DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 27 February 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Consequently, only claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending for examination.
The previous objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained. The rejections follow.
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 10-12 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims specify feeding a first cracker feed downstream of a convection section inlet whereas the previously examined claims specify feed of a combined stream prior to the convection section.
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2019/0177626) in view of Sadrameli (S. M. Sadrameli, Thermal/Catalytic Cracking of Hydrocarbons for the Production of Olefins: A State-of-the-Art Review I: Thermal Cracking Review, 140 Fuel 102-115 (2015)).
With respect to claims 1-5 and 7, Ramamurthy discloses a method comprising: (a) combining a C1 to C4 hydrocarbon cracker stream with a stream comprising a recycle content pyrolysis oil composition to form a combined cracker stream (see Ramamurthy, paragraphs [0005], [0010], [0041], and [0042]); and (b) cracking the combined cracker stream in a cracker furnace to provide an olefin-containing effluent (see Ramamurthy, paragraph [0081]). The recycle content pyrolysis oil is one obtained from the pyrolysis of waste plastic (see Ramamurthy, paragraphs [0004] and [0005]). Ramamurthy discloses wherein the combined cracker stream may be vapor, i.e. 100% vapor (see Ramamurthy, paragraphs [0005] and [0010]); and wherein the amount of r-pyoil is not separately regulated (see Ramamurthy, entire disclosure). Thus, any amount of r-pyoil may be used in the combined stream so long as the other objectives of Ramamurthy are satisfied. Ramamurthy discloses wherein the r-pyoil may be hyprocessed prior to cracking, wherein the hydroprocessing may constitute hydrocracking OR hydrotreating (see Ramamurthy, paragraph [0059]). Thus, Ramamurthy discloses wherein the r-pyoil is not hydrotreated and only hydrocracked prior to cracking.
Ramamurthy does not explicitly disclose wherein the combined cracker stream is introduced through a tube in the radiant section of the cracker furnace.
However, Ramamurthy discloses wherein cracking occurs in a “cracking furnace” (see Ramamurthy, paragraph [0010]). In this regard, Sadrameli discloses wherein cracking feedstock is introduced through tubular coils of a cracking furnace (see Sadrameli, Fig. 2). In such furnace, a combined stream of hydrocarbon and steam may be combined, e.g., upstream of a convection section of the furnace (see Sadrameli, Fig. 2), the feeds being preheated prior to combining (see Sadrameli, page 104, right column, first paragraph).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2019/0177626) in view of Sadrameli (S. M. Sadrameli, Thermal/Catalytic Cracking of Hydrocarbons for the Production of Olefins: A State-of-the-Art Review I: Thermal Cracking Review, 140 Fuel 102-115 (2015)) and Iaccino (US 2013/0296619).
With respect to claim 8, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. Ramamurthy does not explicitly disclose a cracking residence time. However, in a related method, Iaccino discloses wherein the residence time in a steam cracker pyrolysis furnace is generally less than 1 second (see Iaccino, paragraph [0036]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 2019/0177626) in view of Sadrameli (S. M. Sadrameli, Thermal/Catalytic Cracking of Hydrocarbons for the Production of Olefins: A State-of-the-Art Review I: Thermal Cracking Review, 140 Fuel 102-115 (2015)) and Taylor (US 5,446,229).
With respect to claim 9, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. Ramamurthy does not explicitly disclose a steam-to-hydrocarbon ratio in the combined cracker stream. However, in a related method, Taylor discloses wherein a steam-to-hydrocarbon ratio is generally in the range of 0.2:1 to 1.5:1 (see Taylor, column 1, lines 43-52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Ramamurthy does not teach or suggest “wherein the r-pyoil is not hydrotreated prior to cracking” as recited in independent claim 1.
Neither Sadrameli nor Iaccino nor Taylor remedy the deficiency of Ramamurthy.
With respect to Applicant’s first and second arguments, Examiner does not agree. Ramamurthy clearly discloses wherein the r-pyoil may be hyprocessed prior to cracking, wherein the hydroprocessing may constitute hydrocracking OR hydrotreating (see Ramamurthy, paragraph [0059]) (“The hydroprocessing unit 40 can be any suitable hydroprocessing reactor, such as a hydrocracker, a fluid catalytic cracker, a fluid catalytic cracker operated in a hydropyrolyis mode, a thermal cracking reactor, a thermal cracking reactor operated in hydropyrolyis mode, a hydrotreater, a hydrodealkylation unit, and the like, or combinations thereof.”). Thus, Ramamurthy accounts for an embodiment wherein the r-pyoil is not hydrotreated and only hydrocracked prior to cracking.
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 Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights