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
Applicants’ response filed 2/13/2026 amended claim 1. Applicants’ amendments overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection from the office action mailed 12/11/2025; therefore, this rejection is withdrawn. Applicants addressed the IDS issues from the office action mailed 12/11/2025; therefore, the issue is withdrawn. Neither applicants’ amendments nor arguments addressed below overcome the 35 USC 102/103 rejections over Gephart from the office action mailed 12/11/2025; therefore, these rejections are maintained below. Applicants have not addressed the double patenting rejections from the office action mailed 12/11/2025; therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on 12/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gephart et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0080624 (hereinafter referred to as Gephart).
Regarding claims 1-20, 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]).
Double Patenting
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 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
10. Claims 1-20 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
11. Claims 1-20 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
12. Applicants’ arguments filed 2/13/2026 regarding claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicants have not offered any arguments to overcome the rejections of record as all of the relevant passages in Gephart are cited and read on the claims as instantly recited. It is the position of the examiner that if claim 3 is incorporated into claims 1 and 9 that applicants can make an argument that the amended claims would overcome the rejections of record. In this scenario claims 17-20 would also need to be cancelled and the double patenting rejections dealt with and the application may be allowed.
Conclusion
13. 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 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