DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 17, 22, and 24 are amended. Claim 6 is cancelled.
The amendments to claims 3, 17, 22, and 24 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections.
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 22 June 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-24 based upon USC 103 over Wakao as set forth in the last Office action because: the declaration does not provide any further evidence of unexpected results or criticality of the claimed process, and the arguments presented therein are not persuasive.
The Declaration recites in section 9 that there is no disclosure in Wakao of the claimed hydrotreating process and also no discussion on the bromine number of ratios of the oils isolated from Wakao’s hydrorefining process.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the rejection, Wakao teaches a process comprising providing plastic thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) oil (instant claim 15) (paragraph [0013]) and a crude oil-derived component (paragraph [0015]), mixing the plastic pyrolysis oil and crude-oil derived component (paragraph [0024]), hydrorefining (hydrotreating) the mixture at a temperature of 400°C and with a catalyst comprising NiMo on alumina (instant claims 8-10) (paragraph [0026]), where the temperature of Wakao is within the range of 300-460°C of instant claim 1, and separating the hydrorefined effluent into at least naphtha (distillate), kerosene (distillate), and heavy gas oil (distillation bottoms product) fractions (paragraph [0027]). Thus, Wakao does teach the claimed hydrotreating process.
With regard to the new limitation of the bromine number ratio, the instant specification defines the bromine number ratio as the ratio of the bromine number of the hydrotreated product to the bromine number of the feed. While Wakao does not directly discuss this ratio, Wakao does explicitly teach the bromine number of the plastic pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0014]) and the hydrotreated product (paragraph [0021]). While Wakao does not specifically teach the bromine number of the crude oil derived feed which can be VGO, the bromine number of VGO is a known property as seen from Laredo, Pollin, and Sadeghbeigi. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine the bromine number ratio from the teachings of Wakao and known teachings to be within the claimed range of less than 0.5 (see calculation below). As such, Wakao as evidenced by Laredo, Pollin, and Sadeghbeigi continues to teach the hydrorefining to lower the bromine number and produce the claimed product.
Calculation:
Plastic pyrolysis oil bromine number of 10 to 300 gBr/100 g (Wakao paragraph [0014]).
Laredo, Pillon, and Sadeghbeigi light VGO bromine number of around 6 gBr/ 100 g and heavy VGO bromine number of around 10g/100 g (see Laredo Table 3, Pillon Table 6.30, and Sadeghbeigi section 4.2.5).
As such, the bromine number of the combined feed of plastic pyrolysis oil + VGO of Wakao (claimed BRf) is at least 6 gBr/100 g, depending on the amount of plastic pyrolysis oil and VGO and type of VGO used within the feed.
Hydrorefining product bromine number (claimed BRh) of 0.2 gBr/100 g or less (Wakao paragraph [0021]).
Thus, the bromine number ratio of BRh/BRf in Wakao is
0.2
6
=
0.33
or less. This is within the range of less than 0.5 of instant claim 1. Therefore, because Wakao teaches the claimed hydrotreating and the claimed bromine number, it is expected that the hydrotreating has been adjusting to obtain the claimed bromine number, absent evidence to the contrary.
The Declaration recites in section 10 that because Wakao does not teach or suggest that the hydrotreater should be adjusted to obtain the claimed bromine number ratio, Wakao does not teach or suggest hydrotreating that is the same as the claimed hydrotreatment, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the claimed yield of heavy fraction boiling at 350°C or above of at least 50 wt%, as claimed.
In response, as explained above, the process of Wakao contain the same hydrotreating step at the same temperature and produces a product having the claimed bromine number ratio. Thus, the Examiner’s position continues to be that the process of Wakao produces the claimed heavy fraction in the claimed yield, absent any evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence provided in the Declaration, only arguments.
The Declaration recites in sections 11-12 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the process of Wakao to produce the heavy fraction in the claimed yields or the bromine number ratio given the unpredictable nature of the process of Wakao. The process of Wakao is alleged unpredictable because the temperature of Wakao of 400°C results in a number of factors that increase the uncertainty, including more prevalent thermal cracking reactions, vaporization of thermal cracking products, dehydrogenation to produce olefins, and metals content of the crude oil fractions.
In response, the temperature of Wakao is squarely within the claimed temperature range of 300-460°C, and as explained above, the process of Wakao uses feeds and produces a product which give a bromine number ratio well within the claimed range of 0.5 or less. These values are rejected as anticipated. As such, the argument that the adjusting is not obvious due to the unpredictability of the reaction in Wakao is not persuasive, because the values of Wakao and known values of VGO bromine number always provide a result within the claimed bromine number ratio range, no matter what the conditions.
The Declaration recites in section 13 that unlike Wakao, the claims provide a target bromine number of an FCC product, and one can use the information provided in the specification to adjust the FCC hydrotreater to produce the desired product. The section further goes on to state that there are a variety of conditions which need to be taken into account to obtain the desired bromine number range, including catalyst, selection of feedstocks, sulfur content, and various other limitations. It is further asserted that with the knowledge of the present application, one can account for the variety of factors which could influence the bromine number and achieve the desired bromine number ratio of 0.5 or less.
In response, as above, the process of Wakao using the feeds of Wakao produces a product which gives the claimed bromine number ratio. As such, the arguments that there are additional factors needed to be taken into consideration is moot, because Wakao already accomplishes the claimed result of the bromine number ratio of less than 0.5 with the given feeds and conditions taught within Wakao.
The Declaration recites in section 14 that the art did not recognize that polymer waste-based materials could be upgraded into higher-value materials without the need of complicated pre-treatment procedures when the combined feed is hydrotreated under the conditions provided in the instant application.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wakao clearly teaches that the hydrotreating lowers the bromine number, and does not require any complicated pre-treatment procedures (paragraphs [0012], [0014], and [0020]). Thus, Wakao did recognize the claimed process and produces a result which has the claimed bromine number ratio, as explained in detail above and again in the rejection below.
In summary, the Declaration provides arguments primarily directed to the new limitation of a bromine number ratio of 0.5 or less. However, Wakao as evidenced by Laredo, Pollin, and Sadeghbeigi teaches a process which obtains the claimed bromine number ratio. Thus, the hydrorefining reactor of Wakao is adjusted to produce the desired result of the bromine number ratio of 0.5 or less, as claimed, and the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant on pages 9-12 of the Remarks recites a summary of sections 4-9 the Declaration. Sections 4-8 in the Declaration are summary of information in the specification and known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus not an argument. The arguments in paragraph 9 of the Declaration are already discussed above, please see the above response. As such, these pages will not de addressed in this section.
Applicant argues on page 13 of the Remarks that to establish inherency, extrinsic evidence must make clear that it is inherent and not just a possibility, and because Wakao does not discuss the bromine number, Wakao does not provide the evidence required to sustain the prima facie case of obviousness.
In response, the Examiner notes that inherency is a 102 argument, whereas the Examiner has made an obviousness 103 rejection. A prima facie case of obviousness does not require explicit evidence, but merely requires laying forth a reasonable position with clear articulation of the reasons that the results are obvious (see MPEP 2142), which are presented in the rejection previously and again below. The Examiner is unable to run tests themselves on the prior art process to determine properties which the reference has not explicitly or implicitly articulated. Thus, the Examiner must rely on the assumption that a similar process having similar conditions and similar feeds produces a similar result, including the claimed heavy fraction yield, absent any evidence of unexpected results or criticality to the differences between the claimed process and the process in the prior art. If Applicant has any such evidence, this would be taken into account. However, there has been no such evidence presented, and the Examiner’s position is maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 of the Remarks that a reasonable expectation of success is required for obviousness, which is not obtained from Wakao’s unpredictable process.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Wakao’s process is unpredictable or that a reasonable expectation of success cannot be obtained. Wakao teaches all of the steps, the same feed, the same catalyst, and similar conditions. Wakao further teaches obtaining a heavy fraction, and as explained above also teaches the claimed bromine number ratio. As such, there is nothing unpredictable about the idea that the yield of heavy fraction would be a result of the process, and because Wakao teaches the very similar process, Wakao should produce the similar result of the claimed heavy fraction yield.
Applicant on pages 14-17 of the Remarks summarizes or refers to sections 12-13 of the Declaration, which arguments are addressed above. Please see above for the specific responses to these arguments.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-16, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648, machine translation previously provided by Examiner 4/1/2025) as evidenced by Laredo et al. (Identification of Naphthenic Acids), Pillon (Section 6.4.2 Bromine Number), Sadeghbeigi (Section 4.2.5 Bromine number and bromine index), and Stern et al. (US 2012/0246999).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13-15, and 23, Wakao teaches a method for treating a mixture of a plastic pyrolysis oil and a component derived from crude oil (Abstract) where the treating is hydrorefining (hydrotreating) (paragraph [0019]). Wakao teaches the process comprises
A) providing plastic thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) oil (instant claim 15) (paragraph [0013]). The instant specification defines polymer waste-based feedstock as being oils produced by pyrolysis or hydrothermal liquefaction or similar processes of polymers such as plastics (instant specification pages 14-15). Thus, the plastic pyrolysis oil is a polymer waste-based feedstock as claimed.
B) providing a crude oil-derived component (paragraph [0015]) which is vacuum gas oil (VGO), straight-run gas oil, kerosene, or vacuum residual oil (vacuum residue) (instant claim 2) (paragraph [0016]).
C) and D) mixing the plastic pyrolysis oil and crude-oil derived component (paragraph [0024]) and hydrorefining (hydrotreating) the mixture at a temperature of 400°C and with a catalyst comprising NiMo on alumina (instant claims 8-10) (paragraph [0026]), which is within the range of 300-460°C of instant claim 1.
E) separating the hydrorefined effluent into at least naphtha (distillate), kerosene (distillate), and heavy gas oil (distillation bottoms product) fractions (paragraph [0027]).
Wakao does not specifically teach i) adjusting the hydrotreater to obtain a bromine number ratio of 0.5 or less; ii) that the hydrorefining unit is an FCC feed hydrotreater, and iii) the yield of a heavy fraction boiling at 350°C or above from step D.
With regard to i), The instant specification defines BRh as the Bromine Number of the product of the hydrotreating and BRf as the Bromine number of the combined feed. While Wakao does not specifically recite the bromine number of the crude oil derived feed, and as such does not explicitly teach the bromine number of the combined feed, Laredo, Pillon, and Sadeghbeigi teach that light VGO has a bromine number of around 6 and heavy VGO has a bromine number of around 10 (see Laredo Table 3, Pillon Table 6.30, and Sadeghbeigi section 4.2.5). Using the values of Wakao and Laredo, Pillon, and Sadeghbeigi, one can calculate the bromine number of the combined feed and then the claimed bromine number ratio.
Calculation:
Plastic pyrolysis oil bromine number of 10 to 300 gBr/100 g (Wakao paragraph [0014]).
Laredo, Pillon, and Sadeghbeigi light VGO bromine number of around 6 gBr/ 100 g and heavy VGO bromine number of around 10g/100 g (see Laredo Table 3, Pillon Table 6.30, and Sadeghbeigi section 4.2.5).
As such, the bromine number of the combined feed of plastic pyrolysis oil + VGO of Wakao (claimed BRf) is at least 6 gBr/100 g, depending on the amount of plastic pyrolysis oil and VGO and type of VGO used within the feed.
Hydrorefining product bromine number (claimed BRh) of 0.2 gBr/100 g or less (Wakao paragraph [0021]).
Thus, the bromine number ratio of BRh/BRf in Wakao is
0.2
6
=
0.33
or less. This is within the range of less than 0.5 of instant claim 1. Therefore, because Wakao teaches the claimed hydrotreating and the claimed bromine number, it is expected that the hydrotreating has been adjusting to obtain the claimed bromine number, absent evidence to the contrary.
With regard to ii), the instant specification defines an FCC hydrotreater as a reactor which intrinsically carries out a reaction which predominantly results in saturation and heteroatom removal, limiting hydroisomerization and cracking to side reactions, if occurring at all (page 16, line 32-page 17, line 2). Wakao teaches that hydrorefining is distinct from hydrocracking and also teaches that the heteroatom content is reduced by the hydrorefining step (paragraph [0019]). Thus, while Wakao does not specifically use the term “FCC hydrotreater” for the reactor for the hydrotreatment step, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the hydrotreater of Wakao functions as an FCC hydrotreater as defined in the instant specification.
With regard to iii), Wakao teaches the crude-oil derived component is VGO (paragraph [0022]) and that the pyrolysis oil component is included in the mixture in an amount of 0.1 to 20 vol% (paragraph [0018]), and provides the density of the pyrolysis oil component (Table 1 and paragraph [0022]). Wakao does not specifically provide the density of VGO. However, Stern teaches that typical VGO densities are 0.9-0.95 g/cm3 (page 8, Table 1). Using these densities and amounts, the amount of VGO is 81.15-99.9 wt% and the amount of pyrolysis oil is 0.88-18.85 wt%. The amount of 0.88-18.85 wt% is within the ranges of at most 50 wt%, at most 40 wt%, at most 30 wt%, at most 25 wt% and at least 0.5 wt% of instant claim 13 and within the range of 0.5 to 50 wt% of instant claim 23. The amount of 81.15-99.9 wt% is within the ranges of at least 25 wt%, at least 30 wt%, at least 40 wt%, at least 50 wt%, at least 60 wt%, at least 70 wt%, and at least 75 wt% of instant claim 14. Wakao also teaches the pressure is 1 to 15 MPa (10 to 150 bar) (paragraph [0020]), which overlaps the ranges of at most 100, at most 90, at most 80, at most 70, at most 60, at most 55, and at most 50 bar of instant claim 7, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Therefore, Wakao teaches the providing the same mixture of plastic pyrolysis oil and vacuum resid in the same amounts, and hydrotreating at the same temperature and with the same catalyst (paragraph [0026]) and at a similar pressure (paragraph [0020]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of a yield of heavy fraction boiling at 350°C or above of at least 50 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 4, Wakao does not specifically teach the yield of heavy fraction boiling at 350°C or above in step D. However, Wakao teaches the providing the same mixture of plastic pyrolysis oil and vacuum gas oil in the same amounts, and hydrotreating at the same temperature and with the same catalyst (paragraph [0026]) and at a similar pressure (paragraph [0020]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of a yield of heavy fraction boiling at 350°C or above of at least 55, at least 60, or at least 65 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 5, Wakao does not specifically teach the yield of a light fraction boiling at 150°C or below in step D. However, Wakao teaches the providing the same mixture of plastic pyrolysis oil and vacuum gas oil in the same amounts, and hydrotreating at the same temperature and with the same catalyst (paragraph [0026]) and at a similar pressure (paragraph [0020]), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of a yield of a light fraction boiling at 150°C or below of at most 10, at most 8, at most 6, at most 5, at most 4, at most 3, or at most 2 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 11, Wakao does not teach that the hydrorefining comprises olefin saturation. However, Wakao teaches the same temperature and catalyst and overlapping pressure (paragraphs [0020] and [0026]) and the same reduction in bromine number (paragraph [0021] as explained above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the conditions of Wakao are also olefin saturation conditions, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 16, Wakao teaches thermal decomposition of the plastics to produce the pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0013]).
With regard to claim 19, Wakao teaches that the obtained distillate fractions can be refined to produce a gasoline product (fuel) (paragraph [0021]).
Claims 3, 17, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648) as evidenced by Colorado School of Mines (Refinery Feedstocks & Product Properties & Specifications, previously provided by Examiner 7/9/2024).
With regard to claim 3, Wakao teaches the heavy gas oil (distillation bottoms product) (paragraph [0027]). Colorado School of Mines evidences that Heavy gas oil has an initial boiling point of 450°C (page 21). Thus, the distillation bottoms product has a 10% boiling point within the ranges of at least 300, at least 310, at least 320, at least 330, at least 340, at least 345, at least 350, and at least 355°C of instant claim 3.
With regard to claim 17, Wakao teaches the mixture of hydrocarbons comprising a ratio of 0.033 or less (see calculation for claim 1 above), which is within the range of 0.5 or less of instant claim 17. Wakao further teaches the mixture comprises a heavy gas oil product fraction (paragraph [0027]). Colorado School of Mines evidences that heavy gas oil has an initial boiling point of 450°C (page 21). This is within the range of a heavy gas oil having a 10% boiling point of at least 300°C of instant claim 17.
The Examiner also notes that the phrase “obtained by the method according to claim 1” of claim 17 is product-by-process language. The product will determine patentability. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (see MPEP 2113(I)).
With regard to claim 18, Wakao does not explicitly teach a hydrorefining product (hydrocarbonaceous material obtainable in step D) comprising more than 16 wt% of a 150-300°C fraction or at least 60 wt% of a 370°C+ fraction. However, Wakao teaches same mixture of plastic pyrolysis oil and vacuum resid in the same amounts, and hydrotreating at the same temperature and with the same catalyst (paragraph [0026]) and at a similar pressure (paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the hydrocarbonaceous material obtained in step D of Wakao comprises the similar amounts of more than 16 wt% of a fraction boiling in a range of 150-300°C and at least 60 wt% of a fraction boiling above 370°C, as claimed in instant claim 18, absent any evidence to the contrary.
The Examiner also notes that the phrase “obtainable in step D of the method of claim 1” of claim 18 is product-by-process language. The product will determine patentability. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (see MPEP 2113(I)).
With regard to claim 24, Wakao teaches the heavy gas oil (distillation bottoms product). Colorado School of Mines evidences that Heavy gas oil has an initial boiling point of 450°C (page 21). Thus, the distillation bottoms product has a 10% boiling point of at least 300°C as in instant claim 24.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramamurthy et al. (US 2019/0177626).
With regard to claim 12, Wakao teaches hydrorefining a plastic pyrolysis oil from pyrolysis of waste plastics, where the pyrolysis oil has an initial boiling point of 100°C or less and a 90% distillation temperature of 300-600°C (paragraphs [0011] and [0013]). The instant specification defines liquefied polymer waste as another term for “polymer waste-based feedstock” and as the oil produced by liquefaction such as pyrolysis (instant specification page 15). Thus, the plastic pyrolysis oil of Wakao is liquefied plastic waste as claimed.
Wakao does not explicitly teach that pyrolysis waste plastic oil sent to the hydrotreating is only a fraction of the liquefied plastic waste.
Ramamurthy teaches a process for producing hydrocarbons from plastic pyrolysis oils (paragraph [0001]) comprising pyrolysis of plastics, fractionating the plastic pyrolysis oil, and hydrotreating a light fraction of the pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0005]). Ramamurthy further teaches that the fractionation allows for producing a heavy fraction having a boiling point of at least 430°C which is suitable for recycling to the pyrolysis to produce additional desired hydrocarbons (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to fractionate the pyrolysis oil of Wakao to produce a fraction for hydrotreating, as claimed, because Wakao and Ramamurthy each teach hydrotreating plastic pyrolysis oils to produce desired hydrocarbons, Wakao teaches the pyrolysis oil has a 90% distillation temperature of 300-600°C and Ramamurthy teaches fractionation to produce a light fraction for hydrotreating with a boiling point less than 430°C, which is within the range of 300-600°C of Wakao, and also to produce heavy fraction which is suitable for recycling to the pyrolysis to produce additional desired hydrocarbons (paragraph [0054]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindberg et al. (US 2020/0017775).
With regard to claim 20, Wakao teaches the method above.
Wakao does not teach adding a further feed material (defined as a material which is neither crude oil-derived nor polymer waste-based, instant specification page 16, first paragraph) to the hydrotreating feed.
Lindberg teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons comprising hydroprocessing a feed of biological origin (Abstract). Lindberg further teaches that the feed of biological origin (further feed material) is coprocessed with a non-renewable feedstock (crude oil-based feed) to provide valuable components for liquid fuels and starting materials for chemical processing (paragraphs [0004], [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the feed of biological origin (further feed material) to the process of Wakao, because Wakao and Lindberg each teach co-processing a non-renewable feedstock with a plastic or biological based feed in a hydrotreating reactor, and Lindberg teaches that using a feed of biological origin produces additional valuable components for liquid fuels and starting materials for chemical processing (paragraphs [0004], [0006]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishibashi et al. (JP 2005-105027, machine translation provided by Examiner herein).
With regard to claim 21, Wakao teaches the plastic pyrolysis oil above. Wakao further teaches that the plastic pyrolysis oil has a bromine value of 1.5 g Br/100g or more and a diene value of 0.3 g/100 g or more (paragraph [0014]). Dienes are specific olefins having two double bonds, and the bromine number includes aromatics as well as olefins.
Wakao does not specifically teach the content of olefins in the plastic pyrolysis oil.
Ishibashi teaches a process for hydrotreating a plastic pyrolysis oil with naphtha (paragraph [0007]). Ishibashi further teaches that plastic pyrolysis oil typically comprises a bromine number of 1.5 Br/100g or more, a diene value of 0.3 g/ 100g or more, and an olefin content of 5 vol% or more (paragraph [0010]). Thus, Ishibashi teaches that it is known that pyrolysis oils having the same bromine value and diene value as the pyrolysis oil of Wakao also comprise at least 5 vol% olefins, which overlaps the range of 30 wt% or more of instant claim 21, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the pyrolysis oil of Wakao also has at least 5 vol% olefins, overlapping the claimed range, as taught by Ishibashi, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Timken et al. (US 2021/0301210).
With regard to claim 22, Wakao teaches the method above which produces a heavy fraction (claimed distillation bottoms).
Wakao fails to teach subjecting at least part of the distillation bottoms product to fluid catalytic cracking or to steam cracking.
Timken teaches a method for conversion of waste plastic (paragraph [0008]) comprising the following steps:
a) hydrogenating plastic pyrolysis oil in an FCC Feed Pretreater unit which hydrogenates aromatics and removes impurities (FCC feed hydrotreater) to produce a pretreated hydrocarbon (paragraphs [0009] and [0011]).
b) recovering a naphtha product (distillate product) and a heavy fraction (distillation bottoms product) (paragraph [0010]).
c) cracking the pretreated heavy fraction (distillation bottoms product) in an FCC unit (paragraph [0010]).
Timken further teaches that FCC cracking the heavy fraction produces C3, C4, and FCC gasoline (paragraph [0010]) thus producing claim C3 and positive economics (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of FCC of the heavy fraction of Wakao as taught by Timken, because Wakao and Timken each teach hydrotreating plastic pyrolysis oil and separating to produce a heavy fraction, and Timken teaches that performing FCC on the heavy fraction produces desirable C3, C4, and FCC gasoline with positive economics (paragraph [0013]).
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 ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights