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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1, 4 and 10; and addition of new claim 27 are noted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Timken already uses its own oxidation-stability tests and supplies no reason for a person of ordinary skill to abandon those tests and instead adopt the conductivity-based technique from Sharma.
This argument is not found persuasive. Timken is relied upon for establishing that oxidative stability is a critical property to examine in plastic-derived pyrolysis oils. Sharma provides details with respect to a known technique for determining this property. The office maintains that applying a known technique to obtain this information on a material which is known benefit from such analysis is considered to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, require routine experimentation, and associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). For the reasons noted above, the office of the position that these criteria have been satisfied.
Applicant argues that the Rancimat method is not compatible with other types of oils, such as pyrolysis oils.
This argument is not found persuasive. Sharma discloses the Rancimat method for analyzing oils comprising tire pyrolysis oil (see Abstract; section 4.1).
Applicant argues that arriving at an operable method was not routine and that a skilled artisan applying the standard biodiesel Rancimat method protocol to a plastic-derived pyrolysis oil thus had no reasonable expectation of success. Applicant further contends that the specification explains that “selecting an appropriate set of parameters, the disclosed test methods can be used to measure the thermooxidative stability of a wide range of pyrolysis oils.”
This argument is not found persuasive. The evidence of record does not establish that arriving at the claimed method including the claimed temperature range (as amended) was not routine. For example, the temperature ranges claimed are known to be suitable for carrying out the Rancimat method, as elaborated in the updated rejection below. Furthermore, it is well established that determining suitable operating conditions is considered routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2144.05. In this case, there lacks compelling evidence and/or data which establishes either that arriving at the claimed set of parameters was not routine or that the claimed set of parameters are associated with a showing of criticality or unexpected results in comparison to the prior art.
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, 9 and 27 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”), as evidenced by Ngantung et al (US 2014/0357746) and Muller et al (US 2009/0152502).
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 Rancimat method according to the following steps (see section 3.1; Fig. 1; Table 6):
heating a sample to a specified temperature;
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.
With respect to the temperature to which the sample is heated, the office notes that Sharma discloses a representative example at 110°C, which is outside the claimed range. However, in this regard, reference is drawn to Ngantung and Muller, which provide evidence that defined temperatures for carrying out the Rancimat method include temperatures between 110 and 140°C (see Ngantung: [0090]) or even a broader range of 50 to 220°C (Muller: [0061]).
In other words, set temperatures to which to heat the sample in a Rancimat method for determining oxidative stability in line with the claimed range are known in the art to be suitable. Determining the optimum temperature to which to heat the sample consistent with providing accurate determination of the oxidative stability amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed temperature range is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
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).
Regarding claim 27, Sharma discloses a deionized water measurement solution, as set forth above. Sharma is silent with respect to the volume of the deionized water measurement solution. However, determining the appropriate volume of measurement solution 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 volume is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
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 Ngantung, Muller, and 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) utilizing the Rancimat method, comprising (see Abstract; sections 3.1 & 4.2; Figs. 1, 4 & 5; Table 6):
heating a first sample to a first set temperature;
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 set 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.
With respect to the temperature to which the sample is heated, the office notes that Sharma discloses a representative example at 110°C, which is outside the claimed range. However, in this regard, reference is drawn to Ngantung and Muller, which provide evidence that defined temperatures for carrying out the Rancimat method include temperatures between 110 and 140°C (see Ngantung: [0090]) or even a broader range of 50 to 220°C (Muller: [0061]).
In other words, set temperatures to which to heat the sample in a Rancimat method for determining oxidative stability in line with the claimed range are known in the art to be suitable. Determining the optimum temperature to which to heat the sample consistent with providing accurate determination of the oxidative stability amounts to nothing more than routine experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art and would be associated with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, the claimed temperature range is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
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
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