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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 21-24 are new. Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner initially misinterpreted the claim and argument when providing the Advisory Action of 09 February 2026. The Examiner agreed in the Advisory that the amendment to recite that the hydrotreating is done “for a first time” would overcome Weiss, which requires a selective hydrogenation step before the hydrotreating step. However, as Applicant notes, the claim only requires that the claimed hydrotreating be the first hydrotreating step performed (emphasis added). The selective hydrogenation of Weiss is not a hydrotreating step as defined in the instant specification, where the hydrotreating “predominantly results in saturation and heteroatom removal” (page 16, line 33-page 17, line 2). While the selective hydrogenation of Weiss does result in some saturation (converting diolefins to olefins and paraffins paragraph [0029]), there is no indication that heteroatom removal takes place in the selective hydrogenation step, whereas the hydrotreating step of Weiss involves total hydrogenation (saturation) of olefins and also conversion of metals, sulfur, nitrogen, halogen, and oxygen compounds (heteroatoms) (paragraph [0051]). Thus, the hydrotreating of Weiss is the first hydrotreating step performed in the process, and Weiss still teaches the claimed process.
However, due to the amendment to claim 1 to remove the requirement of more than 30 wt% olefins in the pyrolysis oil, Weiss is no longer the closest prior art. Thus, the Examiner has withdrawn Weiss, and the remaining arguments over Weiss are moot. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previous secondary reference Wakao et al. (JP 2007-119648, machine translation previously provided by Examiner 4/1/2025).
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 3, 17, 22, and 24 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.
With regard to claims 3, 17, and 24, the claims each recite “(according to ASTM-D2887)”. The use of parentheses other than for abbreviating terms is improper and indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitations inside the parentheses are required or optional.
For purposes of examination, the recitation within the parentheses will be considered optional, and the 10% boiling point will be considered to be able to be determined by any method and still meet the claim limitations.
With regard to claim 22, the claim recites “co-feed (FCC co-feed)”. The use of parentheses other than for abbreviating terms is improper and indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitations inside the parentheses are required or optional.
For purposes of examination, as the claim requires sending the optional co-feed to fluid catalytic cracking (FCC), any co-feed is considered an FCC co-feed, and the use of the term “FCC co-feed” is redundant.
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).
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, 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) that the hydrorefining unit is an FCC feed hydrotreater or ii) the yield of a heavy fraction boiling at 350°C or above from step D
With regard to i), 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 ii), Wakao teaches the crude-oil derived component is vacuum resid (paragraph [0022]) and that the crude oil component is included in the mixture in an amount of 85 vol%, and provides the densities of the pyrolysis oil and the crude oil component (Tables 1 and 2, paragraph [0022]). Using the densities provided, the amount of crude oil is 87.4 wt% and the amount of pyrolysis oil is 12.6 wt%. 12.6 wt% is within the ranges of at most 50 wt%, at most 40 wt%, at most 30 wt%, at most 25 wt%, at least 0.5 wt%, at least 1 wt%, at least 1.5 wt%, and at least 2 wt% of instant claim 13 and within the range of 0.5 to 50 wt% of instant claim 23. The amount of 87.4 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, as above for ii), 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 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 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 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 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 specifically teach that the hydrorefining comprises olefin saturation. However, Wakao teaches the same temperature and catalyst and overlapping pressure (paragraphs [0020] and [0026]). 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 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 pyrolysis oil above. Wakao further teaches that the 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, 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
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