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
This is the response to amendment filed 12/22/2025 for application 18252436.
Claims 1-4, and 6-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Parent claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BITTING (WO2020242912A1).
BITTING teaches blending small amounts of pyoil into a liquid stream processed in a gas cracker.
Regarding claim 1, BITTING teaches in Fig.1 and paragraph 38 a flow diagram showing an embodiment of the process. Recycled waste is subjected to pyrolysis in pyrolysis unit 10 to product a pyrolysis product/effluent comprising a recycle pyrolysis oil composition (r-pyoil). The r-pyoil, along with a non-recycle cracker feed is introduced into a cracker.
The combination of the r-pyoil with the non-recycle cracker feed is recognized as the cracker feedstock in reference claim 1.
The proportions of the r-pyoil to the non-recycle cracker feed is taught in
The chlorine content of r-pyoil is taught in paragraph 409 to be high, such as 201 ppm. (pyoil more than 60 ppm chlorine)
The chlorine content of the cracker feedstock is taught in reference claims 14-15 to be at least 0.25 ppm and not more than 20 ppm. (a hydrocarbon stream having a chlorine content lower than the chlorine content of a pyoil)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One embodiment is taught in paragraph 216 in which the cracker feed stream comprises predominantly a C5-C22 hydrocarbon stream such as naphtha.
The amount of r-pyoil added to the non-recycle cracker stream is taught in paragraph 230 of BITTING to include not more than 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 55, 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, or 1%.
Less than 1% would lead to a ratio of r-pyoil to naphtha of less than about 1:100. (mass ratio of pyoil to naphtha 1:400 to 1:50)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
An embodiment is taught in paragraphs 382 and 385 in which r-pyoil is fed with naphtha in a steam cracker. Steam crackers function with steam. (mixing the hydrocarbon stream with steam)
The process is taught in the abstract to produce olefins. (steam cracking to produce olefins)
The amount of steam added is taught in paragraph 251 of BITTING.
BITTING teaches the steam to hydrocarbon ratio may be at least 0.10:1 as well as 0.55:1. (steam to hydrocarbon mass ratio of 0.55:1 to 1:1)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, BITTING teaches, as detailed above, steam cracking a cracker feedstock comprising a combination of r-pyoil with naphtha.
The chlorine content of r-pyoil is taught in paragraph 409 to be high, such as 201 ppm.
The chlorine content of the cracker feedstock is taught in reference claims 14-15 to be at least 0.25 ppm and not more than 20 ppm.
The cracker feedstock has less chlorine than the chlorine content of the r-pyoil.
The cracked effluent from the cracker is taught in paragraph 321 to comprise olefins, and aromatics. In a steam cracker, steam would be expected to be present. One example in paragraph 325 teaches products including ethylene, propylene, aromatics, as well as dienes and others. The results are given in Table 9 and also comprises butanes and other gases. Fig 1 teaches that pyrolysis gasoline may also be produced.
Regarding presently claimed steps (c) - (h), it would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to check the process performed is proceeding along with the conditions taught in BITTING. One parameter taught is the ratio of steam to total hydrocarbon. Another is the total chlorine content of the cracker feedstock.
Adjusting the steam to total hydrocarbon ratio would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given that steam does not comprise chlorine and increasing the ratio of steam to blended hydrocarbon would result in a decrease of total % of chlorine in the combination of steam and blended hydrocarbon.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to check the levels of chlorine in the collected streams and increase the ratio of steam to blended hydrocarbon if the amount of chlorine is found to be too high, such as more than 3 ppm.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the chlorine content of the cracker feedstock is taught in reference claims 14-15 to be at least 0.25 ppm and not more than 20 ppm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, steam does not have chlorine and a combination of the cracker feedstock with steam would be expected to have less chlorine than the chlorine content of the cracker feedstock.
Regarding claim 7, the amount of the r-pyoil in the total cracker feed is taught in the abstract to be not more than 20%.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 13-17, the r-pyoil is taught in paragraph 41 to be obtained from pyrolysis of waste plastic. The examples of plastics are taught in paragraphs 110-113 to include high density polyethylene and copolymers thereof, low density polyethylene and copolymers thereof, polypropylene and copolymers thereof, other polyolefins, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), polyesters including polyethylene terephthalate, copolyesters and terephthalate copolyesters.
Combinations of plastics may also be used for the waste plastic that is pyrolyzed.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BITTING (WO2020242912A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 13-17 above, and further in view of OPRINS (USPGPUB 2019/0390124).
The above discussion of BITTING is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 9, BITTING teach in paragraph 38 that a recycle content cracked effluent (r-cracked effluent) can be produced from the cracker and then subjected to separation in a separation train 30. BITTING teach in FIG 1 that the separation train 30 separates out multiple high value product streams.
Separating them using known processes would be obvious to collect the different high value product streams.
OPRINS teaches in paragraph 50 products from a steam cracker. OPRINS also teaches in paragraph 54 a separation zone for collecting separately ethylene, propylene, butadiene, and pyrolysis gasoline.
OPRINS teaches in paragraph 16 steam cracker cracked distillate (CD) and steam cracker carbon black oil (CBO).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the effluent from the steam cracker in BITTING as taught in OPRINS.
Separating first into three fractions of a steam cracked distillate of the high value products, a steam cracker cracked distillate (CD) of non-high value products and steam cracker carbon black oil (CBO) would make it easier to separate the high value products in the separation zone.
The method that OPRINS teach would separate pyrolysis gasoline to be collected as a product.
Regarding claim 10, OPRINS teaches in paragraph 64 that a mixed product stream is quenched with water to produce a quenched mixed product stream. OPRINS teaches in paragraph 65 that quenched mixed product stream may be subjected to compression and separation. After a series of separators, a bottoms stream is taught in paragraph 65 to comprise methane, ethylene, propylene, butadiene, mixed butylenes and pyrolysis gasoline.
The cracker feedstock that is fed into the steam cracker in BITTING comprises between 0.25 ppm to 20 ppm chlorine.
Given that water would be expected to have substantially no chlorine, and the cracker feedstock may have less than 3 ppm chlorine, the quenched water stream would also be expected to have less than 3 ppm chlorine.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, OPRINS et al. teach in paragraph 68 that C5+ compounds such as benzene, toluene and xylenes can be separated from pyrolysis gasoline.
It stands to reason that benzene, toluene and xylenes can be combined with the pyrolysis gasoline.
Regarding claim 12, the pyrolysis gasoline stream separated would be expected to have less than 3 ppm chlorine.
The cracker feedstock that is fed into the steam cracker in BITTING comprises between 0.25 ppm to 20 ppm chlorine.
The cracker feedstock may have between 0.25 ppm to 0.5 ppm chlorine.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The collected pyrolysis gasoline after stream cracking and separation steps would also be expected to have less than 0.5 ppm given that steam cracking and separation steps would not be expected to add chlorine.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. See MPEP 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 18-20, BITTING teaches in paragraph 41 that the r-pyoil is obtained from pyrolysis of waste plastic. The examples of plastics are taught in paragraph 112 to include high density polyethylene and copolymers thereof, low density polyethylene and copolymers thereof, polypropylene and copolymers thereof, other polyolefins, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), polyesters including polyethylene terephthalate, copolyesters and terephthalate copolyesters.
Combinations of plastics may also be used for the waste plastic that is pyrolyzed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments, filed 12/22/2025, have necessitated a new grounds of rejection over the same references.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
BITTING (WO2020242912A1) teaches in paragraph 230 the amount of r-pyoil added to the non-recycle cracker stream is taught to include more than 1% and/or not more than 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 55, 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, or 1%.
Furthermore, slightly more than 1% would overlap with a range that comprises 1:400 to 1:50. A ratio of 1:50 would be expected to be less than about 2%.
The amount of steam added is taught in paragraph 251 of BITTING.
BITTING teaches the steam to hydrocarbon ratio may be at least 0.10:1. (steam to hydrocarbon mass ratio of 0.55:1 to 1:1)
Applicant argues that the prior art, OPRINS et al. do not teach combining a pygas stream with a compressed liquid fraction of quench effluent stream to form a combined pyrolysis gas stream.
Applicant acknowledges that OPRINS et al. teach a pygas stream and a compressed liquid fraction of quench effluent stream. Applicant argues that there is no motivation to separate a pygas stream and a compressed liquid fraction of a quench effluent stream and then recombine the two.
OPRINS teaches in paragraph 64 that a mixed product stream is quenched with water to produce a quenched mixed product stream. OPRINS teaches in paragraph 65 that quenched mixed product stream may be subjected to compression and separation.
After a series of separators, a bottoms stream is taught in paragraph 65 to comprise methane, ethylene, propylene, butadiene, mixed butylenes and pyrolysis gasoline.
OPRINS et al. teach in paragraph 68 that C5+ compounds such as benzene, toluene and xylenes can be separated from pyrolysis gasoline.
It stands to reason that benzene, toluene and xylenes can be combined with the pyrolysis gasoline.
OPRINS et al. teach that pyrolysis gasoline may be a product to be collected.
It is unclear what applicant is suggesting lacks motivation. Separated components of pyrolysis gasoline can be combined with pyrolysis gasoline to form pyrolysis gasoline. Benzene, toluene and xylenes are not impurities to be removed from pyrolysis gasoline, they are components of pyrolysis gasoline.
Depending on the desired products at a given time, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine compounds in pyrolysis gasoline with pyrolysis gasoline for use as pyrolysis gasoline.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NARAYANASWAMY (USPGPUB 2016/0264883) incorporates in its entirety NARAYANASWAMY (US 8,895,790).
NARAYANASWAMY (US 8,895,790) teaches a method of conversion of plastics to olefin and aromatic products.
NARAYANASWAMY (USPGPUB 2016/0264885) teaches a method for processing pyrolysis oil. NARAYANASWAMY teaches that steam crackers generally have feed specification requirements of less than 3 ppm chlorine.
WARD (USPGPUB 2016/0362609) teaches process for converting mixed plastic waste to petrochemicals.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771