DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 18/717,092 having an effective date of 06 June 2024 and a provisional priority date of 15 December 2021. A preliminary amendment was filed on 12 December 2024. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 14-15, 18-24 and 27-30 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 14-15, 18-24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2019/0177626).
Ramamurthy et al [“Ramamurthy”] disclose a process for producing olefins and aromatics (a high value chemical (HVC) product) comprising converting mixed plastics [0027] to a hydrocarbon product comprising a gas phase and a liquid phase in a pyrolysis unit (a depolymerization unit); separating the hydrocarbon product into a hydrocarbon gas stream comprising the gas phase and a hydrocarbon liquid stream comprising the liquid phase (a hydrogen-rich molten oligomers product stream).
Ramamurthy teaches then feeding the hydrocarbon gas stream to a gas steam cracker to produce a gas stream cracker comprising olefins, wherein the olefins amount in the gas steam cracker product is greater than in the hydrocarbon gas stream.
Ramamurthy teaches that the hydrocarbon liquid stream is separated into a first fraction (b.p. <300°C) and a second fraction (b.p.>300°C); feeding the first fraction to a liquid steam cracker to produce a liquid steam cracker product comprising olefins and aromatics, wherein the olefins amount in the liquid steam cracker product is greater than in the first fraction; and recycling the second fraction to the pyrolysis unit.
Ramamurthy teaches that a hydrogen (H2) containing stream can be added to the hydrocarbon liquid stream (21) and/or the first fraction (26) of the hydrocarbon liquid stream before entering the hydroprocessing unit (40) [0060]. See Figures 3 and 4. The hydroprocessing unit can be characterized by a temperature of from about 250°C to about 730°C which overlaps the claimed temperature of from about 400°C to about 750°C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The examiner is of the position that the hydrogen containing stream that is added to the hydrocarbon liquid stream in Ramamurthy does not differ from the claimed hydrogen-lean hydrocarbon stream that is added to the molten oligomers product stream.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN M MCAVOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am - 7:00 pm EST.
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.
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
EMcAvoy
February 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights