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
Amendments to the drawing and to claims 1, 4, 10, 13 and 18 are noted.
The objection to the drawing is withdrawn.
The claim amendments overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Due to amendments to the claims, the previous prior art rejections are modified herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that plastic-derived pyrolysis oils do not share the chemical characteristics that motivate oxidation testing as in the tire-derived compositions in Sharma and that a skilled artisan would not readily expect that the oxidative stability would be poor, measurable, or differentiating for plastic-derived pyrolysis oils.
This argument is not found persuasive. A newly cited reference, Timken, is relied upon below for establishing that it is known in the art that oxidative stability testing is critical for plastic-derived pyrolysis oils. The office is of the position that applying a known technique for the purpose of determining the oxidative stability of a material known to benefit from such testing would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with a reasonable expectation of success. This position is elaborated on below in the updated rejection.
Applicant argues that the instant clams are based on a modified Rancimat method because the Rancimat method is not compatible with pyrolysis oils and that the invention of the modified Rancimat method developed by the inventors is captured in the instant claims.
This argument is not found persuasive because the modified Rancimat method as set forth in the instant claims is fully taught by Sharma. The claimed invention is not considered to provide a patentable distinction over the combination of prior art references cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timken (US 2021/0332300) in view of Sharma et al (“Effect of blending waste tyre derived fuel on oxidation stability of biodiesel and performance and emission studies of a diesel engine”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Timken is directed to converting waste plastics comprising polyethylene and/or polypropylene by pyrolysis to produce a pyrolysis oil (see Abstract). Additionally, Timken discloses that, due to the olefinic nature of the pyrolysis oil, oxidation stability is a critical property to examine (see [0073]).
However, Timken does not explicitly disclose determining the oxidative stability according to the claimed technique.
In this regard, reference is drawn to Sharma, which establishes that the technique as claimed is known in the art for the purpose of determining oxidative stability of fuels. In particular Sharma discloses determining oxidative stability by the following steps (see section 3.2; Fig. 1; Table 6):
heating a sample to a temperature from about 50 to 220°C (110°C);
passing a stream of air through the sample;
forming a volatile reaction product;
transporting the volatile reaction product into a measurement solution comprising deionized water; and
measuring an electrical conductivity of the measurement solution.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the process for determining oxidative stability as disclosed in Sharma specifically for a sample comprising plastic-derived pyrolysis oil, where Sharma establishes that such technique is known in the art for the purpose of determining oxidative stability and Timken establishes that determining the oxidative stability of plastic-derived pyrolysis oils specifically is critical.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Timken does not explicitly disclose the concentration of various compounds contained in the pyrolysis oil, as claimed. However, the characteristics of the pyrolysis oil depend on the starting material used as well as the pyrolysis conversion conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select a suitable starting material for the process. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the concentration of various components within the pyrolysis oil is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Sharma does not explicitly disclose the flowrate at which air is passed through the sample. However, Sharma notes that the purpose of the airflow is to induce oxidation of the sample to release acid gases, which are subjected to conductivity measurement (see section 3.1). Determining a suitable flowrate of air which achieves this objective amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed air flowrate is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Sharma discloses wherein the volatile reaction product comprises an organic acid (see p. 367, paragraph beginning “The IP is measured”).
Regarding claim 7, the sample in Timken (i.e., pyrolysis oil product) does not comprise the components excluded by the instant claim (see, e.g., Examples 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 9, Sharma discloses wherein the electrical conductivity of the measurement solution is measured until an increase in electrical conductivity is detected (induction period) (see Fig. 4).
Claims 8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timken in view of Sharma, as evidenced by Van Der Ree et al (US 2018/0010050).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma discloses adding an antioxidant to achieve oxidation stability limits (see section 4.1; p. 367, paragraph beginning “Two sets of readings”). Van Der Ree provides evidence that pyrolysis oils obtained from pyrolysis of waste plastic also benefit from the addition of antioxidants, in order to prevent decomposition (see Abstract; [0078]; [0106]; [0119]). Based on these suggestions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly be motivated to add an antioxidant to the pyrolysis oil of Timken in order to prevent decomposition of the product.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Timken is directed to converting waste plastics comprising polyethylene and/or polypropylene by pyrolysis to produce a pyrolysis oil (see Abstract). Additionally, Timken discloses that, due to the olefinic nature of the pyrolysis oil, oxidation stability is a critical property to examine (see [0073]).
However, Timken does not explicitly disclose determining the oxidative stability according to the claimed technique or determining the ability of an antioxidant to stabilize the plastic-derived pyrolysis oil.
Sharma discloses a method of determining the ability of an antioxidant to stabilize a pyrolysis oil (tire pyrolysis oil or TPO), comprising (see Abstract; sections 3.2 & 4.2; Figs. 1, 4 & 5; Table 6):
heating a first sample to a temperature from about 50 to 220°C (110°C);
passing a stream of air through the sample;
forming a first volatile reaction product;
transporting the first volatile reaction product into a first measurement solution comprising deionized water;
measuring an electrical conductivity of the first measurement solution for a first period of time until an increase in conductivity is detected (induction period);
adding an antioxidant to a second sample (JMETPO20 + PY, JMETPO20 + PG);
heating the second sample to the first temperature;
passing a second stream of air through the second sample;
forming a second volatile reaction product;
transporting the second volatile reaction product into a second measurement solution comprising deionized water;
measuring an electrical conductivity of the second measurement solution for a second period of time until an increase in conductivity is detected; and
comparing the first period of time to the second period of time (see Figs. 4 & 5).
Van Der Ree provides evidence that pyrolysis oils obtained from pyrolysis of waste plastic also benefit from the addition of antioxidants, in order to prevent decomposition (see Abstract; [0078]; [0106]; [0119]). Based on these suggestions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly be motivated to add an antioxidant to the pyrolysis oil of Timken in order to prevent decomposition of the product.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the process for determining oxidative stability and determining the ability of an antioxidant to stabilize the pyrolysis oil as disclosed in Sharma specifically for a sample comprising plastic-derived pyrolysis oil, where Sharma establishes that such technique is known in the art for the purpose of determining oxidative stability and evaluating the effectiveness of adding an antioxidant and Timken establishes that determining the oxidative stability of plastic-derived pyrolysis oils specifically is critical.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Timken does not explicitly disclose the concentration of various compounds contained in the pyrolysis oil, as claimed. However, the characteristics of the pyrolysis oil depend on the starting material used as well as the pyrolysis conversion conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select a suitable starting material for the process. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the concentration of various components within the pyrolysis oil is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Sharma does not explicitly disclose the flowrate at which air is passed through the sample. However, Sharma notes that the purpose of the airflow is to induce oxidation of the sample to release acid gases, which are subjected to conductivity measurement (see section 3.1). Determining a suitable flowrate of air which achieves this objective amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed air flowrate is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Sharma discloses wherein the volatile reaction product(s) comprises an organic acid (see p. 367, paragraph beginning “The IP is measured”).
Regarding claim 16, the sample in Timken (i.e., pyrolysis oil product) does not comprise the components excluded by the instant claim (see, e.g., Examples 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 17, Sharma discloses wherein the pyrolysis oil further comprises an additional antioxidant (see 4.1, “phenolic compounds in TPO which act as antioxidant”).
Regarding claim 18, Sharma discloses wherein the antioxidant and/or additional antioxidant are independently selected from a phenol-based antioxidant (see 3.1; 4.1).
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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights