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 .
The amendment dated 01/20/2026 has been considered and entered. The response has been considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained. Newly added claims are rejected as necessitated by the amendment.
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 22 – 24 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. The claims recite that the pygas and cracker effluent streams are combined at the initial compression zone and at the initial compression stage which is not supported by applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. The disclosure at paragraphs 0061 – 0063 recites that the pygas stream alone is provided at the initial compression zone and initial (first) compression stage, and not the combination with the cracker effluent stream. Similarly, the pygas stream alone is introduced downstream of the initial compression stage, and not the combination with the cracker effluent stream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 17, 20 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bitting et al. (WO 2021/163113 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Bitting teaches chemical recycling of plastic derived streams to a cracker separation zone, wherein a waste plastic source is fed into a pretreatment system, then to a pyrolysis feed system, then to a pyrolysis reactor, then to a solids separator which separates out pyrolysis residue, then to a gas separation unit which separates out pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis oil according to a)i) of the claim (abstract, Fig 1). The gas is pyrolysis gas is cooled to obtain pyrolysis gas (pygas) and pyrolysis oil (pyoil) according to aii) and aiii) of the claim [0182]. The CO2, sulfur, and the halogens in the pyrolysis gas can each be at most 100 ppm [0015, 0159].
The gas is sent to a dehalogenation unit to remove halogen (fig 2). The pyrolysis gas is also goes to a gasifier comprising a caustic scrubber etc., unit to remove CO2 etc. according to b), c) of the claim [0221, 0391]. The pyrolysis oil is sent to a POX unit which is part of a cracker facility and comprises a furnace wherein the oil is heated according to b), d) of the claim [fig 3 & fig 4 and 0194]. Pygas is combined with effluent from the cracker furnace [0391].
Bitting teaches compression of at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas in a compression unit to form a compressed pyrolysis gas, and feeding at least a portion of the compressed gas into a partial oxidation gasifier (i.e., which comprises the caustic scrubber) [0005]. While, Bitting does not recite another step of compressing the gas after going through the caustic scrubber, it is a routine step that would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art, since Bitting already allows for a portion of the final pygas to remain a compressed gas.
In regards to claim 4, Bitting teaches the process wherein pygas is treated to remove CO2 and halogen as previously stated according to a) of the claim. A portion of the dehalogenated gas is sent to the gasifier (i.e., comprising the caustic scrubber etc.) according to b) of the claim [0006].
In regards to claim 5, Bitting teaches the process wherein carbon dioxide is removed from the absorber system as previously stated according to i), and wherein halogens are removed from the pygas in a halogen removal system (i.e., providing the halogen removal material) according to (iii) as claimed. Thus, since at least i) and ii) are taught, the claimed limitation allowing for alternatives is provided.
In regards to claim 6, Bitting teaches the process wherein the carbon dioxide is removed in the scrubber and thus intrinsically provides the treated pygas stream and the caustic spent stream in the caustic scrubber comprising the carbon dioxide.
In regards to claim 7, Bitting teaches the process which provides acid gas removal [0220 – 0223]. Since it is a similar process, the formation of acids such as HCL of the claim would be expected and the removal by any conventional means including neutralization would be obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art. While the specific use of spent caustic components are not taught for neutralizing the acids, recycling of components is generally taught by Bitting and thus would make it obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art to have provided acid removal including by neutralization using recycled material such as caustic materials. Generally, recycling of ingredients from one station to another for reuse would not be considered innovative. Neutralization of acids using caustic components is a conventional chemical process.
In regards to claim 8, Bitting teaches the process wherein recycled pyrolysis gas (r-pyrolysis gas) is dehalogenated then sent to the compression unit where it is cooled and sent into a separation unit to produce recycled products such as olefins, paraffins, gasoline etc., (i.e., r-olefin) as end products according to limitation ii) of the claim [figs 2, 5, 6, and 0182, 0323 – 0326]. Dehydration of the gas is also performed in a H2O removal step according to limitation i) of the claim (fig 11A). While cryogenic cooling is not particularly recited, the means and/or rate of cooling are process parameters that would routinely be optimized by persons ordinary skill in the art and therefore do not carry patentable weight, or are obvious.
Generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 9, Bitting teaches the process which combines cracker effluent with pygas prior and thus forming a combined stream that is sent to scrubber according to limitations a) and b) of the claim [0391 and Figs 4 – 6].
In regards to claim 11, Bitting teaches sending a portion of pyoil to the cracker as previously stated, and which would provide effluent from the cracker. Cracking may be made by steam cracking [0334].
In regards to claims 12 – 16, Bitting teaches the process wherein the pygas has the CO2 content of the claims as previously discussed. Before the scrubber it has CO2 of about 100ppm or less as previously discussed. After the scrubber it is depleted of CO2.
In regards to claims 17, 20, Bitting teaches the process comprising the steps of treating pygas in fractionation columns comprising stripper, absorber etc., wherein pygas is introduced into the caustic scrubber and stripped of CO as previously discussed [also 0365]. The scrubber is a caustic scrubber and appears that it would contain caustic solvent such as KOH (potassium hydroxide) [0517].
In regards to claim 21, Bitting teaches the process wherein the product comprises less than 100 ppm CO2 before the scrubber, and thus envisages the claimed range. The limitations drawn to the device being a 3-stage scrubber does not carry patentable weight.
In regards to claims 22 – 24, Bitting teaches the process which comprises providing a pygas, scrubbing and compression. While the specific order of performing the operations may not be particularly recited by Bitting, routine optimization of the process by persons of ordinary skill in the art would make them obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bitting does not particularly recite all of the claimed elements and thus cannot anticipate or obviate the claimed limitations. The argument is not persuasive.
The argument in regards to anticipation is moot as the rejections based on anticipation are withdrawn. In regards to obviousness, Bitting teaches the general process and while it may not recite each an every permutation of blending the product streams, and/or repetition of various steps such as performing more than one compression steps, they are limitations that would routinely be optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention and would not overcome the basis of obviousness as discussed above.
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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights