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
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC § 103 over WO 2021/087066), (US 7,207,192), (US 6,444,869), and (WO 2015/000840) is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 7/20/2026.
Since a new Final Office Action is follows, Applicants’ arguments will not be addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites, in alternative criteria (i) and (ii), that “the first fuel gas has a r-H₂ content of at least 10 mole percent” and that “the second fuel gas has a r-H₂ content greater than 40 mole percent.” The specification describes fuel gases having specified hydrogen contents and further describes that hydrogen in such fuel gases may include recycled-content hydrogen (r-H₂). However, the specification does not appear to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession, as of the effective filing date, of the specifically claimed numerical concentrations of recycled-content hydrogen itself, namely at least 10 mole percent r-H₂ in the first fuel gas or greater than 40 mole percent r-H₂ in the second fuel gas. Disclosure of a fuel gas having, for example, at least 10 mole percent total hydrogen, where the hydrogen may comprise both recycled-content and non-recycled-content hydrogen, does not necessarily provide written-description support for a fuel gas having at least 10 mole percent r-H₂. Likewise, disclosure of a total hydrogen concentration greater than 40 mole percent does not necessarily establish possession of greater than 40 mole percent r-H₂.
Accordingly, the specification does not presently provide adequate written-description support for the numerical r-H₂ concentration limitations of criteria (i) and (ii).
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, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Polasek et al. (WO 2021/087066 A1) in view of Fareid et al. (WO 2020/008050 A1) and O'Rear et al. (US 6,890,962 B1).
Polasek teaches processes for producing recycle-content hydrocarbon products from recycled waste material. Polasek teaches that recycle-content products can originate from pyrolysis of recycled waste and that recycle-content pyrolysis oil and/or recycle-content pyrolysis gas may be produced in a pyrolysis unit and supplied to a cracking facility. Polasek further teaches pyrolyzing recycled waste to provide a recycle-content pyrolysis stream, cracking at least a portion of that stream in a cracker furnace to form an olefin-containing effluent, and separating the cracked effluent to recover recycle-content products. Polasek, Fig. 1, ¶¶[0004], [0007], and ¶¶[0014]–[0022].
Polasek does not expressly teach separating an H₂-containing recycled-content pyrolysis gas from the waste-plastic pyrolysis effluent, separating H₂ from that pyrolysis gas to form r-H₂, and using at least a portion of that r-H₂ in the first and/or second fuel gas.
Fareid teaches primary cracking of waste plastic and expressly states that pyrolysis is used interchangeably with primary cracking. Fareid further teaches that hydrogen is formed during primary cracking. Fareid, pp. 13–14. Fareid also teaches that primary cracking produces non-condensable gases which may be burned in a gas burner to provide heat to the primary cracking reactor. Fareid, p. 16. More particularly, Fareid teaches that at least part of a light non-condensable hydrocarbon gas is subjected to further processing in a hydrogen separator prior to being burnt in the gas burner to separate hydrogen from the non-condensable hydrocarbon gas, and teaches recirculating the separated hydrogen for catalytic hydrogenation. Fareid, p. 35. Fareid additionally describes a hydrogen separator for separating hydrogen from the non-condensable gas, with the separator fluidly connected with the gas burner and catalytic hydrogenation reactor. Fareid, p. 37. Fareid therefore teaches the claimed waste-plastic-derived gas → H₂-separation sequence, but does not expressly teach burning the separated H₂ itself. Only a portion of Fareid's recovered hydrogen need be diverted to furnace fuel; the remainder may continue to be used for Fareid's catalytic hydrogenation.
O'Rear teaches recovering hydrogen from process gas streams and using the recovered hydrogen as fuel in a furnace to reduce CO₂ emissions. O'Rear further teaches that H₂ may be recovered from syngas, unreacted gas, hydroprocessing gas, reformer gas, and similar streams, using conventional hydrogen-recovery processes including PSA, cryogenic separation, and membrane separation. O'Rear, cols. 3–4; Fig. 2. O'Rear's Figure 2 embodiment expressly directs recovered hydrogen streams to furnace 34. O'Rear, cols. 11–12; Fig. 2. O'Rear additionally teaches hydrogen-rich furnace fuel containing at least about 40 mol% hydrogen and preferably at least about 60 mol% hydrogen. O'Rear, claims 10–11. Thus, O'Rear also teaches the claimed hydrogen-content alternative. 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 Polasek to separate hydrogen from the waste-plastic-derived pyrolysis gas as taught by Fareid and to use at least a portion of the separated r-H₂ in the first fuel gas and/or second fuel gas as taught by O'Rear, because Fareid teaches recovering internally generated hydrogen from waste-plastic-derived gas and O'Rear teaches using recovered hydrogen as furnace fuel to reduce consumption of carbon-containing fuel and resulting CO₂ emissions. Regarding claim 4, O'Rear teaches that suitable hydrogen-recovery techniques include pressure-swing adsorption (PSA), membrane separation, and cryogenic separation. O'Rear, cols. 9–10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed PSA, membrane separation, and/or cryogenic separation in the hydrogen separation unit of the modified process of Polasek because O'Rear expressly identifies these techniques as known processes suitable for recovering hydrogen from gaseous streams. Regarding claim 7, Fareid teaches producing non-condensable gas from waste-plastic pyrolysis/primary cracking and using such internally generated gas to provide heat to the primary cracking reactor. Fareid, p. 16. Fareid further teaches separation of hydrogen from that waste-plastic-derived gas. Fareid, p. 35. O'Rear teaches using recovered hydrogen as furnace fuel. O'Rear, cols. 3–4, 11–12; Fig. 2. Thus, the modified process teaches at least the claim 7 alternative wherein the first fuel gas comprises r-H₂ and/or H₂ originating from the pyrolysis facility. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the internally recovered r-H₂ into the first fuel gas because Fareid teaches recovery of hydrogen from internally generated waste-plastic-derived gas and O'Rear teaches that recovered hydrogen may advantageously be used as furnace fuel to reduce carbon-containing fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions. Regarding claim 8, O'Rear expressly teaches hydrogen-rich furnace fuel comprising at least about 40 mol% H₂ and preferably at least about 60 mol% H₂. O'Rear, claims 10–11. These concentrations exceed the claim 8 alternative requiring at least 15 mol% H₂. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed O'Rear's hydrogen-rich recovered fuel as the second fuel gas in the cracker furnace of the modified process of Polasek because O'Rear teaches that increasing the H₂ content of furnace fuel reduces carbon-containing fuel use and resulting CO₂ emissions. Regarding claim 9, O'Rear teaches forming synthesis gas from a methane-containing hydrocarbon feed and recovering hydrogen from the resulting syngas. O'Rear also teaches reforming naphtha to produce a hydrogen-containing byproduct stream and recovering hydrogen therefrom. O'Rear, cols. 3–4, 5–6; Fig. 2. O'Rear's Figure 2 specifically shows methane-containing stream 11 supplied to syngas generator 12, syngas 13 passing through hydrogen-recovery means 26, naphtha reformer 23 producing hydrogen byproduct stream 31, and recovered hydrogen streams being supplied toward furnace 34. O'Rear, cols. 11–12; Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the process of Polasek to form synthesis gas from a hydrocarbon feed, separate a purified hydrogen stream therefrom, and incorporate at least a portion of that hydrogen stream into the first and/or second fuel gas, as taught by O'Rear, because O'Rear teaches recovering internally generated hydrogen from synthesis-gas/reforming operations and using recovered hydrogen as furnace fuel to reduce CO₂ emissions. Regarding claim 10, O'Rear expressly teaches that increasing the mole percent of hydrogen in a fuel gas decreases the carbon dioxide concentration in the resulting furnace flue gas. O'Rear illustrates fuel gases containing 25, 40, and 60 mol% H₂ producing progressively lower carbon-dioxide concentrations. O'Rear, cols. 8–9. O'Rear further teaches that furnace combustion is essentially complete and that excess oxygen assures complete combustion of carbon monoxide, thereby preventing harmful CO emissions. O'Rear, col. 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 increased the hydrogen content of the first and/or second fuel gas and adjusted the combustion conditions in the modified process of Polasek to obtain a cracker-furnace and/or pyrolysis-furnace stack effluent having a total CO and CO₂ content of less than 8 mole percent because O'Rear expressly teaches that increasing fuel-gas hydrogen content reduces flue-gas CO₂ and that substantially complete combustion minimizes CO. The particular hydrogen concentration and combustion conditions necessary to obtain the desired low total CO and CO₂ concentration would have been arrived at through routine optimization of known result-effective variables. Claims 2-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Polasek et al. in view of Fareid et al. and O'Rear et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ameringer et al. (US 6,021,647). Regarding claims 2-3, Ameringer teaches processing cracked gas in an ethylene separation facility and recovering hydrogen-rich and methane-rich fuel-gas streams. Ameringer expressly teaches that the overhead from demethanizer reflux separator V-3, stream 97, comprises hydrogen-rich fuel gas. Ameringer, col. 7; Fig. 3. Ameringer therefore teaches an overhead stream originating from the cracker separation facility, including an overhead associated with a demethanizer, which is subsequently employed as fuel gas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the process of Polasek to recover an overhead stream from the cracking-facility separation zone, including a demethanizer overhead stream, and employ at least a portion thereof in the first and/or second fuel gas as taught by Ameringer because doing so provides an internally available hydrogen-rich fuel stream and reduces external fuel requirements. Regarding claim 5, Ameringer expressly characterizes the overhead stream from demethanizer reflux separator V-3 as a hydrogen-rich fuel gas that is ultimately routed to the fuel system. Ameringer, col. 7; Fig. 3. O'Rear expressly teaches hydrogen-rich fuel having at least about 60 mol% H₂. O'Rear, claim 11. This satisfies the claim 5 alternative requiring at least 50 mol% H₂. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the hydrogen-rich overhead fuel stream of the modified Polasek process with at least 50 mol% hydrogen, as taught by O'Rear in combination with Ameringer's recovery of hydrogen-rich cracking-facility fuel gas, because hydrogen concentration was a known fuel-gas parameter and increasing hydrogen concentration reduces the carbon content and associated CO₂ emissions of the fuel. Regarding claim 6, Ameringer expressly teaches that hydrogen-rich overhead stream 97 from demethanizer reflux separator V-3 is expanded through hydrogen turboexpander K-1; the resulting expanded cold gas is used for refrigeration in process heat exchangers; the gas is then compressed in hydrogen booster compressor K-1, which is directly linked to the hydrogen expander; and the resulting stream is sent to the fuel system. Ameringer, col. 7; Fig. 3. Ameringer likewise expands methane-rich gas from the top of demethanizer T-1 through methane turboexpander K-2, uses the expanded gas for refrigeration, recompresses it using a directly linked booster compressor, and combines the two streams into a single fuel-gas stream. Ameringer, cols. 7–8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expanded at least a portion of the cracking-facility overhead stream of the modified process of Polasek, recovered useful work therefrom for use elsewhere in the facility, and thereafter employed at least a portion of the expanded stream in the first and/or second fuel gas, as taught by Ameringer, because such an arrangement recovers otherwise lost pressure energy for useful process work while retaining the expanded gas as an internally available fuel source.
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 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
Prosecution Insights