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
This is the response to amendment filed 03/10/2026 for application 18572893.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (CN103589454A) in view of the machine translation of WANG.
WANG will hereafter be referring to the machine translation of WANG.
Regarding claims 1-2, WANG teaches that the impurities in waste plastic pyrolysis oil may be separated by using an adsorbent.
After the waste plastic pyrolysis oil has been treated with the adsorbent, the waste plastic pyrolysis oil may be filtered to separate and obtain clean fuel oil.
The adsorbent would be expected to comprise deposition of the impurities on the adsorbent.
The clean fuel oil is taught to comprise less chlorine and nitrogen and halogens.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (CN103589454A) in view of the machine translation of WANG as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of O’REAR (USPGPUB 2016/0304791).
The above discussion of WANG is incorporated herein by reference.
WANG does not place limits on the form that the solid adsorbent may be in.
O’REAR teaches the multiple forms and applications that solid adsorbent may be used.
O’REAR teaches a method of removing impurities from a liquid stream by adsorbing the impurities onto a solid adsorbent.
Regarding claim 3, O’REAR teaches in paragraph 7 that the adsorbents may be in the form of granules.
Regarding claim 4, O’REAR teaches in paragraphs 23-24 that the solid adsorbent may be in the form of an anionic exchange resin.
Regarding claims 7-9, O’REAR teaches in paragraphs 7and 60 that the solid adsorbent may be in a fixed bed or a fluidized bed or an ebullated bed.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use the solid adsorbents of WANG in the known ways that O’REAR teaches with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (CN103589454A) in view of the machine translation of WANG and O’REAR (USPGPUB 2016/0304791) and further in view of YANG (USPGPUB 2004/0200758).
The above discussion of WANG in view of O’REAR is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 5-6, YANG teaches adsorbents and teaches in paragraph 80 that adsorbents may be regenerated by calcination.
It would be obvious to regenerate the solid adsorbents in WANG by calcination with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation to do so in paragraph 83 of YANG. Regeneration of solids adsorbents decrease costs.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (CN103589454A) in view of the machine translation of WANG as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of CHILKOOR (USPGPUB 2018/0346820).
The above discussion of WANG is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, CHILKOOR teaches conversion of biomass into a liquid hydrocarbon material.
Regarding claim 11, CHILKOOR teaches in paragraph 94 that hydroconversion may be used to remove heteroatoms such as oxygen and nitrogen. CHILKOOR teaches the nitrogen may be removed through ammonia.
It would be obvious to hydrotreat the pyrolysis oil that has been already treated by the process in WANG to further decrease the impurities or contaminants present.
Regarding claim 13, WANG teaches after the waste plastic pyrolysis oil has been treated with the adsorbent, the waste plastic pyrolysis oil may be filtered to separate and obtain clean fuel oil.
Claims 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (CN103589454A) in view of the machine translation of WANG and CHILKOOR (USPGPUB 2018/0346820) and further in view of O’REAR (USPGPUB 2016/0304791).
The above discussion of WANG in view of CHILKOOR is incorporated herein by reference.
The above discussion of WANG in view of O’REAR is also incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 14-16, O’REAR teaches in paragraphs 7and 60 that the solid adsorbent may be in a fixed bed or a fluidized bed or an ebullated bed.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use the solid adsorbents of WANG in the known ways that O’REAR teaches with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding clam 17, WANG teaches an embodiment 3 in which the ratio of solid adsorbent to pyrolysis oil is 0.2:1.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, O’REAR teaches in paragraph 101 that activated carbon is a known adsorbent.
Regarding claims 19-20, WANG teaches embodiments in which that the amount of chlorine and nitrogen and halogens after treatment is less than 6 ppm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce as much of the nitrogen and oxide compounds.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that WANG does not disclose, teach, or suggest raw mixed plastic pyrolysis oil with a solid acid or a solid alkali to form a pre-treated pyrolysis oil.
Applicant further argues that WANG teaches mixing plastic waste pyrolysis oil with an alkaline aqueous solution, separating an alkaline-treated pyrolysis oil from an aqueous layer, prior to contacting the alkaline-treated pyrolysis oil with a silica-based adsorbent. Applicant argues that the step of mixing plastic waste pyrolysis oil with the alkaline aqueous solution is crucial to the method that WANG teaches and modifying the process that WANG teaches to omit the step would impermissibly alter a principle of operation of WANG.
This is not persuasive as the present claims are written in open-ended transitional language (comprising) and do not exclude other steps.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine WANG, O’REAR, YANG, and CHILKOOR.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected success in combining the teachings of WANG and O’REAR because there is no reason to believe that the adsorbents and arrangements taught by O’REAR would be effective in the treatment of WANG.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, WANG is the primary reference and do not teach any limitations on the type of adsorbents. O’REAR is relied on for the teaching that that adsorbents in different forms are known in the art.
Applicant argues that YANG is directed toward a method of removing thiophene compounds from a produced liquid fuel and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined YANG with WANG and O’REAR.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, WANG is the primary reference and teach adsorbents. YANG is relied on for the teaching that that adsorbents in can be regenerated by calcination and the motivation to regenerate adsorbents for economical cost issues.
Applicant argues that YANG would not be combined with O’REAR as performing the calcination taught by YANG to the adsorbents of O’REAR would release mercury-containing compounds.
This argument is not persuasive as WANG is the primary reference and the adsorbents are taught in WANG. O’REAR is relied on to teach what solid forms are known for solid adsorbents.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of WANG with CHILKOOR. Applicant argues that because WANG already addresses how to produce clean pyrolysis oil, that there is no deficiency or problem to provide motivation to modify the teachings of WANG with CHILKOOR.
This argument is not persuasive as the teaching of WANG provides the motivation. WANG teaches a problem to be solved is reducing halogens. CHILKOOR teaches hydrotreatment can be used to remove heteroatoms. The motivation to combine WANG and CHILKOOR is explicitly stated in the rejection. Combining 2 steps to reduce heteroatoms would allow for further decrease in the impurities or contaminants present.
Applicant argues that the teachings of WANG and CHILKOOR are not combinable. Applicant argues that certain gases of the product stream of CHILKOOR would be reactive with the alkaline solution of WANG.
This argument is not persuasive as CHILKOOR is relied on to teach hydrotreatment is known in the art to remove heteroatoms. The combination is The gases of a product stream of CHILKOOR is not being combined with the alkaline solution of WANG. It would be obvious to hydrotreat the pyrolysis oil that has been already treated by the process in WANG to further decrease the impurities or contaminants present.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights