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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 12-14 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed on 03/02/2026) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 15-19 under 35 USC 103 over Aalto et al. (FI 20186136 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees with Applicant that Aalto teaches away from the claimed limitation of operating hydrotreating before distillation, as the cited reference discloses that it “is less challenging to have HCl released in the CDU than in a downstream hydrotreating unit which does not have similar readiness for corrosion control” (Aalto, pg. 12). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 2 recites “a polymer waste-based oil or a fraction thereof” and also recites “a fraction of polymer waste-based oil,” which are essentially the same.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the polymer waste-based feedstock provided in step (A) is or comprises: a polymer waste-based oil or a fraction thereof, and/or a fraction of polymer waste-based oil.” Claim 1, however, recites “a polymer waste-based feedstock including liquefied waste plastic (LWP) or a fraction thereof and/or end-life-tires pyrolysis oil (ELTPO) of a fraction thereof” (emphasis added). Claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, because the limitation “liquefied waste plastic (LWP) or a fraction thereof and/or end-life-tires pyrolysis oil (ELTPO) of a fraction thereof” of claim 1 already constitutes “a polymer waste-based oil or a fraction thereof.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakao et al. (JP 2007/119648A; see English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Wakao discloses a process comprising:
providing a polymer waste-based feedstock including liquefied waste plastic (“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]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 16 Wakao discloses using a plastic decomposition oil obtained by thermal decomposition ([0013]), i.e., a waste plastic pyrolysis oil, which reads on “a polymer waste-based oil” in claim 2 and “liquefied waste plastics” and “waste plastics pyrolysis oil” in claims 3 and 16.
Regarding claim 4, Wakao discloses that the plastic decomposition oil can be pre-treated after decomposition ([0014]).
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 10, Wakao discloses using a plastic decomposition oil obtained by thermal decomposition ([0013]), i.e., a waste plastic pyrolysis oil, which reads on “a fraction of waste plastics pyrolysis oil.”.
Regarding claim 15, Wakao teaches producing kerosene ([0021]), which is known have a final boiling point of 300°C.
Regarding claim 17, Wakao discloses that the plastic decomposition oil can be pre-treated after decomposition ([0014]).
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 6, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007/119648A; see English translation attached)
Regarding claim 6, Wakao does teach that the plastic decomposition oil is middle distillate range feedstock. Wakao, however, 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). 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.
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 9, Wakao teaches that the mixing ratio of the plastic decomposition 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 11, Wakao teaches that the plastic decomposition 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.
Claims 5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007/119648A; see English translation attached), as applied to claims 1 and 17, and further in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2016/0264874 A1, cited in IDS dated 06/15/2023) and Hita et al. (“Upgrading model compounds and Scrap Tires Pyrolysis Oil (STPO) on hydrotreating NiMo catalysts with tailored supports.” Fuel 145 (2015) 158–169).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Wakao teaches the method of claims 1 and 17, as discussed above.
Wakao does not teach that the polymer decomposition oil feedstock can further comprise an end-life tires pyrolysis oil.
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 the resulting pyrolysis oil in a hydroprocessing reaction in the presence of a catalyst, e.g., Co-Mo or Ni-Mo ([0002], [0014], [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]). Additionally, it is known in the art that recycling of waste tires has attracted growing interest due to its increasing dumping amount and negative environment impact and that processing tire pyrolysis oil in refinery units is a more efficient and environmentally respectful alternative to direct combustion processes, as taught by Hita (pg. 158-159).
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, because end-life tire pyrolysis oil is a known renewable stream derived from used tire that can be further processed in a refinery and also it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(I).
Regarding claim 19, Wakao does teach that the plastic decomposition oil is middle distillate range feedstock. Wakao, however, 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).
Conclusion
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