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, 5, 6, 14-16, and 18 are amended. Claim 17 is cancelled.
The amendments to claims 5 and 11 overcome the previous claim objections. The amendment to claim 15 partly overcomes the previous claim objection, with the remaining objection repeated herein. The amendments to claims 1 and 15 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections over claims 1, 10, and 15. The amendments to claims 14 and 16 and the cancellation of claim 17 overcomes the previous 112(d) rejections.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered. Some are persuasive and some are not, as explained below.
Applicant asks on page 8 of the Remarks that the procedures for double-patenting rejections filed on the same day be followed, and if the double-patenting rejection becomes non-provisional, Applicant will consider the terminal disclaimer.
In response, the Examiner notes that the MPEP states that the proper procedure is “If both the application under examination and the reference application have the same patent term filing date, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until it is overcome. Provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b). Thus, applicant can overcome a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection by filing a reply that either shows that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application, or includes a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 that obviates the rejection.” MPEP 804IB1(b)(ii). Copending Application 18/558,379 remains pending and the claims remain the same, and neither application has been allowed, thus the proper procedure is that the Double-Patenting rejection remains provisional and is maintained herein until it is overcome.
Applicant argues on pages 9, 10 and 11 of the Remarks that Dooley does not teach the content of the gas before liquefaction is the r-pygas comprising propane, propylene, butane, butenes, hydrogen, methane, CO, and CO2 as claimed in amended claim 1. This argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendment. Dooley continues to teach the process, and Brownscombe is added to teach the content of the non-condensable gases in the gas product (r-pygas) produced by Dooley.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 15, for step d), the claim recites “one or both of steps e) and f)” but also recites between steps e) and e) “and/or”. The recitation of both “one or both” and “and/or” is redundant. The Examiner suggests amending “and/or” to recite “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2018/0355256) in view of Brownscombe et al. (US 2005/0148487) and Ezzell (LPG Storage).
With regard to claim 1, Dooley teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons from plastics (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) pyrolysis of plastics to produce a fuel (paragraph [0051]) where the product from the pyrolysis is a gas product (paragraph [0105]) and includes LPG (paragraph [0110]).
b) compressing and cooling the gas product (r-pygas) to condense (liquefy) the LPG in stream 511 and provide a non-condensable product 512 (paragraphs [0107], [0112], [0113]).
c) collecting and storing the LPG 511 from the condenser in an LPG storage vessel (paragraph [0112]).
Dooley does not explicitly teach i) the content of the gas product before condensing the LPG or ii) maintaining the LPG in the liquid state during storing.
With regard to i), Dooley teaches that the condensing produces LPG which typically comprises propane and butane (paragraphs [0100]) and non-condensable gases (paragraph [0113]). Thus, Dooley teaches that the gas product (r-pygas) comprises at least propane and butane, which are claimed.
Dooley is silent regarding the remainder of the contents of the gas product (r-pygas) which include the non-condensable gases separated during the condensing.
Brownscombe teaches conversion of plastics to products including non-condensable gases (paragraph [0007]). Brownscombe further teaches that the non-condensable gases typically include carbon dioxide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, propane, propylene, butane, butenes, and other hydrocarbons that are not condensed from a hydrocarbon mixture at STP (paragraph [0094]). Thus, Brownscombe teaches a typical mixture of gases in non-condensable gases from pyrolysis of plastics include the listed components for the r-pygas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the gas product (r-pygas) of Dooley, before condensing the LPG which is performed at higher than STP, would contain the components as in the non-condensable gases of Brownscombe, because each of Dooley and Brownscombe teaches pyrolysis of plastic wastes to a gas product comprising light gases including non-condensable gases, Dooley is silent regarding the specific components in the gas comprising non-condensable gases, and Brownscombe teaches that the claimed components are typical components of a non-condensable gas stream from pyrolysis of plastics as in Dooley.
With regard to ii), Dooley explicitly teaches cooling and compressing to condense (liquefy) the LPG before storing it (paragraph [0107]). Further, Ezzell teaches that LPG is efficiently and economically transported in liquid form (page 1, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to maintain the LPG in the liquid form while storing it, because Dooley teaches storing liquid LPG and Ezzell teaches that maintaining LPG as a liquid while storing allows for efficient and economic transport (page 1, second paragraph).
With regard to claims 2 and 4, Dooley in view of Ezzell teaches the concept of transporting the stored and liquefied LPG to rural and remote locations (page 1, paragraphs 1-4). Therefore, while Dooley in view of Ezzell does not explicitly teach that the LPG is stored for at least an hour and/or transported for at least a mile, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that in order to reach certain remote locations via truck, rail, barge, or ship, the time and/or distance would need to be at least an hour or at least a mile, as claimed.
With regard to claims 5 and 12, Dooley does not specifically teach the weight percent of pyoil or pygas in the product from pyrolysis (instant claim 5), and also does not teach the amounts of C1-C5 compounds in the pygas (instant claim 12). However, Dooley teaches that the recovery of fuel is dictated by the type of plastic material to be processed and by the conditions (temperature and pressure) under which the pyrolysis step is effected (paragraph [0123]) noting that higher temperatures generally give more LPG than diesel (paragraph [0110]). Thus, Dooley teaches that the amount of each component recovered from the pyrolysis is result-effective based on the temperature, pressure, and plastic feed used, and thus the amounts can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recover 1 to 40 wt% pygas and 40 to 90 wt% pyoil, where the pygas comprises 75 to 95.5 wt% C1-C5, 50 to 98 wt% C3-C5, 1 to 50 wt% C2, 2 to 75 wt% C3, and 2 to 75 wt% C4, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)
With regard to claim 9, Dooley does not specifically teach the amount of LPG liquefied from the gas product (pygas) However, Dooley teaches that the recovery of fuel is dictated by the type of plastic material to be processed and by the conditions (temperature and pressure) under which the pyrolysis step is effected (paragraph [0123]) noting that higher temperatures generally give more LPG than diesel (paragraph [0110]). Thus, Dooley teaches that the amount of each component recovered from the pyrolysis is result-effective based on the temperature, pressure, and plastic feed used, and thus the amounts can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to liquefy at least 20 wt% of the gas product (pygas), as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)
With regard to claim 15, Dooley teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons from plastics (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) pyrolysis of plastics to produce a fuel (paragraph [0051]) where the product from the pyrolysis is a gas product (paragraph [0105]) and includes LPG (paragraph [0110]).
b) and c) compressing and cooling the gas product to condense (liquefy) the LPG (portion of pygas) (paragraph [0107]) and produce a non-condensable gas (portion of pygas) (paragraph [0112]). Dooley further teaches using the non-condensable gas in the cyclone combustor which is used to produce heat for the pyrolysis kiln (paragraphs [0113], [0103]). Thus, Dooley teaches using the non-condensable gas (portion of pygas) as fuel as claimed.
d) collecting and storing the LPG from the condenser in an LPG storage vessel (paragraph [0112]).
Dooley does not explicitly teach i) the content of the gas product before condensing the LPG or ii) steps e) storing for at least an hour and/or f) transporting the LPG at least a mile.
With regard to i), Dooley teaches that the condensing produces LPG which typically comprises propane and butane (paragraphs [0100]) and non-condensable gases (paragraph [0113]). Thus, Dooley teaches that the gas product (r-pygas) comprises at least propane and butane, which are claimed.
Dooley is silent regarding the remainder of the contents of the gas product (r-pygas) which include the non-condensable gases separated during the condensing.
Brownscombe teaches conversion of plastics to products including non-condensable gases (paragraph [0007]). Brownscombe further teaches that the non-condensable gases typically include carbon dioxide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, propane, propylene, butane, butenes, and other hydrocarbons that are not condensed from a hydrocarbon mixture at STP (paragraph [0094]). Thus, Brownscombe teaches a typical mixture of gases in non-condensable gases from pyrolysis of plastics include the listed components for the r-pygas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the gas product (r-pygas) of Dooley, before condensing the LPG which is performed at higher than STP, would contain the components as in the non-condensable gases of Brownscombe, because each of Dooley and Brownscombe teaches pyrolysis of plastic wastes to a gas product comprising light gases including non-condensable gases, Dooley is silent regarding the specific components in the gas comprising non-condensable gases, and Brownscombe teaches that the claimed components are typical components of a non-condensable gas stream from pyrolysis of plastics as in Dooley.
With regard to ii), Ezzell teaches that LPG is stored at various points along the supply chain due to increased demand (page 1, first paragraph). Ezzell further teaches storing the liquified LPG in large storage facilities and also transporting liquefied LPG to rural and remote locations (page 1, paragraphs 1-4). Therefore, while Dooley in view of Ezzell does not explicitly teach that the LPG is stored in the storage facilities for at least an hour and/or transported for at least a mile, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the LPG can be stored in the storage facilities in the supply chain for longer than an hour before needed, and also find it obvious that in order to reach certain remote locations via truck, rail, barge, or ship, the distance would need to be at least a mile, as claimed.
With regard to claim 16, Dooley does not specifically teach reducing the amount of non-condensable gases used as fuel by increasing the amount of liquefied LPG produced in the liquefying. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated economically to determine an optimal amount of LPG produced versus the increased cost of cooling and condensing the product to obtain the LPG. Thus, the amount of LPG liquefied and as such the concept of reducing the amount of non-condensable gases used as fuel by increasing the amount of LPG liquefied is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a reducing the non-condensable gases used as fuel by increasing the amount of liquefied LPG produced in the process, as claimed, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2018/0355256) in view of Ezzell (LPG Storage) as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Reddy (A Primer on LPG Storage Systems).
With regard to claim 3, Dooley in view of Ezzell teaches that the storing of LPG can take place in spherical vessels or “bullet” (cylindrical) vessels (page 1, Hortonsphere section; and page 2, first full paragraph). Dooley in view of Ezzell does not explicitly recite the storage conditions for the spherical vessels or bullet (cylindrical) vessels. However, Reddy evidences that the storage pressure for spherical vessels is 14.5 atm (14.7 barg) (page 3, Table 1), which is within the range of at least 1.25 barg of instant claim 3. Reddy also evidences that the temperature for the “bullet” or cylindrical vessels is -45 to 55°C (Page 3, Table 1), which is within or overlaps the range of less than 15°C of instant claim 3, rendering the range obvious. Thus, the LPG stored in the vessels of Dooley in view of Ezzell. Thus, the vessels of Ezzell meet the limitations of claim 3.
Claims 6, 7, 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2018/0355256) in view of Ezzell (LPG Storage) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Housmans et al. (US 2017/0152447).
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Dooley teaches compressing and cooling the LPG from the gas product (paragraph [0107]).
Dooley does not specifically teach how the compressing and cooling works to collect the LPG. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a known process which cools and compresses a gas stream comprising LPG to form a liquid LPG product to determine suitable compressing and cooling.
Housmans teaches a process for producing LPG (Abstract) comprising passing a gas stream comprising methane and LPG to a vessel V001 to produce a gas stream. The gas stream from the vessel is compressed in K002, cooled, and separated in flash vessel V002 (vapor-liquid separator) to produce a liquid stream comprising C4+ hydrocarbons and a gas stream which is compressed (2 compression stages instant claim 6) and cooled in heat exchanger H005 and passed to flash vessel V003 (vapor-liquid separator) to produce an LPG liquid product. Housmans further teaches that the liquid stream from vessel V002 is combined with the LPG liquid product from vessel V003 (Figure 1 and paragraphs [0090]-[0092]). Thus, the LPG product of Housmans is a combination of separated liquids recovered from at least two of the vapor-liquid separation steps, and the process of Housmans is equivalent to the process of instant claim 7 comprising each compression step followed by cooling followed by vapor-liquid separation as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the separation of Housmans in the process of Dooley, because each of Dooley and Housmans teach producing liquid LPG from a gas stream by compressing and cooling, Dooley is silent as to the details, and Housmans teaches that compressing, cooling, and vapor-liquid separating in at least two steps is suitable to provide the liquid LPG desired by Dooley.
With regard to claim 10, Dooley in view of Housmans teaches the compressing, cooling, and vapor liquid separating above for the liquifying step b). While Dooley in view of Housmans does not explicitly teach that the process liquifies at least 50 wt% each of any propane, propylene, butane, and butylene and less than 50 wt% each of hydrogen, methane, CO, and CO2 in the gas product (pygas), because Dooley in view of Housmans teaches the same liquifying process of the same pyrolysis product, Dooley teaches getting non-condensable gases (H2, methane, CO and CO2) from the liquefaction (paragraph [0113]) and Housman also teaches producing H2 and methane gases from the liquefaction (paragraph [0091]), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonable expect the same result of liquefying at least 50 wt% each of any propane, propylene, butane, and butylene and less than 50 wt% each of any hydrogen, methane, CO, and CO2 in the gas product (pygas), as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 11, Dooley teaches that the liquefying produces non-condensable gases (paragraph [0113]). Dooley does not specifically teach the liquefying products the LPG in an amount at least two times greater than the amount of non-condensable gases produced. However, Dooley in view of Housmans teaches the same liquifying process of the same pyrolysis product, Dooley teaches getting non-condensable gases (H2, methane, CO and CO2) from the liquefaction (paragraph [0113]) and Housman also teaches producing H2 and methane gases from the liquefaction (paragraph [0091]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of least two times the amount of LPG than non-condensable gases, as claimed.
With regard to claims 13-14, Dooley in view of Housmans teaches the compressing, cooling, and vapor liquid separating above for the liquifying step b). While Dooley in view of Housmans does not explicitly teach that the process produces an LPG having all 16 characteristics of claim 13 and at least one characteristic of claim 14, because Dooley in view of Housmans teaches the same liquifying process of the same pyrolysis product, Dooley teaches getting non-condensable gases (H2, methane, CO and CO2) separate from the LPH during the liquefaction (paragraph [0113]) and Housman also teaches producing H2 and methane gases separately from the liquefaction (paragraph [0091]), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonable expect the same result of an LPG comprising the 16 characteristics of instant claim 13 and at least one of the characteristics of instant claim 14, as claimed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2018/0355256) in view of Ezzell (LPG Storage) and Housmans et al. (US 2017/0152447) as applied to claim 7 above, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krambeck et al. (US 4,831,205).
With regard to claim 8, Dooley in view of Housmans teaches the compressing, cooling, and separating of instant claim 7 above (paragraph [0107]).
Dooley in view of Housmans does not specifically teach an absorption step after the last compressing.
Krambeck teaches a method for recovering LPG from a gas product (column 3, lines 63-65). Krambeck further teaches compressing the gas and then passing to an absorber to recover the LPG hydrocarbons (column 3, lines 58-68). Krambeck additionally teaches that the LPG is a valuable product from the gas (column 3, line 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass the last compressed gas of Dooley in view of Housmans to an absorption step to recover additional LPG hydrocarbons, because Krambeck teaches compression followed by absorption, and also teaches that LPG hydrocarbons are valuable and should be recovered with the absorption step (column 3, lines 60-68).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2018/0355256) in view of Brownscombe et al. (US 2005/0148487), Ezzell (LPG Storage), and LEC Partners (Pyrolysis Oil-Commercial Markets are a Reality).
With regard to claim 18, Dooley teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons from plastics (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) pyrolysis of plastics (paragraph [0051]) to produce a gas product (paragraph [0105]) which includes LPG (pygas) and diesel (pyoil) (paragraph [0110]).
b) compressing and cooling the gas product (r-pygas) to condense (liquefy) the LPG in stream 511 and provide a non-condensable product 512 (paragraphs [0107], [0112], [0113]).
c) collecting and storing the LPG from the condenser in an LPG storage vessel (paragraph [0112]).
d) collecting and storing the diesel (pyoil) in a storage vessel (paragraph [0109]).
Dooley does not explicitly teach i) the content of the gas product before condensing the LPG, i)i the LPG storage vessel can be a transportation apparatus, or iii) the diesel storage vessel can be a transportation apparatus.
With regard to i), Dooley teaches that the condensing produces LPG which typically comprises propane and butane (paragraphs [0100]) and non-condensable gases (paragraph [0113]). Thus, Dooley teaches that the gas product (r-pygas) comprises at least propane and butane, which are claimed.
Dooley is silent regarding the remainder of the contents of the gas product (r-pygas) which include the non-condensable gases separated during the condensing.
Brownscombe teaches conversion of plastics to products including non-condensable gases (paragraph [0007]). Brownscombe further teaches that the non-condensable gases typically include carbon dioxide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, propane, propylene, butane, butenes, and other hydrocarbons that are not condensed from a hydrocarbon mixture at STP (paragraph [0094]). Thus, Brownscombe teaches a typical mixture of gases in non-condensable gases from pyrolysis of plastics include the listed components for the r-pygas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the gas product (r-pygas) of Dooley, before condensing the LPG which is performed at higher than STP, would contain the components as in the non-condensable gases of Brownscombe, because each of Dooley and Brownscombe teaches pyrolysis of plastic wastes to a gas product comprising light gases including non-condensable gases, Dooley is silent regarding the specific components in the gas comprising non-condensable gases, and Brownscombe teaches that the claimed components are typical components of a non-condensable gas stream from pyrolysis of plastics as in Dooley.
With regard to ii), Ezzell teaches that LPG is efficiently and economically transported in liquid form (page 1, second paragraph) including by truck, rail, barge, or ship to rural or remote locations (page 1, second paragraph). Thus, Ezzell teaches that it is known to store LPG on a transportation apparatus in order to ship it to remote locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to load the storage vessel of Dooley on a transportation apparatus as claimed, because Dooley and Ezzell teach storage of LPG, and Ezzell teaches that LPG is transported economically and efficiently in storage vessels by truck, rail, barge, or ship to rural or remote locations (page 1, second paragraph).
With regard to iii), LEC Partners teaches that liquid pyrolysis oils are being bought in markets and are being shipped to those markets by sea and by truck (page 1, first paragraph). Thus, LEC Partners teaches that it is known and useful to ship liquid pyrolysis oils on transportation apparatus in order to get them to new markets that have bought the oils.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to load the diesel (pyrolysis oil) of Dooley on a ship or truck (transportation apparatus) as claimed, because Dooley teaches storing the diesel and LEC Partners teaches shipping the pyrolysis oils by sea or by truck to get to the buyers (page 1, first paragraph).
With regard to claim 19, Dooley in view of Ezzell and LEC Partners teaches shipping the LPG by rail (tanker railcar) or ship (tanker ship) (Ezzell page 1, second paragraph) and the pyrolysis oil by sea (tanker ship) (LEC Partners page 1, first paragraph). While Ezzell does not explicitly teach insulating, cooling, or pressurizing the transportation apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that to maintain the LPG in liquid phase as taught by Ezzell, the LPG transportation apparatus has to be maintained either at a lower temperature or higher pressure, as claimed.
With regard to claim 20, Dooley in view of Ezzell and LEC Partners does not explicitly teach that the LPG and diesel (pyoil) are delivered to different locations. However, LPG and diesel are different fuels used for different purposes, and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to deliver the different fuels to different places that are suitable for using the different fuels, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-8, 14, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/558,379 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claims of Application 18/588,379 encompasses the instant claims.
The combination of instant claims 1, 2, and 4 and instant claim 15 each recite a process comprising a) pyrolyzing, b) liquefying a portion of the pygas by compression and/or cooling, and c) maintaining the liquefied gas during storing or transporting for at least an hour or at least 1 mile.
The combination of claims 1 and 6-8 and the combination of claims 14 and 17 of Application 18/588,379 each recite a) pyrolyzing, b) liquefying at least a portion of the pygas by compression and/or cooling, and maintaining the liquefied gas during storing or transporting for at least an hour or at least 1 mile.
The differences is that claims 1 and 14 of Application 18/588,379 teach additional steps not claimed in the instant claims. Thus, the claims are not identical, but the claims of Application 18/558,379 encompass the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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