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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/24/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “d) partially or fully condensing said effluent in the gaseous state, so as to form at least one fluid comprising hydrocarbons that are liquid at 25°C” in lines 14-16 (emphasis added).
The term “fluid” refers to a substance which flows including, but not limited to, gases, liquids, and mixtures thereof.
The term “hydrocarbons that are liquid at 25°C” refers to hydrocarbon which can, under requisite pressure conditions, exist in a liquid state at a temperature of 25°C.
Importantly, there is nothing in step d), or in claim 1 as a whole which requires that said “hydrocarbons that are liquid at 25°C” are in a liquid state following the condensing carried out in step d). Likewise, there is nothing in the claim which requires that the “fluid” comprising said hydrocarbons be at a temperature of 25°C or lower.
Accordingly, it is understood that the fluid produced in step d need merely comprise a small amount of liquid (as is required by the “partially or fully condensing”) and hydrocarbons that would be liquid at 25 °C under requisite pressure conditions, but which may remain in a gaseous state during and after step d.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are replete with unclear limitations, limitations which lack sufficient antecedent basis, and limitations which are common in patent documents of European origin, but are impermissible under US patent law. Examiner has pointed out specific indefinite limitations in the specific rejections to follow. Regardless, Examiner respectfully encourages Applicant to conduct their own thorough review of the claims in order to ensure the absence of any further indefinite language that has not been identified below.
Claim 1 recites “substantially plastic material” in lines 2, 3, and 18.
The term “substantially plastic” in claim 1 is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially plastic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear what is required of a material to be considered substantially plastic.
Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “plastic material” remains a plastic material even if it contains non-plastic impurities, and even if it is mixed with a greater amount of non-plastic material. Thus, a pyrolysis process which is carried out on a mixture of material which contains plastic would amount to a process for the pyrolysis of plastic material. Accordingly, if Applicant’s intent is to allow for the plastic material to contain non-plastic components, it is unnecessary to use the term “substantially plastic” to allow for this.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite --plastic material-- in place of “substantially plastic material”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gaseous state" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the liquid condensed from said effluent" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spectrum" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “g) repeating steps e) and f) iteratively so as to keep the said at least one property “Px” substantially constant over time.” in lines 31-33
The term “substantially constant” in claim 1 is a term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially constant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the degree by which Px is allowed to deviate from an initial value while still remaining “substantially constant” in accordance with step g.
Claims 2-15 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the liquid condensed by said effluent" in lines 3-4 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-6 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the liquid condensed by said effluent" in lines 3-4 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 3.
Claim 4 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the liquid condensed by said effluent" in lines 3-4 (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependency on indefinite claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “setting a set point of the refractive index property "Px" to a value of between 1.415 and 1.465 nD, preferably between 1.42 and 1.455, more preferably between 1.425 and 1.45.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “a value of between 1.415 and 1.465 nD”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 1.42 and 1.455” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, as well as “more preferably between 1.425 and 1.45” which is a still narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “setting a set point of the viscosity property "Px" to a value of between 0.7 and 1.2 cP, preferably between 0.8 and 1.1 cP, more preferably between 0.85 and 1.05 cP.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a value of between 0.7 and 1.2 cP”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 0.8 and 1.1 cP” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, as well as “more preferably between 0.85 and 1.05 cP” which is a still narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites “substantially plastic material” in lines 2 and 6 and again bridging lines 7 and 8 and lines 9 and 10. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the pyrolysis pressure” in lines 4-5. Is the “pyrolysis pressure” recited in claim 7 the “pressure of between atmospheric pressure and 13 bara” recited in step b of claim 1? Applicant should amend claim 7 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 7 recites “the pyrolysis temperature” in line 5. Is the “pyrolysis temperature” recited in claim 7 the “temperature of between 330°C and 580°C” recited in step b of claim 1? Applicant should amend claim 7 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the residence time of the substantially plastic material in the pyrolysis reactor" in lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flow rate of the substantially plastic material in the pyrolysis reactor" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flow rates between more than one substantially plastic material fed into the pyrolysis reactor" in lines 8-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the latency time" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the regulation of the process parameter Ox" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the measurement of the spectrum ‘Ax’ and its use in the regulation of the process parameter ‘Ox’” in lines 3-5.
This limitation seemingly refers to a use of ‘Ax’ in the step f of adjusting the at least one process parameter "Ox".
However, claim 1 indicates that it is “said assessment of [the] at least one property “Px”” which is used in the adjusting step, but makes no mention of the measurement Ax being used in step f.
This inconsistency between claims 1 and 8 renders the scope of step f unclear.
Claim 8 recites “the latency time…can be set to a value not exceeding one hour…” (emphasis added). The use of the term “can be” here leads to a lack of clarity. Specifically, is unclear if claim 8 should be treated as requiring that the latency time be one or less, or merely as specifying that the latency hypothetical could be one hour or less.
Claim 8 recites “a value not exceeding one hour, preferably not exceeding 10 minutes, more preferably between 1 and 60 seconds.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “a value not exceeding one hour”, and the claim also recites “preferably not exceeding 10 minutes” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, as well as “more preferably between 1 and 60 seconds” which is a still narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “said effluent in the gaseous state in step d) are directly the pyrolysis vapours included within said pyrolysis reactor or are the pyrolysis vapours included in the outlet duct of the pyrolysis vapours from said pyrolysis reactor.”
This limitation contains several grammatical errors and is needless wordy to the point it hinders understanding. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the following terms contained in said limitation:
“the pyrolysis vapours included within said pyrolysis reactor”
“the pyrolysis vapours included in the outlet duct of the pyrolysis vapours from said pyrolysis reactor”
“the outlet duct of the pyrolysis vapours from said pyrolysis reactor”
“the pyrolysis vapours from said pyrolysis reactor”.
Applicant should amend claim 10 to remedy the forgoing issues as appropriate.
Examiner suggests amending claim 10 to recite --wherein the said effluent in the gaseous state in step d) is comprised of [or consists of, if Applicant prefers] pyrolysis vapors contained directly within the pyrolysis reactor or pyrolysis vapors contained within an outlet duct of the pyrolysis reactor.
Claim 11 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 11 suffers from similar issues as those described with respect to claim 10 above. Regardless, in amending claim 10 to address the 112(b) rejections above, several corresponding amendments to claim 11 will also be required.
Claim 11 recites “when said effluent in the gaseous state in step d) are the pyrolysis vapours included in the outlet duct of the pyrolysis vapours from said pyrolysis reactor,” in lines 3-5.
It is unclear if this limitation is meant to require that the pyrolysis vapors are those in the outlet duct, or if said limitation is merely specifying that subsequent limitations (and thus claim 11 as a whole) only applies when the pyrolysis vapors are those in the outlet duct of the pyrolysis reactor.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the area where at least partial condensation and said measurement “Ax” is performed" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the entry of said vapors" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “within 2 minutes of the entry of said vapours into said outlet duct from the reactor, preferably between 1 and 60 seconds.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “within 2 minutes of the entry of said vapours into said outlet duct from the reactor”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 1 and 60 seconds” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the withdrawal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lower part of the condenser" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the non-condensed vapours" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the remaining pyrolysis vapours" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the liquid” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the main flow" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “sending the non-condensed vapours to the pyrolysis reactor, sending them to a pyrolysis vapour outlet duct or sending them to the remaining pyrolysis vapours before the condensation of step d) of the process” in lines 11-14 (emphasis added).
Are not the “non-condensed vapours” and the “remaining pyrolysis vapours” one in the same? If not, how are the remaining pyrolysis vapours fairly characterized as “remaining”?
