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 II, claims 8-20, in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/26.
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 8-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 8-16, in claim 8, the recitation “the heavy liquid end byproduct stream” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, deleting “end” would have proper antecedent basis in this phrase.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “preferably comprises” includes a limitation that is unclear if it required by the claim, therefore “preferably” introduces uncertainty to the limitation that cannot be fairly ascertained and should be deleted.
Regarding claims 17-20, in claim 17, the recitation “the reactor effluent” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim, this first instance should recite “a reactor effluent”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “is preferably” includes a limitation that is unclear if it required by the claim, therefore “preferably” introduces uncertainty to the limitation that cannot be fairly ascertained and should be deleted.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation “comprises a portion of heavy liquid byproduct stream” appears to be missing antecedent basis terminology and is confusing, reciting “comprises a portion of the heavy liquid byproduct stream” would overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horlacher (US 2023/0295524).
Regarding claim 8, Horlacher teaches a method for treating the product of a pyrolysis reaction of a plastic feed 14 (title, abstract, [0003]), the method comprising: introducing a reactor effluent 14 of a pyrolysis reactor into a separation section 12 (reactor implied, Fig 1A/B,[0003], [0025], [0032], [0047], pyrolysis oil from waste plastics produce a char stream); separating the reactor effluent into a heavy liquid byproduct stream 28/30 and a vapor stream 24 in the separation section (Fig 1A/B, [0032], [0045-0046]); recycling a portion of the heavy liquid end byproduct stream 28/30 to the pyrolysis reactor or to a recycle conduit(streams returned to column 12 via pumps 80/88 respectively, and products 74/92 for further use respectively, i.e. pyrolysis reactions) (Fig 1A/B, [0043], [0047]-[0048]); and cooling, compressing, and fractionating the vapor stream 24 into a light gas stream 44 and a liquid product 50/34 (Figs 1A/B, [0042-0043,0056-0057]), (Figs 1A/B, [0031-0061]).
Horlacher is silent to this method of treating as controlling the endpoint of the product, however Horlacher teaches the various boiling ranges of feed and products from the system ([0056-0061],[0115-0122]), therefore Horlacher substantially teaches it was within the range of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the product boiling ranges, and as all aspects of the method as claimed are substantially taught the expected result of controlling boiling points ranges would occur without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9,15, the separation section 12 includes stripping section (part of column wherein reboiler 82 heated stream 70 is returned to column at vaporizing temperatures of which byproducts can comprise steam (Figs 1A/B, [0045-0046,0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 10, the returned stream 70 is used to quench the feed stream 14 in column 12 (Figs 1A/B).
Regarding claims 11-12, heavy liquid streams are recovered 74/92 for further use, which the skilled artisan would find obvious to further process in pyrolysis reactor (Fig 1A/B, [0045-0047]).
Regarding claim 13, the feed is waste plastics [0003].
Regarding claim 14, Horlacher teaches introducing a quench stream 16 into a reactor effluent 14 of a pyrolysis reaction, as well as stream 70 used to quench feed stream 14 in column 12 (Fig 1A/B, [0032,0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Horlache does not specifically disclose approximately 1-25% of the stream. However, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP further discloses varying the feed type ( [0028]), treatment of the feed ( [0033]), controlling the product streams ( [0029]), and recycling of the heavy liquid byproduct ([0045]). Therefore it would it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, varying the amount of heavy liquid by product would have been obvious through routine experimentation in order to optimize the production of gas fuel product based on the desired feed ([0009]).
Regarding claim 17, Horlacher teaches a method for treating the product of a pyrolysis reaction of a plastic feed 14 (title, abstract, [0003]), the method comprising: introducing a quench stream 16 into a reactor effluent 14 of a pyrolysis reaction, as well as stream 70 used to quench feed stream 14 in column 12 (Fig 1A/B, [0032,0045-0046]); introducing a reactor effluent 14 of a pyrolysis reactor into a separation section 12 (reactor implied, Fig 1A/B,[0003], [0025], [0032], [0047], pyrolysis oil from waste plastics produce a char stream); separating the reactor effluent into a heavy liquid byproduct stream 28/30 and a vapor stream 24 in the separation section (Fig 1A/B, [0032], [0045-0046]); recycling a portion of the heavy liquid end byproduct stream 28/30 to the pyrolysis reactor or to a recycle conduit (streams returned to column 12 via pumps 80/88 respectively, and products 74/92 for further use respectively, i.e. pyrolysis reactions) (Fig 1A/B, [0043], [0047]-[0048]); and cooling, compressing, and fractionating the vapor stream 24 into a light gas stream 44 and a liquid product 50/34 (Figs 1A/B, [0042-0043,0056-0057]), (Figs 1A/B, [0031-0061]).
Horlacher is silent to this method of treating as controlling the endpoint of the product, however Horlacher teaches the various boiling ranges of feed and products from the system ([0056-0061],[0115-0122]), therefore Horlacher substantially teaches it was within the range of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the product boiling ranges, and as all aspects of the method as claimed are substantially taught the expected result of controlling boiling points ranges would occur without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, the separation section 12 includes stripping section (part of column wherein reboiler 82 heated stream 70 is returned to column at vaporizing temperatures of which byproducts can comprise steam) (Figs 1A/B, [0045-0046,0053-0054]).
Regarding claims 19-20, in Horlacher heavy hydrocarbon stream 28 is divided to product stream 74 and recycle stream 70 (Fig 1B) may be used for further uses after a heat exchange 78 which would therefore potentially generate steam, of which the skilled artisan would favorably return with feed stream 14 to facilitate the separation in column 12 further (Fig 1B, [0045]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stabel (US 5,731,483) teaches stream cracker for plastics wastes. Yevington (US 10,550,330) teaches biomass pyrolysis. Evans (US 202/0377808) teaches biomass pyrolysis. Wu et al citations (US 2022/0396736, etc) teaches plastics waste pyrolysis systems and methods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights