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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
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 and 8-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/847,310 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a pyrolytic process utilizing a waste plastic and a hydrocarbon fraction comprising C2-C4 hydrocarbons as a combined feedstock. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 8-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/845,916 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a pyrolytic process utilizing a waste plastic and a hydrocarbon fraction comprising C2-C4 hydrocarbons as a combined feedstock. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 8-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.12,018,220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a pyrolytic process utilizing a waste plastic and a hydrocarbon fraction comprising C2-C4 hydrocarbons as a combined feedstock. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
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 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2009/0177626 A1) in view of Stanislaus et al. (WO 2018/025104 A1) and Paisley (EP 0544840 B1) and further in view of Sundaram et al. (US 2019/0023999 A1) or Karimzadeh (US 2017/0240822 A1).
Ramamurthy discloses converting hydrocarbon streams derived from waste materials into useful petrochemical feedstocks.
Ramamurthy teaches:
• pyrolyzing hydrocarbon feedstreams derived from waste materials in a pyrolysis unit to produce a pyrolysis product stream (see Ramamurthy [0013]–[0014], [0037], [0039]–[0042], [0046]), and
• generating hydrocarbon products from the pyrolysis stream that may be further processed to produce olefins.
Ramamurthy does not teach the pyrolysis stream is not hydroprocessed prior to the cracking. However, Ramamurthy discloses hydroprocessing as one possible treatment of certain hydrocarbon streams, but does not require hydroprocessing in all embodiments prior to steam cracking. The obviousness inquiry does not require that the references be combined exactly as disclosed, but rather what their teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pyrolysis stream produced by Ramamurthy may be fed directly to the steam cracking furnace in without hydroprocessing depending on feed composition. Moreover, omission of an unnecessary processing step would have been an obvious design choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965)).
Stanislaus discloses integration of hydrocarbon streams derived from pyrolysis processes into steam cracking systems.
Specifically, Stanislaus teaches a steam cracking process wherein a hydrocarbon liquid stream (41) is blended with naphtha (41a) and/or stream (31a) to form a blended feed stream that is fed to a steam cracker (50) (see Stanislaus Fig. 1 and ¶[0074]).
Stanislaus does not explicitly teach that stream 41a comprises predominate C2-C4 or C5-C22 hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of utilizing a stream comprising C5-C25 hydrocarbons because Stanislaus teaches that stream 41a can be naphtha which typical comprises hydrocarbons having carbon numbers from C5-C12.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ramamurthy by blending the pyrolysis-derived hydrocarbon stream with a hydrocarbon fraction, such as naphtha, as suggested by Stanislaus, and feeding the blended stream to a steam cracking furnace in order to convert the pyrolysis products into light olefins.
Paisley discloses pyrolysis of waste plastic materials at elevated temperatures. Paisley teaches heating polymeric materials to temperatures of about 650 °C to about 1000 °C (see Paisley [0014], [0016], [0040]), producing gaseous products including ethylene, propylene, and butylenes (see Paisley [0023]–[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the pyrolysis step of Ramamurthy at temperatures within the range taught by Paisley in order to increase cracking severity and improve olefin yield from waste polymer feedstocks.
Sundaram discloses a steam cracking furnace architecture including a convection heating zone and a radiant heating zone. Sundaram teaches that hydrocarbon streams may be:
• heated and partially vaporized in the convection heating zone, and
• subsequently fed to radiant coils in the radiant heating zone where thermal cracking occurs to produce olefins (see Sundaram [0007]–[0010], [0028]–[0030]).
Similarly, Karimzadeh discloses a pyrolysis furnace including multiple thermal zones, where hydrocarbon feed first enters a convection zone for preheating and subsequently flows through zones operating as radiant zones where upgrading reactions occur (see Karimzadeh [0007]–[0010], [0020]–[0022]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the heating and cracking steps of the combined Ramamurthy/Stanislaus process within a steam cracking furnace having convection and radiant sections as taught by Sundaram or Karimzadeh, thereby providing the claimed furnace configuration.
Ramamurthy does not teach that the pyrolysis stream comprises about 1–15 wt.% aromatics. However, Ramamurthy teaches pyrolyzing hydrocarbon materials derived from waste streams to produce hydrocarbon products useful for further conversion to olefins (Ramamurthy, e.g., ¶¶[0013]–[0014], [0037], [0039]–[0042], [0046]). The products of hydrocarbon pyrolysis are known to include mixtures of olefins, paraffins, and aromatic hydrocarbons, and the relative proportions of these components depend on process parameters such as temperature, residence time, and feed composition. Accordingly, the aromatics content of the pyrolysis stream represents a result-effective variable of the pyrolysis process. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the operating conditions of the pyrolysis process of Ramamurthy (as modified by the other cited references) to obtain a desired aromatics concentration in the resulting pyrolysis stream, including within the claimed range of about 1–15 wt.% aromatics, since optimizing such variables is routine in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art).
Claims 8–17 depend from claim 1 and recite additional furnace and process features including furnace coil arrangements, residence times, and carrier fluids.
Sundaram and Karimzadeh disclose steam cracking furnaces including multiple coils disposed within the furnace and carrier gases such as steam, hydrogen, or other gases used in hydrocarbon cracking systems. Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 8–17 are taught or suggested by the cited references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Ramamurthy requires hydroprocessing prior to cracking and therefore cannot meet the limitation that the r-pyrolysis stream is not hydroprocessed prior to cracking. This argument is not persuasive. extent Ramamurthy discloses hydroprocessing in certain embodiments, the combined teachings of Stanislaus and Sundaram/Karimzadeh demonstrate that hydrocarbon streams may be fed directly to a steam cracking furnace, and therefore it would have been obvious to omit hydroprocessing prior to cracking as a predictable process simplification when the objective is to convert the pyrolysis stream to olefins by steam cracking. The obviousness inquiry does not require that the references be combined exactly as disclosed, but rather what their teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, omission of an unnecessary processing step would have been an obvious design choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965)).
Applicant further argues that Example 3 of Ramamurthy produces a pyrolysis product having approximately 49 wt.% aromatics, whereas claim 1 recites about 1–15 wt.% aromatics. This argument is also not persuasive because it is obvious to one of skill in the art to adjust the operating conditions of the pyrolysis process of Ramamurthy to obtain a desired aromatics concentration in the resulting pyrolysis stream, including within the claimed range of about 1–15 wt.% aromatics, since optimizing such variables is routine in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771