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
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 07/06/2026 containing remarks and claim amendments.
The objection to claim 2 and the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 112(d) are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 15-17 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Wakao (JP 2007/119648) and the rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, and 11 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao have been fully considered and are persuasive. Wakao does not teach or suggest providing a polymer waste-based feedstock that includes an end-life-tires pyrolysis oil of a fraction thereof, as argued by Applicant. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wakao et al. (JP 2007/119648A; see English translation attached), in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2016/0264874 A1, cited in IDS dated 06/15/2023), as previously applied to claim 5.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 5, 18, and 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate an end-life-tires pyrolysis oil, which is known to contain high levels of sulfur.
In response, the argument is not found persuasive. Although Wako indicates that its plastic decomposition oil preferably has a sulfur content of 20,000 ppm or less, Wakao does not exclude feedstocks having higher impurity levels. Particularly, Wakao expressly teaches that, when impurities fall outside the disclosed ranges, the plastic decomposition may be pretreated to remove such impurities ([0014]). Accordingly, even assuming that a particular ELTPO feedstock may have a relatively high sulfur content, e.g., exceeding 20,000 ppm, Wakao would not have been understood as excluding the processing of such a feedstock merely because it has a relatively high sulfur content.
On page 9, Applicant further contends that ELTPO contains relatively high levels of nitrogen and aromatics and makes the hydroprocessing of such a feedstock more challenging.
In response, the applied references do not teach or suggest that ELTPO would have been unsuitable for hydroprocessing due to the presence of nitrogen and aromatics impurities. Narayanaswamy expressly identifies tire pyrolysis oil as a pyrolysis oil suitable for processing in a hydroprocessing process. Wako already teaches hydroprocessing of polymer-derived oil in combination with petroleum-derived feedstock. Narayanaswamy’s teaching that tire pyrolysis oil is suitable for hydroprocessing therefore provides a reason for incorporating the tire pyrolysis oil into the waste plastic-derived feedstock of Wakao. The fact that the processing a particular feedstock may present additional processing considerations does not, by itself, teach away from processing the feedstock.
On page 9, Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the claimed method to increase the yield of jet fuel components and relies on the examples in the instant specification as evidence of an unexpected result.
The argument is not considered persuasive, because the evidence presented in the specification is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. In particular, the demonstrated result is based on a feedstock containing 10 wt% of a diesel fraction of ELTPO and 90 wt% a crude oil-derived diesel range fraction, whereas claim 1 broadly encompasses a feed mixture comprising at least 0.5 wt% polymer waste-based feedstock and is not limited to a 10 wt% ELTPO feedstock, a diesel fraction of ELTPO, or a diesel-range fraction of crude oil. Applicant has not established that the unexpected results would reasonably be expected to extend across the entire scope of claim 1.
The following is a modified rejection based on the amendments made to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock provided in step (A) comprises liquid waste plastics (LWP) or a fraction thereof.” Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, recites “a polymer waste-based feedstock including an end-life-tires pyrolysis oil (ELTPO) or a fraction therefore.” Accordingly, to clarify that the polymer waste-based feedstock of claim 2 additionally comprises LWP or a fraction therefore, Applicant is suggested to amend claim 2 to recite: “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock provided in step (A) further comprises liquid waste plastics (LWP) or a fraction thereof.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock provided in step (A) comprises: a liquefied waste plastics (LWP) or a fraction thereof, and/or a waste plastics pyrolysis oil (WPPO) or a fraction thereof.” For the reason set forth above, Applicant is advised to amend claim 3 to recite: “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock provided in step (A) further comprises: [[a]] liquefied waste plastics (LWP) or a fraction thereof, and/or a waste plastics pyrolysis oil (WPPO) or a fraction thereof.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock comprises: a fraction of liquefied waste plastics (LWP), and/or a fraction of waste plastics pyrolysis oil (WPPO), and/or a fraction of end-life tires pyrolysis oil (ELTPO).” For the reason discussed above, Applicant is advised to amend claim 10 to recite: “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock comprises[[:]] a fraction of end-life-tires pyrolysis oil (ELTPO), or wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock further comprises a fraction of liquefied waste plastics (LWP)[[,]] and/or a fraction of waste plastics pyrolysis oil (WPPO)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 15-19 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.
The term “fraction,” as used in “an end-life-tires pyrolysis oil (ELTPO) or a fraction thereof” in claim 1 and “liquified waste plastics (LWP) or a fraction thereof” in claim 2, is interpreted as a cut separated from a full-boiling-range material based on boiling point (Spec., pg. 20-21). However, the claims do not identify the full-boiling-range of the corresponding material from which the recited “fraction” is obtained, including the boiling range or other objective characteristics defining such full-boiling-range material. Thus, although “fraction” may be understood as a portion having a narrower boiling range than the corresponding full-boiling-range material (ELTPO or LWP), the claims do not provide an objective basis for determining the boundaries of the corresponding full-boiling-range material (i.e., ELTPO and LWP) and, consequently, the scope of the recited fraction. This may be particularly problematic where the corresponding material may itself be prepared by distillation, such that it is unclear what material constitutes the full-boiling range material relative to which the claimed “fraction” is to be determined. For purposes of examination, the scope of “a fraction thereof” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 2-11 and 15-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 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 1-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007/119648A; see English translation attached), in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2016/0264874 A1, cited in IDS dated 06/15/2023).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Wakao discloses a process comprising:
providing a polymer waste-based feedstock including liquefied waste plastic, as recited in claims 2-3 (“plastic cracking oil” or “plastic decomposition oil”) ([0012]-[0013]);
providing a crude oil ([0012], [0015]);
blending the polymer waste-based feedstock and the crude oil to provide a feed mixture ([0012], [0018]);
hydrotreating (“hydrorefining”) the feed mixture under hydrodesulphurization conditions to provide a hydrotreated material ([0019], “…hydrorefined to reduce the sulfur content to 1% or less…”); and
distilling the hydrotreated material to obtain at least a jet fuel component having a final boiling point in a range of from 190°C to 300°C (“kerosene”) and a residue fraction ([0021]).