Claim 12 recites “carrying out the measurement "Ax" on the condensed fluid, preferably in the lower part of the condenser, which acts as a liquid storage capacity.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “carrying out the measurement "Ax" on the condensed fluid”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the lower part of the condenser” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites “sending the liquid into the pyrolysis reactor or into said pyrolysis vapour outlet duct, preferably by gravity.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “sending the liquid into the pyrolysis reactor or into said pyrolysis vapour outlet duct", and the claim also recites “preferably by gravity” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the obtaining of at least one calibration curve “Cx”…" in lines 3 onward. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the values of at least one property “Px”" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “applying a multivariate regression method, preferably multiple linear regression (MLR), principal component analysis (PCR) regression or partial least squares (PLS) regression.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “applying a multivariate regression method”, and the claim also recites “preferably multiple linear regression (MLR), principal component analysis (PCR) regression or partial least squares (PLS) regression” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the optical path" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the light" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the optical path of the light is less than 25 mm, or between 3 and 18 mm, or between 5 and 15 mm, or between 7 and 11 mm.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “less than 25 mm”, and the claim also recites “or between 3 and 18 mm” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation, “or between 5 and 15 mm” which is a still narrower statement of the range/limitation, as well as “or between 7 and 11 mm” which is an even narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites “substantially plastic material” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons discussed above with respect to the same term in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the measurement "Ax" is carried out by means of a probe capable of emitting light”.
On the other hand, claim 1 specifies that the measurement is carried out using “a spectrometer or spectrophotometer”. Is the probe recited in claim 15 a spectrometer or spectrophotometer, or otherwise a part of one of said instruments? If so, claim 15 should be amended to expressly clarify that the claimed probe is or is part of the spectrometer or spectrophotometer.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Meirhaeghe et al. (US 12,338,393), hereafter referred to as Van Meirhaeghe, in view of England et al. (US 2019/0292466), hereafter referred to as England.
With regard to claim 1: Van Meirhaeghe teaches a process for the pyrolysis of plastic material to obtain at least hydrocarbons that are liquid at 25 °C, i.e. C5-C45 hydrocarbons or at least some of the hydrocarbons therein (abstract, Figure 1, Column 1 Lines 5-10, Column 15 Line 65-Column 17 Line 30, emphasis on Column 17 Lines 15-30), the process comprising steps of:
a) Feeding a plastic material to a pyrolysis reactor 101 (Figure 1, Column 15 Line 65-Column 17 Line 30).
b) Brining said material in said pyrolysis reactor to a temperature of about 420 °C or about 500 °C (Column 20 Lines 20-55), in the substantial absence of oxygen (column 16 Lines 42-67), and at a pressure of 1-10 bara (Column 10 Lines 44-54).
c) maintaining said material in said pyrolysis reactor for a time sufficient to produce an effluent in the gaseous state (gaseous pyrolysis products) 117 (Figure 1, Column 17 Lines 1-30).
d) partially condensing said effluent in the gaseous state so as to form at least one fluid comprising hydrocarbons that are liquid at 25 °C, i.e. C5-C45 hydrocarbons or at least some of the hydrocarbons therein (Figure 1, Column 17 Lines 1-30).
Van Meirhaeghe does not appear to explicitly teach that said at least one fluid comprises at least 10% of the mass of the plastic material fed into the pyrolysis reactor.
However, Van Meirhaeghe indicates that carbonization, and thus the formation of char, is to be avoided (column 12 Lines 13-20, see column 1 lines 24-30 for additional context), and that condensable hydrocarbons are the desired product (Column 7 lines 44-53). Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that: 1) it is at least possible to operate the method of Van Meirhaeghe to yield an amount of the at least one fluid that comprises at least 10% of the mass of the plastic fed to the reactor; and 2) that it would be desirable to operate Van Meirhaeghe in such a manner. It is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to operate a pyrolysis process so as to generate a particular yield of condensable hydrocarbon products.
Assuming that it is not implicit in Van Meirhaeghe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Van Meirhaeghe so as to yield the at least one fluid in an amount of at least 10% by mass of the plastic fed to the reactor, in order to obtain a process which yields a significant amount of the desired product (i.e. condensable hydrocarbons).
Van Meirhaeghe is silent to steps e, f, and g.
England, teaches a pyrolysis control method (abstract, paragraphs [0002] and [0013]), the method comprising: “monitoring and measuring by a plurality of measuring instruments, the composition of an solid phase, a gas phase and a liquid phase in an intermediate stage of pyrolysis process, and determining the concentration of a plurality of compounds in each phase; analyzing data on the measured concentration of the plurality of compounds, utilizing a modified chi-square data manipulation fitting technique to determine a correlation factor between an end-product composition quality and the concentrations of the plurality of compounds in the intermediate solid phase, the gas phase and the liquid phase; providing an online closed loop control of one or more operating variables in real time, wherein on determining deviation in one of the plurality of compound, a feedback is given to a control system to control one or more operating variables,” (paragraph [0013]). England discloses that “The control method is based on measuring the concentration of selected compounds in the three products, a solid phase, a gas phase and a liquid phase condensed from the gas-phase, using a combination of spectrometric technology including scanning in the infrared, visible, ultraviolet and microwave spectral regions, and analyzing the data based on application of a modified Chi-Square data manipulation fitting technique developed for the specific products and process,” (abstract).
