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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 1/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No.12,152,200 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to for producing hydrocarbons from waste plastic utilizing steps of pretreating, pyrolysis, filtering, and recycling a liquid condensed back to the pyrolysis reactor.
There are some 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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
KR20210057722A in view of KR101916404B1, and further in view of Cha et al. (US
4,983,278).
KR20210057722A discloses a process for converting waste plastics into
hydrocarbons comprising:
pretreating waste plastics (e.g., crushing, drying, and classification of plastics prior to processing);
introducing the pretreated plastics into a pyrolysis or cracking reactor to produce hydrocarbon gases;
separating and condensing hydrocarbon products to produce liquid hydrocarbons; and
subjecting the hydrocarbon products to catalytic hydrogenation (hydrotreating) to upgrade the hydrocarbons (see e.g., sections describing the primary cracking reactor and catalytic hydrogenation reactor).
KR20210057722A does not explicitly teach passing the pyrolysis gas through a hot filter to
produce pyrolysis oil.
KR101916404B1 discloses a two-stage pyrolysis system for waste plastics comprising:
an auger pyrolysis reactor and a fluidized bed reactor arranged in series; and
a high-temperature filter (“hot filter”) filled with granular calcium oxide, through which pyrolysis vapors pass prior to cooling and condensation to produce pyrolysis oil (see description of the high-temperature filter unit packed with CaO and subsequent condensation of filtered vapors).
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 KR20210057722A to include the hot filtration system of KR101916404B1 in order to remove particulates and corrosive components from pyrolysis vapors prior to downstream upgrading and condensation, thereby improving the quality and stability of the resulting hydrocarbon oil.
Further, KR20210057722A does not explicitly disclose reintroducing liquid condensed in the
hot filter into the upstream pyrolysis reactor.
Cha discloses recycling condensed heavy oil produced during pyrolysis back to the upstream retorting step (col. 8, lines 17–24; col. 12, lines 23–27; col. 35, lines 17–23).
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 KR20210057722A, as modified by
KR101916404B1, to recycle hydrocarbons condensed in the hot filtration stage back to the
upstream pyrolysis reactor as taught by Cha, in order to further crack heavier hydrocarbons,
improve overall conversion efficiency, and prevent accumulation of condensable materials
within the filtration system, since recycling unconverted hydrocarbons to cracking reactors is a
well-known process optimization in pyrolysis and hydrocarbon conversion systems.
Claim 2 recites that the hot filter is filled with beads.
KR101916404B1 teaches that the hot filter is filled with granular CaO particles, which
constitute particulate packing media within the filter.
Claim 3 recites beads comprising SiO₂ and/or Al₂O₃.
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 the KR references by
utilizing particulate oxide materials such as silica or alumina as filtration media in
high-temperature filters because such oxides are well known in the art, and selecting such
materials would have been an obvious design choice.
Claims 4-5
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 the KR references by Providing controlled heating and temperature profiles in high-temperature filtration systems because such step is a routine engineering practice to prevent premature condensation and maintain vapor flow. Thus, forming a temperature gradient using multiple heaters would have been an obvious design optimization.
Claims 6–7
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 the KR references by utilizing multiple reactors operated alternately to enable continuous processing because such step is a well-known approach in thermal conversion processes and would have been an obvious process design.
Claims 8–9
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 the KR references by co-processing pyrolysis oils with petroleum refinery streams prior to hydrotreating because such steps are widely practiced to stabilize pyrolysis products and improve processing compatibility. Selecting the proportion of pyrolysis oil relative to petroleum hydrocarbons would have been an obvious optimization variable.
Claim 10 recites waste plastics comprising PE, PP, PET, PVC, and PS. 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 the KR references by selecting the claimed polymers because these polymers are common constituents of municipal plastic waste and are routinely processed in pyrolysis systems such as those described in KR20210057722A and KR101916404B1.
Claims 11–12
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 the KR references by utilizing distillation and fractionation of pyrolysis oil prior to upgrading because such steps a conventional step in hydrocarbon processing and would have been obvious.
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