Wakao discloses that the mixing ratio of the polymer waste-based feedstock is 50 vol% or less, preferably 0.1 to 20 vol% ([0018]). The claimed range of “at least 0.5 wt.% of the polymer waste-based feedstock” is considered to overlap the range taught by Wakao and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
Wakao does not teach that the polymer decomposition oil feedstock can further comprise an end-life-tires pyrolysis oil, as recited in claims 1 and 5.
However, Narayanaswamy, which is directed to a method for treating hydrocarbon streams derived from pyrolysis of waste plastics for use in downstream processes, discloses preparing a pyrolysis oil from waste plastics, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, used tires, etc., and processing one or more of the pyrolysis oils, in a blend with a heavier oil, such as naphtha or diesel, in a hydroprocessing reaction in the presence of a catalyst, e.g., Co-Mo or Ni-Mo ([0002], [0014], [0016], [0049]). The reference teaches that “plastic pyrolysis oil” and “tire pyrolysis oil” are suitable as pyrolysis oil to be processed in the hydroprocessing step ([0014]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wakao by adding an end-life tire pyrolysis oil to the plastic decomposition oil feedstock, as taught by Narayanaswamy, because Narayanaswamy identifies plastic pyrolysis oil and tire pyrolysis oil as oil feedstocks suitable for hydroprocessing, and incorporating the tire pyrolysis oil feedstock of Narayanaswamy into the waste plastic-derived feedstock of Wakao would have been the use of a known polymer waste-derived feedstock in a known refining process for the same known purpose.
Regarding claim 4, Wakao discloses that the plastic decomposition oil can be pre-treated after decomposition ([0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Wakao teaches that the plastic decomposition oil has a 10% distillation temperature of less than 200°C, an initial boiling point of 100°C or lower, and a 90% distillation temperature of 300-600°C, which meets or closely overlaps the boiling range for middle distillate described in the instant specification, e.g., 5-95% boiling range of 110-400°C (Spec., pg. 19-20). Narayanaswamy does not teach a tire pyrolysis oil that is a middle distillate range fraction. However, Wako teaches separating the hydroprocessed product into various fractions, including kerosene and diesel fuel ([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a fraction of the tire pyrolysis oil having a middle distillate boiling range for use as the polymer waste-based feedstock in Wakao’s process, because such section would have tailored the tire pyrolysis oil feedstock to the boiling range of the desired products contemplated by Wakao. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select a middle distillate range feedstock as the polymer waste-based feedstock in the modified process of Wakao, in view of Narayanaswamy.
Regarding claim 7, Wakao teaches a reaction pressure of 1-25 MPa ([0020]), 10-250 bar. The claimed pressure range of “at most 100 bar” overlaps the pressure conditions taught by Wakao and is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Wakao teaches that the hydrorefining is conducted in the presence of a catalyst effective for hydrodesulfurizing sulfur components ([0019]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Wakao teaches that the mixing ratio of the feedstock oil is 50% vol% or less relative to the mixture ([0018]), which renders obvious the claimed limitation of “at most 50 wt% of the polymer waste-based feedstock.”
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to incorporate an ELTPO feedstock into the plastic decomposition oil feedstock of Wakao in view of the teachings of Narayanaswamy, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Wakao teaches that the feedstock oil has a sulfur content of 20,000 ppm or less ([0014]). The claimed range of “500 to 40000 mg/kg” overlaps the sulfur content range taught by Wakao and is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Wakao teaches producing kerosene ([0021]), which is known to have a final boiling point of 300°C.
Regarding claim 16, Wakao does not teach that the feedstock has a 5% boiling point of 110 °C or more. Wakao, however, teaches that the feedstock has an initial boiling point of less than 100 °C and a 10% distillation temperature of less than 200 °C. The claimed limitation overlaps with the distillation properties taught by Wakao and is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Wakao discloses that the feedstock oil can be pre-treated after decomposition ([0014]).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to incorporate an ELTPO feedstock into the plastic decomposition oil feedstock of Wakao in view of the teachings of Narayanaswamy, as discussed above (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Wakao teaches that the plastic decomposition oil has a 10% distillation temperature of less than 200°C, an initial boiling point of 100°C or lower, and a 90% distillation temperature of 300-600°C, which meets or closely overlaps the boiling range for middle distillate described in the instant specification, e.g., 5-95% boiling range of 110-400°C (Spec., pg. 19-20). Narayanaswamy does not teach a tire pyrolysis oil that is a middle distillate range fraction. However, Wako teaches separating the hydroprocessed product into various fractions, including kerosene and diesel fuel ([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a fraction of the tire pyrolysis oil having a middle distillate boiling range for use as the polymer waste-based feedstock in Wakao’s process, because such section would have tailored the tire pyrolysis oil feedstock to the boiling range of the desired products contemplated by Wakao. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select a middle distillate range feedstock as the polymer waste-based feedstock in the modified process of Wakao, in view of Narayanaswamy.
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 Jason Y Chong whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
