, 44, 47 and 50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
Objection – Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Figs. 1, 3-5 and 6B include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description, as follows:
Fig. 1: 106, 108, 120, 124, 126, 128, 130 and 161;
Fig. 3: 212;
Fig. 4: 122;
Fig. 5: 170;
Fig. 6B: 121.
Corrected drawing sheet(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Fig. 4 does not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 312 (see description at p. 84, line 10). Corrected drawing sheet(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 33, the claim recites the term “POX”. The as-filed specification at [0312] defines the term as partial oxidation, and the Office is construing the term in accordance with this definition.
Regarding Claims 36-37 and 39-40, the claims each recite the term “r-pyoil”. The as-filed specification at [0233] defines the term as a composition obtained from pyrolysis that is liquid at 25oC and 1 atmosphere, and the Office is construing the term in accordance with this definition.
Regarding Claims 45-46, the claims each recite the terms “polyethylene” and “additive polymerization”. The as-filed specification at [0439] defines the terms to include polyethylene that can be prepared by addition polymerization of ethylene and optional comonomers, such as alpha-olefins. Accordingly, the Office is broadly construing the above terms as inclusive of (co)polymer of ethylene, with or without alpha-olefinic comonomer(s), made by addition polymerization.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 36-37, 39-40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 36-37, the claims provide the limitation to “said r-olefin” (see line 1 of each). There is no proper and sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim, nor in any claim upon which they depend (currently, claims 33-34, respectively). Further, insofar as “r-olefin” in claim 36 is intended to refer back to “pr-ethylene,” “POXr-ethylene,” or “sr-ethylene” in parent claim 33, the term is redundant to “r-ethylene,” subsequently recited in claim 36. Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim provides the limitation to “said r-polyethylene” in lines 1-2. There is no proper and sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, nor in any claim upon which claim 36 depends (currently, claim 33). Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Regarding Claims 36 and 42, the claims provide the limitation to “r-ethylene” (see line 1 of each). It is not clear what the limitation refers back to in parent claim 33, because there are several different possibilities as to what the limitation might refer back to. As to the different possibilities, “pr-ethylene,” “POXr-ethylene,” and “sr-ethylene,” are recited in parent claim 33 in lines 6-7, and the limitation could refer back to any one or all of the recitations. For purposes of substantive examination, an assumption has been made that the limitation refers back to “pr-ethylene,” “POXr-ethylene,” and “sr-ethylene” in the alternative; however, clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Regarding Claims 37 and 43, the claims each provide the limitation to “r-ethylene” (see line 1 of each). There is no proper and sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim, nor in any claim upon which they depend (currently, claim 34). Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Regarding Claims 39-40, the claims each provide the limitation to “said cracking of r-pyoil” in line 3. There is no proper and sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim, nor in any claim upon which they depend (currently, claims 33-34, respectively). For purposes of substantive examination, the above limitation is interpreted as instead reciting “
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claims 42-43, both claims recite “wherein r-ethylene is used to make said polyethylene composition,” in reference to the methods of claims 33 and 34, respectively. For claim 42, the term “r-ethylene” is understood to refer back to any one of “pr-ethylene,” “POXr-ethylene,” and “sr-ethylene” in parent claim 33; and in claim 43, the term necessarily refers back to “a recycle content ethylene composition” as recited in parent claim 34. As such, these claims are seen to merely repeat part of the scope of their respective parent claims, without adding any further substantive limitation. Accordingly, both claims are properly rejected as failing to further limit the subject matter of the respective claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Common Ownership Notice
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.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 33-34, 36-37, 39-40, 42-43, 45-46 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Zijl, et al (WO 2020/152317 A1; relying on foreign application filing date of 01/24/2019) (‘Van Zijl’).
Regarding Claims 33 and 42, reference to Van Zijl has already disclosed a method of processing a pyrolysis recycle content ethylene composition derived directly or indirectly from pyrolysis of a waste plastic (“pr-ethylene”) (see Abs. and [0001] – present invention relates to a process for the preparation of polyethylenes from products originating from waste plastic feedstocks; [0012] – (a) providing a hydrocarbon stream A obtained by treatment of a waste plastics feedstock …; [0033] – hydrocarbon stream A may be obtained by processing a waste plastics stream in a pyrolysis unit), said method comprising feeding said pr-ethylene to a reactor in which a polyethylene is made (see [0012] – (g) supplying product stream E to a polymerization reactor (wherein stream E comprises ethylene and is obtained indirectly from pyrolysis of a waste plastics feedstock as per [0033]-[0037]). Further “pr-ethylene is considered a species under “r-ethylene” as recited in claim 42.
Regarding Claims 34 and 43, reference to Van Zijl has already disclosed a method of making a recycle content polyethylene composition (“r-polyethylene”) (see Abs, and [0001]), said method comprising polymerizing a recycle content ethylene composition, at least a portion of which is derived directly or indirectly from pyrolyzing a waste plastic, to produce a polyethylene effluent comprising said r-polyethylene (see [0012], [0033]-[0037] and [0095] – process according to present invention (of Van Zijl) allows for optimization of yield of polyethylene and reduction of energy to produce the polyethylene, whilst allowing for a circular use (i.e., recycle) of waste plastics given the feedstock being based on waste plastics). Further “r-polyethylene” is necessarily derived from “r-ethylene” as recited in claim 43.
Regarding Claims 36-37, Van Zijl discloses the method of claims 33-34, respectively, as discussed above. Van Zijl further discloses wherein said r-ethylene (viz., “pr-ethylene”) is derived directly or indirectly from cracking a recycled waste pyrolysis oil (corresponding to claimed “r-pyoil”) in a gas furnace, as claimed (see [0034]-[0037]).
Regarding Claims 39-40, Van Zijl discloses the method of claims 33-34, respectively, as discussed above. Van Zijl further discloses wherein at least a portion of said ethylene composition is derived directly or indirectly from said pyrolysis of waste plastic and through cracking of r-pyoil to thereby obtain an r-ethylene composition (see [0034]-[0037] and [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding Claims 45-46 and 48-49, Van Zijl discloses the method of claims 33-34, respectively, as discussed above. Van Zijl further discloses wherein said polyethylene is made in absence of a catalyst; that is, by a free-radical polymerization reaction performed in the presence of a free-radical reaction initiator, such as a peroxide (see [0084]-[0085]). And although not explicitly disclosed, the polyethylene produced by the free-radical polymerization reaction of Van Zijl is inherently made by an “additive polymerization reaction” as per claims 45-46; indeed, the same radical polymerization process is described herein for making LDPE, wherein no catalyst is included (cf., Spec., [0436]).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 36-37, 39-40 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al (US 2020/001772 A1) (‘Ramamurthy’) in view of Keusenkothen et al (US 2014/0163271 A1) (‘Keusenkothen’).
Regarding Claims 33-34 and 42-43, Ramamurthy discloses a process for producing high value products that include a propylene stream, an ethylene/butylenes stream and a cumene stream that are converted and generated by pyrolysis from recycled plastic waste streams (see Abs., [0007], [0012]-[0020], [0029], [0076], [0092]-[0100], [0107], [0112]-[0113], [0137] and Fig. 2 – C2/C4 unsaturated stream 320). Ramamurthy is silent as to feeding the aforementioned unsaturated product stream to a reactor in which a polyethylene is made (claim 33) or producing a polyethylene effluent comprising a recycle content polyethylene composition (claim 34).
However, in the same technical field, Keusenkothen teaches a process for polymerizing monomers that include ethylene in a polymerization reactor after a pyrolysis process to form monomer precursor components (see Abs., [0003]-[0010], [0038], [0072]-[0074] and Fig. 1 – Polymerization 214). Keusenkothen specifically teaches an embodiment wherein a first portion of a first product is polymerized in stage 214 to form, for example, polyethylene (see [0074]).
Since Ramamurthy and Keusenkothen both relate to pyrolysis processes for producing hydrocarbon products, and given the notoriously well-known practical utilities of polyethylene material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the process of Ramamurthy by subsequently polymerizing the aforementioned pyrolysis product streams, in particular the C2/C4 unsaturated stream, in a reactor to produce a polyethylene effluent comprising a recycle content polyethylene composition, as claimed herein.
Regarding Claims 36-37, Ramamurthy in view of Keusenkothen renders obvious the method of claims 33-34, respectively, as discussed above. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein said r-ethylene (viz., “pr-ethylene”) is derived directly or indirectly from cracking a recycled waste pyrolysis oil (corresponding to claimed “r-pyoil”) in a gas furnace, as claimed (see [0001], [0021] [0026]-[0032], [0047], [0066] and [0099]-[0108]).
Regarding Claims 39-40, Ramamurthy in view of Keusenkothen renders obvious the method of claims 33-34, respectively, as discussed above. Ramamurthy further teaches wherein at least a portion of said ethylene composition is derived directly or indirectly from said pyrolysis of waste plastic and through cracking of r-pyoil to thereby obtain an r-ethylene composition (see [0001], [0007], [0017]-[0030], [0092]-[0100], [0112]-[0113] and [0137]).
Conclusion
Claims 33-34, 36-37, 39-40, 42-43, 45-46 and 48-49 are rejected. Claims 35, 38, 41, 44, 47 and 50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to the Applicant’s election, discussed above. Accordingly, no claims are in condition for allowance at this time.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/06-19-26
Prosecution Insights