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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 22 January 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-6 and 7-21 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 5,744,668) in view of Brunetti (US2023/0203382) and Fekhar (Pyrolysis of chlorine contaminated municipal plastic waste).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 17, and 21, Zhou teaches sending waste plastic derived pyrolysis oil to a dechlorination step to remove halogens prior to catalytic cracking (column 2, lines 9-67). Zhou teaches conventional cracking catalyst including y zeolite (column 4, lines 27-40).
Zhou does not explicitly disclose the dechlorination includes mixed metal oxide treatment followed by adsorption.
However, Brunetti teaches a method for removing halogen from waste plastic derived pyrolysis oil [0013]. Brunetti teaches subjecting the waste plastic to mixed metal oxides in step b [0016], [0074-0077] followed by adsorbent in step d [0018], [0096-0097]. Examiner notes that these dechlorinating mixed metal oxides and adsorbents differ from the Brunetti FCC catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Brunetti dechlorination steps, in order to remove the halogen compounds from the plastic derived pyrolysis oil of Zhou.
Brunetti teaches mixtures of calcium oxide and iron oxide [0075-0075], which reads on the claimed mixed metal oxides.
Further, Fekhar teaches using red mud to dechlorinate pyrolysis oil derived from waste plastic (see page 1270, title, abstract, and introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Fekhar red mud to treat the pyrolysis oil of the previous combination, for the benefit of removing chlorine compounds.
Regarding claims 2, Examiner notes that catalyst and sorbent regeneration is well-known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized well-known separation and regeneration steps, in order to obtain regenerated catalyst and metal oxide to be used in the reaction zones.
Regarding claim 5, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected any well-known catalytic cracking reactor, such as an FCC riser or downer, in order to perform the desired cracking reaction. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 9-11, Brunetti teaches selecting appropriate temperatures, pressures, and catalyst to feedstock ratio in the MMO treatment zone [0073-0081], including temperatures of 100-500°C, 5-500 bar, residence time of 0.1-200 hours [0073], and amounts of catalyst/feedstock [0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as disclosed by Brunetti, for the benefit of obtaining the desired dechlorination.
Claims 3-4 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 5,744,668) in view of Brunetti (US2023/0203382) and Fekhar (Pyrolysis of chlorine contaminated municipal plastic waste) as applied to claims 1-2 and 17 above, and further in view of Portela (US 2022/0204870).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 18-19, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 and 17 above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose common regeneration.
However, Portela teaches a common regeneration system for conventional cracking catalysts and metal oxide trapping agents [0011-0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Portela common regeneration system, so that spent catalyst may be regenerated and recirculated to the appropriate reactors.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 5,744,668) in view of Brunetti (US2023/0203382) and Fekhar (Pyrolysis of chlorine contaminated municipal plastic waste), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy (US 2018/0002609).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose additional catalytic cracking feedstocks.
Narayanaswamy teaches conventional FCC feeds including VGO, diesel, and naphtha [0025]. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the pyrolysis oil with a conventional hydrocarbon feedstock known for the same purpose of catalytic cracking to make more valuable products.
Regarding claims 13-14, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose the cracking conditions or product separation/recirculation.
Narayanaswamy teaches using conventional catalytic cracking conditions including temperatures of 550°C and using appropriate catalyst oil ratio [0068]. Narayanswamy teaches separated FCC product and recirculating to the dechlorination stage (see figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate catalytic cracking conditions, separation, and recirculation, in order to obtain the desired products.
Claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 5,744,668) in view of Brunetti (US2023/0203382) and Fekhar (Pyrolysis of chlorine contaminated municipal plastic waste) as applied to claims 1-2 and 17 above, and further in view of Weiss (US 2023/0272292).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 20, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 and 17, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose water wash and adsorption prior to treatment, as well as control of the feed sent to pretreatment.
However, Weiss teaches a similar process for treating plastic derived pyrolysis oil. Weiss teaches that optional pretreatment steps including water wash and adsorption may be performed, prior to further treatment [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Weiss pretreatment steps, and used appropriate well-known process control steps, in order to remove any additional undesirable contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
Zhou does not disclose the mixed metal oxides as claimed.
In response, Examiner notes that Zhou is not relied upon to disclose the mixed metal oxides. Brunetti has been incorporated into the rejections to disclose halogen removal using mixed metal oxides [0075], [0001]. Further, Fekhar teaching has been provided (see page 1270).
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights