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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to Final Office action is noted. Amendment to claim 1 is entered.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 filed 07/24/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 based upon Uemichi et al (WO 2021166854 A1).
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. A new rejection over Ramamurthy et al (WO 2018/069794 A1 is presented.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al (WO 2018/069794 A1) (reference used in earlier Office actions).
With respect to claim 1, Ramamurthy et al disclose a method for producing olefins from plastics containing polyolefin (Abstract) comprising: a thermal cracking step to obtain a thermally cracked gas (Abstract) and supplying the thermally cracked gas to a catalytic cracking step to produce catalytically cracked gas (paragraph 0029).
Ramamurthy et al also disclose that the gas stream cracker product stream 36 can be characterized by an olefin content that is greater than an olefin content of the hydrocarbon gas stream 22 (paragraph 0089, emphasis added). Ramamurthy et al further disclose that the head space gas from the pyrolysis unit 10 may include C1 to C4 alkanes and light gas olefins (paragraph 0032, 0040). Ramamurthy et al disclose presence of C1-C22 n-paraffins and i-paraffins in the hydrocarbon liquid stream 21 in an amount less than 10 wt% based on total weight of hydrocarbon liquid stream 21. Alternatively, the paraffins may be up to 60 wt %. Also, the carbon number is not limited to C22 only and can go to C40 and higher (paragraph 0044). Similarly, olefins present in the hydrocarbon liquid stream 21 include but are not limited to C2-C10 olefins and combinations thereof, in an amount of 5 wt% to 40 wt% or more based on the total weight of hydrocarbon liquid stream 21. Olefins can include carbon numbers 11 to 30 and higher (paragraph 0045).
Although Ramamurthy et al do not specifically mention about the weight ratio of olefins having 2-30 carbon atoms and paraffins having 1-30 carbon atoms in the thermally cracked and catalytically cracked gases, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate their weight ratio which is expected to be similar to the claimed invention because Ramamurthy et al disclose that olefin content in the catalytically cracked gas is more than the olefin content of the thermally cracked gas.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Ramamurthy et al disclose pyrolysis (thermal cracking) process may be low severity (250-450oC) or high severity process (450-750oC) (paragraph 0030). The claimed invention also uses thermal cracking temperature in an overlapping range of 400-800oC (Specification paragraph 0026). It is to be noted that Ramamurthy et al do not specify the temperature of the cracked gases after thermal cracking, and also the claimed invention does not specify the temperature of the cracked gas after thermal cracking. Thus, it is expected that in Ramamurthy et al also the claimed relationship T1- T2<=200°C is satisfied.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 8, as mentioned earlier, Ramamurthy et al disclose that pyrolysis temperature in the thermal cracking step (T1) is usually 250-450°C or 450-750o C and the cracked gases going straight to the catalytic cracking step without any cooling in between, indicating that the temperature of the cracked gases (T2) is not lower than the dew point of the thermally cracked gas.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 9, 11, Ramamurthy et al disclose recycling (reflux, as claimed) a portion of the cracked product after separation back to the thermal cracking step (Abstract, 0003, 0005, 0055, 0071). Ramamurthy et al further disclose that the composition of the cracked product depends on the composition of the feed to the cracker (0076). This clearly indicates that the reflux ratio must be adjusted to an optimum, including in a range as claimed, to achieve desired product distribution.
With respect to claim 7, 12 and 13, Ramamurthy et al disclose a purification step to achieve light olefins (ethylene, propylene, butylene, butadiene) (Fig. 1-4; paragraph 0038, 0051) with olefin yield equal to or greater than 60%, or more (paragraph 0094).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ramamurthy et al (used in earlier Office actions).
The Applicant argues, “For the completeness of record, Uemichi is not Section 102(a)(1) prior art in view of the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Applicant submitted with the Reply filed April 11, 2026, a verified translation of priority Japanese Application No. 2021-155936 filed September 24, 2021. This submission established that the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter is September 24, 2021.
Uemichi was published on August 26, 2021, which is less than a year from the established effective filing date of the claimed subject matter of September 24, 2021”.
The Applicant’s argument is persuasive, and the rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272- 6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights