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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 7 were 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam (US 20230120367-appears on a previous PTO-892) in view of Blackborow (US 5588973-appears on a previous PTO-892).
Vyakaranam teaches a method of reducing or preventing fouling in a plastic-derived synthetic feedstock derived from plastic pyrolysis (see abstract. The method of obtaining the synthetic feedstock comprises: (a) heating plastic under substantially oxygen free conditions at a temperature from about 400° C. to about 850° C. to produce a pyrolysis effluent; (b) condensing the pyrolysis effluent to obtain a synthetic feedstock; and (c) recovering the synthetic feedstock. In some embodiments, after condensing, the effluent is distilled (see para 0040-0044).
The hydrocarbons from the pyrolysis distillate may be diesel fuel (see para 0045). Depending on the processing conditions synthetic feedstock can have characteristics similar to crude oil from petroleum sources. In some embodiments, the synthetic feedstock derived from waste plastic contains 10-50% paraffins and iso-paraffins, 5-25% naphthenes, and 5-35% aromatics. The synthetic feedstocks have carbon lengths of 15-20 wt. % C9-C16; 75-87 wt. % C16-C29; 2-5 wt. % C30+, where the carbon chains are predominantly a mixture of alkanes, alkenes and diolefins (see para 0048).
To the pyrolysate process stream or pyrolysate product is added the antifouling agent, which reduces or prevents foulant formation or deposition in the pyrolysate or process equipment. The antifouling agent is an anhydride of carboxylic acids or their derivatives. The carboxylic acid anhydrides include succinic anhydride, and derivatives thereof (see para 0053). The succinic anhydride compounds include succinamides, succinimides, and N-alkyl, N-alkenyl, N-aryl, and N-alkaryl succinimides (acylated nitrogen compounds) (see para 0055).
The antifouling agent is effective to reduce or prevent fouling when the antifouling agent composition is added to a synthetic pyrolysis stream or synthetic pyrolysis product in an amount corresponding to about 10 ppm to 5000 ppm by weight of the antifouling agent (see para 0059). Other additives can be added to the pyrolysis oil during processing and storage. In some embodiments, the other additives are antioxidants and neutralizers (see para 0069). The teaching of neutralizers suggests metal deactivators. Vyakaranam meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Vyakaranam does not specifically teach adding the acylated nitrogen compound to the fuel oil obtained from the distillation of the pyrolysis oil. However, Vyakaranam does teach that the pyrolysis product may be distilled, that the product contains a range of hydrocarbon products which includes diesel fuel and that an antifouling agent may be added to the pyrolysis products.
Vyakaranam does not specifically teach that the acylated nitrogen compound is the reaction product of a polyisobutene-substituted succinic acid or succinic anhydride and a polyethylene polyamine. However, Blackborow meets this limitation.
Blackborow teaches a fuel composition (a hydrocarbon boiling in the diesel range) comprising a polyisobutene succinimide (see abstract; col. 4, lines 57-59). The PIB succinimides are prepared by the reaction of a PIB-substituted succinic acylating agent, (succinic anhydride) with an amine such as a polyethylene polyamine (see col. 1, lines 39-43; col. 4, lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used PIB succinimides prepared by the reaction of a PIB-substituted succinic acylating agent, (succinic anhydride) with an amine such as a polyethylene polyamine as the stabilizing additive because Vyakaranam desires succinimides and teaches that these compounds reduce or prevent foulant formation or deposition in the pyrolysate or process equipment and Blackborow teaches that the specific compounds of the present claims do indeed inhibit the formation and facilitate the removal of deposits (see col. 1, lines 5-43).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Arnst (US20220289648-appears on a previous PTO-892).
Vyakaranam has been discussed above. Vyakaranam does not specifically teach the claimed antioxidants. Arnst teaches these differences.
Arnst teaches compositions and methods to stabilize synthetic feedstock derived from plastic. Some methods disclosed in Arnst include adding an antioxidant composition to a plastic-derived synthetic feedstock composition (see abstract). The method of obtaining the synthetic feedstock comprising: (a) heating plastic under substantially oxygen free conditions at a temperature of from about 400° C to about 800° C to produce a pyrolysis effluent; (b) distilling the pyrolysis effluent; (c) recovering the synthetic feedstock; and (d) adding a stabilizer to the synthetic feedstock to reduce contamination (see para 0008-0012). The stabilizer composition and method are used to prevent or reduce oxidation of polymers, formation of gum or residue, discoloration or combinations thereof during recovery, transport, storage or use of the synthetic feedstocks derived from plastics (see para 0019).
The antioxidant may be a phenol or amine, such as hindered phenols and phenylenediamines. The hindered phenol may be 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol, 2,6-di-tbutyl-4-methylphenol or 2,5-di-t-butylhydroquinone (see para 0054- 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the claimed antioxidants because Vyakaranam especially desires an antioxidant and Arnst teaches that the claimed antioxidants are used in synthetic feedstock derived from plastic and the stabilizer composition and method are used to prevent or reduce oxidation of polymers, formation of gum or residue, discoloration or combinations thereof during recovery, transport, storage or use of the synthetic feedstocks derived from plastics, such as Vyakaranam.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam as applied to the claims above, and further in view of WO 02068570- appears on the current PTO-892.
Vyakaranam has been discussed above. Vyakaranam does not specifically teach the claimed hydroxylamine. However, WO meets this limitation.
WO teaches a fuel composition comprising a major amount of a normally liquid hydrocarbon based fuel and a minor amount of a hydroxylamine. The hydroxylamine provides improved combustion properties to a wide variety of normally liquid hydrocarbon based fuels, such as middle distillate and diesel fuels. The hydroxylamine has the following formula
PNG
media_image1.png
130
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra and Rb is a hydrocarbyl group of 1-25 carbon atoms and n is from 1 to about 30 (see page 4, lines 25-29; page 6, lines 1-9; page 7, lines 10-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the hydroxylamine in the fuel composition because WO teaches that these compounds improve combustion properties to a wide variety of normally liquid hydrocarbon based fuels such as the diesel fuel of Vyakaranam.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Vataru (US 4,797,134-appears on the current PTO 892).
Vyakaranam has been discussed above. Vyakaranam does not specifically teach the alkoxylated amine compounds. However, Vataru teaches this difference.
Vataura teaches the used of ethoxylated and propoxylated derivatives of fatty amines in diesel fuels (see abstract; col. 1, lines 4-10).
Vataura teaches that detergents are commonly employed in fuels for the purposes of maintaining fuel system cleanliess, absorbing traces of moisture, and resisting rust and corrosion. It is desirable that such detergents be ashless--that is, contain no metal salts and burn cleanly in the combustion chamber. It is further desirable that they contain no elements such as phosphorus which could be detrimental to the performance of a catalytic converter or other emission control device. The detergents to be used according to the invention are the fatty amines and the ethoxylated and propoxylated derivatives thereof. The compounds are prepared from ethylene diamine (see col. 3, lines 7-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an alkoxylated amine in the composition of Vyakaranam because Vataura teaches that the compounds are employed in fuels, such as Vyakaranam for the purposes of maintaining fuel system cleanliness, absorbing traces of moisture, and resisting rust and corrosion.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Martella (US 5039437-appears on the present PTO-892).
Vyakaranam has been discussed above. Vyakaranam does not specifically teach that the stabilizing additive comprises aldehyde-alkylphenol copolymers. However, Martella teaches this difference.
Martella teaches additives for improving the low temperature flow properties of hydrocarbon oils which comprise the condensation reaction product of alkylated phenol and aldehyde of the following formula
PNG
media_image2.png
198
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R’ is an alkyl group , R1 is linear alkyl groups and R2-R5 are H or alkyl groups and n is at least 1 (see abstract; col. 14, lines 21-68). Martella teaches that the polymers are used in fuel oils (see col. 17, lines 50-col. 18, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the aldehyde-alkylphenol copolymers as the stabilizing additive because Vyakaranam teaches that wax dispersants and paraffin inhibitors may be used in his invention (see para 0069) and Martella teaches that the aldehyde-alkylphenol additives function as flow improvers which are effective for modification of the size, number, and growth of wax crystals in various hydrocarbon oils, including fuel oils, so as to impart improved low temperature flow properties to these oils.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vyakaranam does not disclose a diesel fuel (middle distillate fuel oil) derived from a pyrolysis oil as recited by current claim 1, but is instead directed to crude mixtures, as indicated in e.g. paragraph [0048].
Vyakaranam teaches in paragraph [0045] that the pyrolysis process produces a range of hydrocarbon products from gases (at temperatures from 10° C. to 50° C. and 0.5-1.5 atmospheric pressure and having 5 carbons or less); modest boiling point liquids (like gasoline or naptha (40-200° C) or diesel fuel (180-360° C). Diesel fuel is a middle distillate.
Applicant argues that Vyakaranam does not teach or suggest that any particular additives are suitable for stabilizing a diesel fuel derived from a pyrolysis oil. Applicant argues that Vyakaranam only teaches that different additives from those currently claimed can stabilize crude-like pyrolysis oils.
Vyakaranam teaches that other additives can be added to the pyrolysis oil during processing and storage. This teaching would encompass the distilled product as well as the crude like product.
Applicant argues that the skilled person, when reading Blackborow, would be taught to use additives in mineral gasoline, for the reduction of engine valve deposits, and would not have been taught, suggested, or motivated to use these additives in a pyrolysis oil such as that described in Vyakaranam to improve its stability, let alone in a diesel fuel derived from such a pyrolysis oil, as required by the current claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Blackborow teaches that the compounds of his invention relates in general to use in hydrocarbon fuel compositions and in particular to hydrocarbon fuel compositions containing a polyisobutene succinimide detergent additive. Hydrocarbon fuels generally contain numerous deposit-forming substances. When used in internal combustion engines, deposits tend to form on and around constricted areas of the engine in contact with the fuel. In diesel engines, deposits tend to accumulate in the fuel injection system, thereby hampering good performance of the engine. Therefore, Blackborow does contemplate use of the compounds in diesel fuels and Vyakaranam teaches that the feedstock of his invention may be a diesel fuel.
Applicant argues that the alleged superior and unexpected results obtained when using the present fuel composition would not have been remotely expected by the skilled person, based on the teachings of Vyakaranam, Blackborow and Arnst.
Applicant has not shown unexpected results. Applicant is claiming generic stabilizing additives and even more generic antioxidants. The examiner cannot ascertain if unexpected results are obtained. Whether the alleged unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
Applicant argues that Arnst does not teach using antioxidants in middle distillate fuels obtained from the distillation of a pyrolysis oil.
Arnst teaches that the antioxidants are used to inhibit, prevent or reduce oxidation, deterioration, degradation and gum formation (see para 0025). Arnst teaches that the antioxidants are used to stabilize synthetic feedstock derived from plastic and that the feedstock may be used as a diesel fuel (see abstract and para [0044].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18389414/20260402
Prosecution Insights