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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 31 March 2026 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1 and 3-27 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-10, 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (US 2022/0098491) in view of Marker (US 2008/0035528) and Kiiski (US 2021/0054297).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Abbott teaches sending pyrolysis oil to fluidized catalytic cracking to produce ethylene [0060], [0198-0199], [0337], [00341], followed by oligomerization to produce c4-30 normal alpha olefins [0273], [0342], see figure.
Abbott does not explicitly disclose used oil feeds including group i-v base stocks.
However, Marker teaches a similar process for fluidized catalytic cracking of pyrolysis oils to produce c2-5 olefins [0008] Marker teaches that pyrolysis oil and petroleum oil feedstocks can be mixed with various used oil feeds including vegetable oils, greases, sewage oil, and tall oil [0008].
Further, Kiiski teaches a similar process for catalytic cracking using alternative feedstocks [0001-0016]. Kiiski teaches tall oils, greases, and used lubricating oils [0022]. Examiner notes that used lubricating oils would encompass group i-v base stocks, as these are the individual types of lubricating oils.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill int eh art to have used mixtures of the Marker and Kiiski feeds with the Abbott pyrolysis oils, since they are both known for the same purpose as feedstocks to FCC to produce ethylene.
Regarding claim 3, Examiner considers the marker “grease” composition to read on the claimed circular/bio-circular claim limitations, since it is recycled material and of biological material.
Regarding claims 6-7, Marker teaches the same mixture of used oil (grease) composition with pyrolysis oil. Further, Kiiski teaches the same lubricating oil (base stocks 1-v), and thus is expected to obtain the same or similar results. Therefore, it is expected that the same or similar improvements would result. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 8, Abbott teaches sending ethylene to polymerization unit with 1-hexene (alpha olefin).
Regarding claims 9-10, Abbott teaches the oligomer product comprises C4-30 normal alpha olefins, 1-hexene, or 1-octene [0206], [0262], [0269], see figure 2.
Regarding claim 21, Abbott teaches certifying any one or more products with ISCC standards based upon the weight of fraction attributable to pyrolysis oil or waste plastic [0068].
Regarding claims 22-23 and 25-26, as discussed above, the prior art combination teaches the same grease/and lubricating oil (group i-v basestocks) feeds. Therefore, it is expected that the feeds would have the same or similar properties, and that the same or similar results would be achieved.
Claims 11-20, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (US 2022/0098491) in view of Marker (US 2008/0035528) and Kiiski (US 2021/0054297) as applied to claims 1, 22, and 25 above, and further in view of Small (US 2010/0317904).
Regarding claims 11-20, 24, and 27, Abbottt teaches primary unit can be a cracker [0087] and secondary, tertiary, and subsequent can include polymerization and oligomerization units [0087] c4-30 olefins, in particular 1-decene, to produce poly alpha olefins with metallocene catalysts (figure 1), making polyalpha olefins that can be used as transmissinon fluids, in turbines, dielectric fluids, lube oils, etc [0561], [0256].
Further, Small teaches reacting alpha olefin monomers such as 1-decene [0016] with metallocene catalysts in oligomerization reactors to produce polyalpha olefin products [0003-0016]. Small teaches that feeds may include any single alpha olefin monomer alone or in mixtures with other olefins [0016]. In this regard, Examiner notes it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the amount of each monomer, based on availability and economics. Small teaches hydrogenating the polyalphaolefin with nickel catalyst [0522-0537] in order to obtain the desired products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the Small steps as the Abbott steps, in order to produce the desired poly alpha olefins from the 1-decene. It is further expected that the same or similar products having the same or similar properties would result, since the same process steps are applied to the same feeds, as applied to the claims above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights