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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 8/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response filed 8/11/2026 amended claims 1 and 17, and cancelled claim 2. Applicants’ amendments in light of their arguments are persuasive in overcoming the 35 USC 102 rejection over Gephart from the office action mailed 5/12/2026; therefore, this rejection is withdrawn. Also, applicants’ amendments in light of their arguments are persuasive in overcoming the 35 USC 103 rejection over Gephart over claims 17-20; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn as associated with these claims. Neither applicants’ amendments nor arguments addressed below overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection over Gephart from the office action mailed 5/12/2026; therefore, this rejection is maintained below. Applicants’ have not addressed the double patenting rejections from the office action mailed 5/12/2026; therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 is dependent from claim 2 which is cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “HTM” in component (d) of claim 1. Also, this is an amendment from the previous claim iteration and the limitations does not have amended markings. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
9. Claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gephart et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0080624 (hereinafter referred to as Gephart).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-16, Gephart discloses a waste plastic recycling process (see Abstract), the process comprising:
(a) providing a liquification vessel, a pyrolysis reactor, and a heat transfer oil as a cooling medium (see Figure 1 and Para. [0020] and [0041]);
(b) liquifying the solid waste plastic in the liquification vessel to thereby form a liquefied waste plastic (see Figure 1 and Para. [0045]);
(c) pyrolyzing at least a portion of the liquefied waste plastic in the pyrolysis reactor to thereby form a pyrolysis effluent (Para. [0021]-[0022] and [0032]);
(d) separating at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent to form a pyrolysis oil and a residual pyrolysis effluent comprising pyrolysis gas (Para. [0032]);
(e) cooling of the pyrolysis effluents via heat exchange with a heat transfer oil (Para. [0041]);
(f) and (g) low value long chain hydrocarbon oil is fed back to the pyrolysis reactor and the heat generated in the first condenser is fed back to heat the plastic dryer unit upstream of the melt reactor (liquification reactor) (Para. [0041] and [0051]).
Gephart further discloses producing HTM via direct exchange with the pyrolysis effluent prior to step (d) (Para. [0016] and [0041]-[0042]). Gephart discloses wherein the HTM comprises heat transfer oil, a non-aqueous fluid (Para. [0041]). Gephart discloses temperature of the HTM at 135°C which cools the pyrolysis gas exiting at 450-500°C to about 200°C (Para. [0041]). This indicates that the heated HTM should be in the order as claimed, wherein the separating of step (d) comprises: (i) separating at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent into the pyrolysis oil and a first residual pyrolysis effluent comprising the pyrolysis gas, and (ii) separating at least a portion of the first residual pyrolysis effluent into a second pyrolysis oil and a second residual pyrolysis effluent comprising the pyrolysis gas, (iii) separating at least a portion of the second residual pyrolysis effluent to thereby form a third pyrolysis oil and a pyrolysis gas stream comprising the pyrolysis gas (see Figure 1 and Para. [0013], [0024], [0026] and [0051]-0053]).
Gephart also discloses using long chain HC oil (a second HTM) and recycle of second HTM to preheat the waste plastic before melting (Para. [0041]) and using water as the HTM which comprises steam (Para. [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gephart in view of Wolf-Eberhard et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0227874 (hereinafter referred to as Wolf-Eberhard).
Regarding claims 17-20, Gephart discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a heat integration loop as recited in claim 17.
Wolf-Eberhard discloses recovering heat from a plastic pyrolysis process through multiple heat- transfer circuits (WT1-WT5) operating at different process locations and temperature levels, thereby providing a plurality of independent heat-transfer circuits for staged heat recovery and process integration. (Para. [0044]-[0049] and [0060]-[0068] and see Figure 3).
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
12. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/691,088. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '088 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore have been obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
13. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application No. 18/691,096. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '096 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore have been obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting III
14. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application No. 18/691,107. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '107 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore have been obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicants’ arguments filed 8/11/2026 regarding claims 1 and 3-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding instant claim 1, applicants argue that Gephart does not disclose with specificity “recycling the pyrolysis effluent from the pyrolysis reactor back to the mixing vessel." It is the position of the examiner that Gephart teaches recycling a cut of hydrocarbons "back into the pyrolysis reactor" as stated by applicants which do not anticipate the claims but do render the instant claims obvious. In contrast, the
Moreover, Gephart expressly teaches recovery and recirculation of heat value from pyrolysis-derived process streams. Specifically, Gephart teaches that volatile organic components and non-condensable gases generated during pyrolysis are thermally oxidized while "recovering the heat value and recirculating the heat into the jackets of the pyrolysis reactor" and further discloses that non-condensable gases are treated "to recover the heat value for heating the pyrolysis reactor." Gephart additionally teaches improved utilization of recycled heat energy within the pyrolysis
system. For these reasons Gephart does render obvious claims 1-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights