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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments / Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/13/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the independent claims 1 and 10, as amended to require “separating at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent stream to produce a pygas stream and a pyrolysis oil (pyoil) stream, wherein the pygas stream comprises C02 and a mix of hydro- carbons; and(c) treating at least a portion of the pygas stream in an absorber-stripper system to remove at least a portion of the C02 from the pygas stream to thereby produce a purified pygas stream depleted of C02 and retaining at least a portion of the mix of hydrocarbons” in the context of a pyrolysis process, wherein the feed that includes waste plastic comprising at least 90 weight percent polyolefins and not more than 1 weight percent polyester and PVC combined, and less than 5 weight percent of biomass with recovering pyoil and treating a portion of the pygas stream is not fairly taught or suggested by the closest prior art applied of Schmelzer et al (US 2016/0122190) taken with Huber (US 2012/0203042) , as applicant argues, Schmelzer performs a separation of CO from CO2 and a mix of hydrocarbons, therefore even if combined with Huber, the art would not lead to the claimed process of separating CO2 from the pygas stream that is a CO2 and a mix of hydrocarbons (see arguments 7/13/26 P6-9).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the independent claim 17 as amended to now explicitly require using at least a portion of the warmed HTM to provide heating to one or more of:(i) a rich solvent stream within the absorber-stripper system;(ii) a liquefication process; and/or (iii) a pyrolysis feedstock preheating process, in the context of a process for recovering heat from a pyrolysis effluent stream, wherein the feed that includes waste plastic comprising at least 90 weight percent polyolefins and not more than 1 weight percent polyester and PVC combined, and less than 5 weight percent of biomass, as claimed is not fairly taught or suggested by the closest prior art applied of Schmelzer et al (US 2016/0122190) taken with Huber (US 2012/0203042) , as applicant argues, Schmelzer teaches a HTM (BFW making HP Steam in HX 110, Fig 2), however does not teach the optional step of using at least a portion of the warmed HTM to provide heating to one or more of:(i) a rich solvent stream within the absorber-stripper system;(ii) a liquefication process; and/or (iii) a pyrolysis feedstock preheating process, in the context of a process for recovering heat from a pyrolysis effluent stream (see arguments 7/13/26, P9-10), this is found persuasive and therefore the claim rejections are withdrawn.
The ODP rejections have been held in abeyance and are therefore maintained.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/691,472 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially overlapping with the claims of the ‘472 directed to recovery of CO2, whereas the instant claims directed to recovery of the oil product and separating CO2, however both oil and CO2 are recognized products (see instant claim 5, 10) and recovery of them are obvious modifications motivated to recover the different products of pyrolysis, and selection of plastics to be treated amongst well-known types of plastics was routine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/691,476 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially overlapping with the claims of the ‘472 directed to recovery of CO2, whereas the instant claims directed to recovery of the oil product and separating CO2, however both oil and CO2 are recognized products (see instant claim 5, 10) and recovery of them are obvious modifications motivated to recover the different products of pyrolysis, and selection of plastics to be treated amongst well-known types of plastics was routine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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