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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12139676 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because most of the claim limitations are required except for isomerizing. Isomerizing is in the specification.
Applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed 1n the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12365844 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because most of the claim limitations are required except for isomerizing. Isomerizing is in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites a dehydration operation to "dehydrate
the first mixed solution" and then recitation "hydrotreating a second mixed solution obtained by mixing the first mixed solution dehydrated in the dehydration operation... "
However, the first mixed solution, after being dehydrated in the dehydration operation, no longer would have the same composition as the original first mixed solution. Thus, it is unclear what is being hydrotreated in the hydrotreating step, because the dehydrating step would produce at least an aqueous stream and a hydrocarbon containing stream, neither of which would have a similar composition to the original "first mixed stream".
For purposes of examination, the instant specification describes removing the
water after the dehydration and before the hydrotreating. Thus, it is understood that the stream passed to the hydrotreating is a stream of pyrolysis oil from which moisture has been removed, as described in the dehydration step. The Examiner suggests that giving this stream a name, such as "dehydrated stream" or something similar would add clarity in the claims if applied to all claims that
reference this stream. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
This effects all dependent claims.
.Allowable Subject Matter
There is no allowable subject matter due to double patenting and 112 rejections. No prior art 102/103 rejection is presented. The closest prior art and what is taught and not taught is listed below.
Adam et al (WO 2021/204819) teaches a process for pyrolysis of waste plastic. A demulsifier is used in an electric field to treat the stream. This is a dehydration step. The effluent is than hydrotreated. Sulfur compounds, among many others, may be used in the hydrotreating.
Isomerization of the refined pyrolysis oil is not taught or suggested. A Hot filter is not used or suggested. A recycle loop connected to a hot filter is not taught or suggested.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights