DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 2 February 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 13-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 40, 47 and 48 are pending. Claims 47 and 48 are newly added.
The previous rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
New grounds for rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims, are entered under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 103. The rejections follow.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 48 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally examined claims are directed to a process whereas newly added claim 48 is directed to a composition.
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 Accordingly, claim 48 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 13-20, 22-26, 40, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the language “recycled waste material” and “single step” introduces new matter to the claim relative to the originally filed specification. First, nowhere does the specification provide that the “waste material” is a “recycled” waste material. While the specification does indicate the such material may be derived from “discarded” material (see Applicant’s specification, Example 4), this is not synonymous with “recycled” material. Indeed, it is not known whether any of the “waste material” is “virgin” or “recycled” because the specification does not indicate either of these and Applicant cannot argue that such language is implicit in the specification since not all material that is “discarded” is of “recycled” origin. Second, the specification as originally filed does not indicate that conversion of the hydrocarbon polymer occurs “in a single step.” Here, it is noted that “one-pot” does not equate to “single step.” Indeed, multiple conversion steps may occur in a single vessel. The same analysis applies to claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13-20, 22-26, 40, and 47 by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
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, 13, 15, 18-20, 22, 25, 26, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (S. A. Sakaki et al., Catalytic Degradation of the Mixed Polyethylene and Polypropylene into Middle Distillate Products, 16 Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 901-910 (2014)).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 47, Sakaki discloses a process for upcycling a hydrocarbon material (polyethylene and polypropylene granules) (see Sakaki, Abstract; and page 902, right column, third paragraph) comprising: (a) feeding the hydrocarbon material into a reactor, wherein the reactor comprises a transition metal (platinum) catalyst in admixture with other supports (see Sakaki, page 902, right column, fourth paragraph); (b) operating the reactor at a temperature of 380°C to 450°C for 40 minutes (see Sakaki, pages 904-906) to convert the hydrocarbon material to a liquid product comprising an alkyaromatic compound (e.g., ethylbenzene, xylenes (dimethylbenzenes), isobutylbenzene) (see Sakaki, Table 3). The hydrocarbon material may originate from a waste material (plastic waste) (see Sakaki, page 901, right column, first paragraph; and page 910, left column). Thus, the hydrocarbon material may be a liquefied waste polymer material.
Sakaki 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. “[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, 4, 6, 7, 22, 23, and 25.
With respect to claim 2, Sakaki discloses wherein the hydrocarbon polymer may be polyethylene and polypropylene (see Sakaki, page 902, right column, third paragraph).
With respect to claims 15 and 18, Sakaki discloses wherein a first support may be alumina in an amount of 43.5 wt% and wherein a second support may be a zeolite (acidic) support (see Sakaki, page 902, right column, fourth paragraph; and Table 1).
With respect to claim 26, Sakaki discloses wherein the waste material may be in the size of granules, thus indicating a size reduction step (see Sakaki, page 902, right column, third paragraph).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (S. A. Sakaki et al., Catalytic Degradation of the Mixed Polyethylene and Polypropylene into Middle Distillate Products, 16 Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 901-910 (2014)) in view of Mao (US 2003/0104936).
With respect to claim 14, see discussion supra at paragraph 14.
Sakaki 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 than large particle size catalysts (see Mao, paragraph [0006]).
Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a platinum nanoparticle catalyst in the process of Sakaki because such catalyst is known to have greater catalytic activity than corresponding large particle size catalyst.
Claims 16, 17, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (S. A. Sakaki et al., Catalytic Degradation of the Mixed Polyethylene and Polypropylene into Middle Distillate Products, 16 Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 901-910 (2014)) in view of Uemichi (Y. Uemichi et al., Degradation of Polyethylene to Aromatic Hydrocarbons Over Metal-Supported Activated Carbon Catalysts, 14 J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 331-344 (1989)).
With respect to claims 16, 17, and 40, see discussion supra at paragraphs 14 and 16. In a related polymer waste upcycling process, Uemechi discloses wherein the platinum catalyst may be formed by impregnation with a chlorinated platinum species (H2PtCl6) (see Uemechi, page 332, fourth paragraph). Uemechi does not explicitly disclose the weight percentage of halogen (here, chlorine), they do disclose wherein catalyst loadings may be adjusted in order to adjust the yield of aromatics recovered (see Uemichi, Fig. 3). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art could easily adjust the amount of halogenated platinum loading as desired in order to achieve any desired range of aromatics.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (S. A. Sakaki et al., Catalytic Degradation of the Mixed Polyethylene and Polypropylene into Middle Distillate Products, 16 Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 901-910 (2014)) in view of Uemichi (Y. Uemichi et al., Degradation of Polyethylene to Aromatic Hydrocarbons Over Metal-Supported Activated Carbon Catalysts, 14 J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 331-344 (1989)) and Lee (K.-H. Lee, Composition of Aromatic Products in the Catalytic Degradation of the Mixture of Waste Polystyrene and High-Density Polyethylene Using Spent FCC Catalyst, 93 Polym. Degrad. Stab. 1284-1289 (2008)).
With respect to claim 23, see discussion supra at paragraph 14. Uemechi discloses wherein the ultimate yield of aromatics recovered is dependent upon catalyst type and catalyst loading (see Uemichi, Fig. 3); whereas Lee discloses that the yield of aromatics and alkylaromatics may be dependent upon the exact nature of the waste plastics being converted as well as the reaction time (see Lee, Tables 2 and 3). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art could easily adjust any of these process variables to recover whatever yield of aromatics and alkylaromatics desired.
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
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 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