England also discloses that “The process is conducted by means of and in a manner that the operating control variables permit optimization of the processing conditions of temperature, gas flow and pressure so as to allow optimization of the quality and material balance between the solid, liquid and gas phase products. The plurality of measuring instruments provide near-instant feedback to the control system including controls for temperature, pressure, flow of gases, liquids and solids, product quality and throughput, so that the operating variables can be adjusted within minutes or fractions thereof to allow more accurate control and maintain narrow control-error limits around the designated set-point values. Controlling the one or more operating variable compensates for coal friability, reduction of particle size and changes in coal quality and composition in real-time. The one or more operating variables comprise pressure, gas flow rate, temperature, residence time, heating gas composition and gas velocity,” (paragraph [0016]).
England further discloses that “The control system is applied to the gas and liquid phases in the oil recovery condensers and vessels in order to provide narrow process control of oil viscosity and gas composition at each stage of the multi-step condensation process. The gas phase is measured quickly by FT-IR, and the liquid phase can be measured by gas chromatography or in the case of liquid samples at room temperature by total “internal reflection IR spectroscopy” where the oil passes directly over a ZnSe crystal or its equivalent. For liquid-phase tar-oil condensate fractions with high melting point and high viscosity at ambient temperature, a sampling technique that combines automatic volumetric solvent dilution prior to cooling and IR-spectroscopy analysis can be devised and employed,” (paragraph [0063]).
Of further relevance are England’s disclosures in paragraphs [0033] and [0044].
By the disclosures referenced above, England at least suggests pyrolysis monitoring and control steps which satisfy the limitations of steps e-g.
England teaches that the control method disclosed therein achieves “real-time monitoring and on-line control” of pyrolysis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a control process could be applied to a plastic pyrolysis method like that of Van Meirhaeghe to achieve real-time monitoring and on-line control of Van Meirhaeghe’s method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Van Meirhaeghe in view of England by adding monitoring and control steps which satisfy the limitations of steps e-g in order to achieve real-time monitoring and on-line control of Van Meirhaeghe’s method.
With regard to claims 2-15: The limitations of claims 2-15 all flow naturally from the modifications to Van Meirhaeghe in view of England as proposed from claim 1 above, or otherwise, are suggested by the combined disclosures of Van Meirhaeghe and England.
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 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/725,824 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘824 application anticipate or otherwise suggest the claims of the present Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/725,831 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘831 application anticipate or otherwise suggest the claims of the present Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,349,188 is a US patent corresponding to the WO1991015762 application referenced in Applicant’s specification (see page 2 Line 16 of the specification as filed 7/1/2024), but has not cited in any IDS.
EP 2348254 A1 and/or EP 2348254 B1 is cited in Applicant’s specification (see page 2 Line 28 of the specification as filed 7/1/2024), but has not been cited in any IDS.
ES 2389799 A1 and/or ES 2389799 B2 is cited in Applicant’s specification (see page 2 Line 31 of the specification as filed 7/1/2024), but has not been cited in any IDS.
WO 2013187788 A2 is cited in Applicant’s specification (see page 3 Line 8 of the specification as filed 7/1/2024), but has not cited in any IDS.
WO 0231082 A1 is cited in Applicant’s specification (see page 3 Line 8 of the specification as filed 7/1/2024), but has not cited in any IDS.
EP 2184334 A1 is cited in Applicant’s specification (see page 3 Line 8 of the specification as filed 7/1/2024), but has not been cited in any IDS.
US 20160231230 A1 discloses a method of controlling a polymerization process using spectroscopy measurements. This document notably has an inventor in common with the present application, and is to the same assignee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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 LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights