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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 27 March 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-32 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
The previous double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of the accepted terminal disclaimer.
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.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 23-24 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 9-10 and 23-24, it is not clear what is meant by “up to 50 vol. % of the total hydrocarbon flow to the crude unit”. The independent claims specify that the feed to the crude unit includes 20 wt.% or less waste plastic combined with petroleum in a blend. Claims 9 and 15 appear to imply that additional hydrocarbons are fed to the crude unit with the plastic and petroleum blend, thus making it unclear how much plastic is really present in each claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-14, 16-18, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffy (US 5,753,086) in view of Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142167).
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-10, 14, 16, 23-24, and 28, Guffy teaches decomposition of waste plastics including polyethylene and polypropylene to produce fuel range products (column 1, lines 1-15). Guffy teaches treatment of mixed waste plastics, as well as testing each plastic (including polyethylene and polypropylene) individually to determine the best operation (column 6, lines 35-64). Guffy teaches using free radical producing resins in order to reduce the decomposition temperature, and that polyurethane or nylon can be used instead of pvc (columns 2-3), which would read on the claim limitations regarding less than 0.1wt% pvc, pet, or recycle classification 7.
Guffy blends the waste plastic with a petroleum diluent such as oil (column 2, lines 35-65). Guffy teaches degradation temperature at a temperature of 40-375°C (column 3, lines 65-67), which Examiner considers to include “temperatures above the melting point of plastic”. Guffy teaches blending the oil with the plastic feed in an amount of 2:1 to 10:1 (column 4, lines 48-65), which overlaps with the claimed amount of 20% or less waste plastic.
Guffy teaches mixing the plastic with petroleum diluent and heating at a temperature of about 200°C to solubilize the plastic in the heavy oil (column 4, lines 30-50), which reads on the claimed range of 120-250°C. Examiner considers the Guffy “solubilized” mixture to read on the claimed “homogeneous blend”. Examiner considers Guffy 200˚C heating step to read on claimed step (b), and to occur without decomposing, since it is within the claimed range of 120-250˚C. Examiner notes that the claims do not exclude decomposition in steps (c-e).
Guffy teaches that the distillate produced has market value as feedstock to petrochemical and refining industries (column 4, lines 1-30). Guffy passes the products to be fractionated (column 5, lines 35-65) in order to obtain various fuel range products.
Guffy does not explicitly disclose the specific fractions recovered.
However, Al-Ghamdi teaches fractionating hydrocarbons in order to recover the valuable distillate fractions [0024]. Al-Ghamdi teaches recovering C3-4 fraction and naphtha, which are both sent to steam cracking [0070-0071] to make ethylene and propylene products [0003]. Al-Ghamdi also recovers heavier hydrocarbons including middle distillates, gasoline, gas oils, etc [0072-0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Al-Ghamdi fractionation cut offs and feed such fractions to the steam cracker, for the benefit of obtaining the desired products and producing olefins.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 17-18, Examiner considers the decomposition products of Guffy to read on the claimed “hot homogeneous blend” and “stable blend”, as Guffy similarly teaches heating and blending the feeds to provide liquid range blend.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Guffy teaches polyethylene (group 2) and polypropylene (group 4) and polystyrene (group 5) (column 4, lines 20-30).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have fed the middle distillate recovered from the crude distillation column to gasoline pool, as is well known in the art to blend various fuels together.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Al-Ghamdi teaches further processing middle distillates in hydroprocessing and heavier streams in hydrocrackers [0072-0077].
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Guffy heats the blend and then cools it (column 5, lines 35-65).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 26-27, Guffy teaches various oils including fcc slurry oil, distillation bottoms, heavy oils, bunker oils, or motor oils (column 6, lines 1-17).
Claims 5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffy (US 5,753,086) in view of Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142167) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Boelt (US 2007/0112089).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 19, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose polymerization of the ethylene to produce polyethylene.
However, Boelt teaches that ethylene produced from steam crackers may be sent to polymerization steps to form polyethylene [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Boelt polymerization steps to the ethylene produced by the previous combination, for the benefit of obtaining the desired polyethylene products.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffy (US 5,753,086) in view of Al-Ghamdi (US 2018/0142167) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Miller (US 8,404,912).
Regarding claims 29-32, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, including fractionation and recovery of various product fractions.
The previous combination does not disclose sending heavy fraction to hydrocracking, dewaxing isomerization, and hydro finishing to produce base oils.
However, Miller teaches that heavy fractions derived from waste plastic feeds are suitable feeds to produce base oils (column 4, lines 25-47). Miller teaches hydrocracking, dewaxing isomerization and hydro finishing to produce base oils from the heavy fraction derived from waste plastic (column 5, line 24-column 7, line 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Miller steps to the heavier fractions from the previous combination, for the benefit of forming suitable base oils.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olufemi (Thermal conversion of waste plastics into fuel oil) – teaches heating waste plastic at a temperature of 170-300°C to produce liquid hydrocarbon products (abstract). The product hydrocarbons are sent to distillation to obtain various fuel and chemical products (page 253).
Aalto (GB 2580539) -teaches using 1 part waste plastic blended with 1-1000 parts crude oil fed to a distillation column (Page 8).
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights