DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 13 July 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 14-23, 25, 26, 40, 47, and 48 are pending. Claim 48 is withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention. Consequently, only claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 14-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 40, and 47 are pending for examination.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection are entered under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103. The rejections follow.
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.
Claim 1 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the recycled waste material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh (US 6,184,430).
With respect to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 47, Venkatesh discloses a process for upcycling a hydrocarbon material (polystyrene) (see Venkatesh, column 2, lines 6-20; and column 10, lines 42-45) comprising: (a) feeding the hydrocarbon material into a reactor, wherein the reactor comprises a transition metal (platinum) catalyst (undoubtedly comprising platinum atoms) in admixture with zirconium hydroxide support (see Venkatesh, Table 1; column 10, lines 42-45; and Table 13); (b) operating the reactor at a temperature of 300°C for 60 minutes (see Venkatesh, Table 13) to convert the hydrocarbon material to a liquid product comprising an alkyaromatic compound (e.g., methyltetralin (a C11 compound), ethyltetralin (a C12 compound), diphenylmethane (a C13 compound)) (see Venkatesh, Table 13). The hydrocarbon material may originate from a waste material (plastic waste) (see Venkatesh, column 12, lines 59-66). The product yield is in excess of 75% (see Venkatesh, Table 13). The used catalyst may be recovered after use (see Venkatesh, Table 14).
Venkatesh does not explicitly disclose wherein the mol% of the alkylaromatic compound in the product is at least 30 mol%.
However, the feed, catalyst, reactor operating temperature, and reactor residence time fall squarely within the limitations specified in Applicant’s claims. Such being the case, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily expect the same feed material processed under the same reaction conditions to produce the same product having the same product characteristics, including mol% of the alkylaromatic compound, molecular weight, and distribution of molecular weight. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). The same analysis applies to claims 3, 6, 7, 22, 23, and 25.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh (US 6,184,430) in view of Ramazani (A. Ramazani and H. Aghahosseini, Engineered Nanomaterial for Catalysis Industry in Handbook of Nanomaterials for Industrial Applications (2018)).
With respect to claim 14, see discussion supra at paragraph 13.
Venkatesh does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst comprises platinum nanoparticles.
However, it is well known that smaller catalyst particle size on the order of nanoparticles provide greater catalytic activity and selectivity across a wide range of industrial applications including hydrocarbon processing and cracking (see Ramazani, Abstract).
Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a platinum nanoparticle catalyst in the process of Venkatesh because such catalyst is known to have greater catalytic activity.
Claims 15-18 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesh (US 6,184,430) in view of Fuentes (E. G. Fuentes-Ordonez et al., Mechanism and Kinetics in Catalytic Hydrocracking of Polystyrene in Solution, 124 Polymer Degradation and Stability 51-59 (2016)), Kholidah (N. Kholidah et al., Polystyrene Plastic Waste Conversion into Liquid Fuel with Catalytic Cracking Process Using Al2O3 as Catalyst, 3 Sci. Technol. Indonesia 1-6 (2019)), and Lewis (US 4,324,698).
With respect to claims 15-18 and 40, see discussion supra at paragraph 13. Alumina based catalyst supports are known to be suitable for carrying out the same type of reaction as detailed in Venkatesh (see Fuentes, Abstract) (see Kholidah, Abstract). It is prima facie obvious to combine one prior art element (zirconium oxide) with another prior art element (alumina) known to be useful for the exact same purpose (as a catalyst support material for polystyrene cracking catalysts). MPEP 2144.06(I) (“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)). Moreover, Lewis discloses that a fluorided cracking catalyst will exhibit improved activity over an unfluorided cracking catalyst (see Lewis, Abstract). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a fluorided cracking catalyst in order to achieve improved catalytic activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights