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 15 August 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
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 1-8, 10, 12-16, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2016/0264874) in view of Gutierrez (WO 2014/001632).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10, and 16, Narayanaswamy teaches pyrolysis of waste plastic to produce pyrolysis oil [0014] followed by treatment steps to simultaneously dechlorinate and hydrogenate olefins to produce a product having suitable properties for steam cracking [0014], [0038], [0048], [0003].
Narayanaswamy teaches a first stage with dechlorination and hydrogenation with a chlorine adsorbent [0048], which Examiner considers to read on one or more decontamination steps with contact with adsorbent. Narayanaswamy teaches a second and separate additional hydrogenation stage where effluent from the first stage is further processed and other components are dechlorinated and hydrogenated [0048], [0042], which Examiner considers to read on claimed step c for hydrogenating in one or more hydroprocessing steps.
Narayanaswamy does not explicitly disclose (1) a decontamination step without hydrogenation (2) the product properties claimed.
Regarding (1), Gutierrez teaches a similar process for hydrotreatment of pyrolysis oil obtained from waste plastic treatment (page 8). Gutierrez teaches water washing the pyrolysis oil prior to hydrotreatment, in order to remove contaminants (page 19). Examiner notes that the dielectric constant of water is about 80 at 25°C, meeting the range of claim 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the Gutierrez water wash step, in order to remove contaminants from the pyrolysis oil prior to hydrotreatment.
Regarding (2), it is expected that the same products having the same properties would result, since the prior art teaches the same process steps applied to the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 13-14, Narayanaswamy teaches the hydrocarbon feed is obtained from the same pyrolysis of waste plastic as discussed with respect to claim 1 above [0014]. Therefore, it is expected that the pyrolysis oil derived from waste plastic would have the same or similar boiling range, olefin, and diolefin content.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 15, and 21, Narayanaswamy teaches hydrogenation of olefins and additionally hydroprocessing steps including aromatic saturation and isomerization [0038-0042]. Narayanaswamy teaches that the hydroprocessing steps may be performed in multiple stages [0042]. In this regard, Examiner considers Narayanaswamy to disclose multiple stages, each catered to a different type of hydroprocessing as discussed above. It is expected that the same products having the same or similar properties would result, since the same process steps are performed to the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the claim appears to require a duplicate hydrocarbon feed. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have fed any similar hydrocarbons in combination with the pyrolysis oil from unit 10. In this regard, Examiner notes that it would be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to combine a second hydrocarbon stream from a differing pyrolysis unit, in any desired amount, in order to obtain further products. It is not seen where such duplication of feed would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Narayanaswamy teaches fractionation the hydroprocessed fluid into two or more fractions having different boiling ranges (28 and 22) [0014], [0056], [0090], see figure.
Regarding claims 17-20, It is expected that the same products having the same or similar properties would result, since the same process steps are performed to the same feeds at the same conditions as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2016/0264874) in view of Gutierrez (WO 2014/001632) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stanislaus (US 2019/0299491).
Regarding claim 9, Narayanaswamy teaches chloride adsorption, but does not explicitly disclose what adsorbent is used.
However, Stanislaus teaches a similar dechlorination stage, in which zeolite is used as the dechlorinating agent [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate dechlorination agent, such as the zeolite of Stanislaus, in order to achieve the dechlorination desired by Narayanaswamy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2016/0264874) in view of Gutierrez (WO 2014/001632) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 2019/0161683).
Regarding claim 11, Narayanaswamy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Narayanaswamy teaches separation of gas from the pyrolysis oil.
Further, Kumar teaches using gas to aid in stripping of pyrolysis volatiles and contaminants from the pyrolysis oil prior to further treatment [0035-0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the gas stripping of Kumar, in the gas separation step of Narayanaswamy, for the benefit of aiding gas separation and removing contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 August 2025 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.
Schaub (US 3,787,166) -teaches water wash to remove contaminants from plastic derived pyrolysis oil (example 5).
Paasikallio (WO 2020/239729) -teaches dechlorination of pyrolysis oils and hydroprocessing (abstract).
Miller (US 2012/0184787) – teaches waste plastic pyrolysis oil fed to hydro isomerization and dewaxing to recover lubricant products (abstract).
Narayanaswamy (US 2018/0002609)- teaches hydrocracking of pyrolysis oil (abstract)>
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