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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 09 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is only one drawing and, therefore, it should not be labeled “FIG. 1” See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 4 and 13 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.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the method “further comprising heating the sample to a temperature from about 90°C to about 200°C” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether Applicant intended to introduce an additional, distinct heating step from the heating step of claims 1 and 10, respectively (by recitation of “further comprising”) or whether Applicant instead intended to narrow the range of the heating step already required. The office believes the latter was intended and has interpreted the claims accordingly.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the additional antioxidant" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may have intended for claim 18 to depend from claim 17 instead of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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, Sharma discloses a method of determining the oxidative stability of a pyrolysis oil (tire pyrolysis oil or TPO), comprising (see section 3.2; Fig. 1; Table 6):
heating a sample of pyrolysis oil (JMETPO20, JMETPO40, JMETPO60) to a temperature from about 50 to 220°C (110°C);
passing a stream of air through the sample of pyrolysis oil;
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.
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 samples in Sharma are composed of biodiesel and pyrolysis oil and therefore considered to exclude vegetable oil, gasoline, and lubricating oil (see Table 6).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma discloses wherein the pyrolysis oil further comprises an antioxidant (see section 4.1; p. 367, paragraph beginning “The IP is measured”).
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).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, 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 of pyrolysis oil (JMETPO20) to a temperature from about 50 to 220°C (110°C);
passing a stream of air through the sample of pyrolysis oil;
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 of the pyrolysis oil (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).
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 samples in Sharma are composed of biodiesel and pyrolysis oil and therefore considered to exclude vegetable oil, gasoline, and lubricating oil (see Table 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).
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 2, 3, 5, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, as applied the claims above.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Sharma 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. Sharma notes that pyrolysis oils contain compounds which act as natural antioxidants (see Abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art, considering this, 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 claims 5 and 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.
Conclusion
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