DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 18/727,577 having an effective date of 09 July 2024 and a Foreign priority date of 13 January 2022 (European Patent Office). A second preliminary amendment was filed on 08 June 2026. Claims 16-31 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 .
Election/Restrictions
In accordance with the Interview Summery Record of 04/23/2026, correction was made of the claims grouping in the restriction requirement mailed 04/08/2026. Accordingly, the claim groupings should be read as follows:
Group I, Claims 16-22, directed to a composition stabilized against premature polymerization.
Group II - Claims 23-27, directed to a process for preparing a composition stabilized against premature polymerization.
Group III – Claims 28-31, directed to processing of a composition stabilized against premature polymerization.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I – Claims 16-22 in the reply filed on 08 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Upon reconsideration of the restriction requirement, the examiner rejoins the claims of Group I and Group II, claims 16-27. The examiner maintains the restriction of Group III, claims 28-31, directed to processing the composition of claim 16 stabilized against premature polymerization. The “processing” includes optionally step (a), and evaporation step, and step (b) including steps (b)(i), b(ii), b(iii), b(iv) and/or b(v) which are clearly outside the scope of claims 16-27.
Claims 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 19, 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Composition claims 16 and 19 contain four components a), b), c), and d). However, component c) is not indented as are components a), b) and d) which makes the claims unclear.
Process claims 23 and 24 contain steps a), b), c) and d). However, step c) is not indented as are steps a), b) and d) which makes the claims unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 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.
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 16 recites the broad recitation “not boiling below 700°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably not below 600°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the at least one dispersant agent is a polyisobutylene succinimide”, and the claim also recites “in particular of CAS n°84605-20-9” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 19 recites the broad recitation “not boiling below 700°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably not below 600°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Additionally, claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 recites the broad recitation “wherein the proportion of b) with reference to a) is from 20 to 5000wppm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 50 to 3000wppm, more preferably from 100 to 1500wppm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 22 recites the broad recitation “wherein the proportion of c) with reference to a) is from 20 to 5000wppm”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 50 to 3000wppm, more preferably from 100 to 1500wppm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 23 recites the broad recitation “not boiling below 700°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably not below 600°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 recites the broad recitation “not boiling below 700°C”, and the claim also recites “preferably not below 600°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
Additionally, claims 23 and 24, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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) 16-18 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam et al (US 2023/0120367) in combination with Arnst et al (US 12,304,888).
Vyakaranam et al [“Vyakaranam”] disclose antifouling agents used in compositions and methods to reduce and prevent foulants in synthetic feedstocks derived from plastic (i.e., pyrolysate or pyrolysis oil). Vyakaranam discloses that the antifouling agent includes a carboxylic acid anhydride or a copolymer of a dicarboxylic acid anhydride and alpha olefin.
Vyakaranam discloses that the term “foulant” means organic and inorganic materials that deposit on equipment during the operation and manufacturing of synthetic feedstock or accumulate during storage (e.g., after the processing of the synthetic feedstock) [0023].
Vyakaranam discloses that the hydrocarbons that are obtained from the pyrolysis of waste plastic are a mixture of alkanes, alkenes, olefins and diolefins or polyenes, and that the dienes are generally in the alpha and omega position [0047].
Vyakaranam discloses that in some embodiments the antifouling agent is a succinic anhydride of the general formula (I) wherein R1 is an aliphatic, straight alkenyl chain of 8 to 36 carbon atoms. In some embodiments, the succinic anhydride compounds include succinic acid, succinamides, succinimides and N-alkyl, N-alkenyl, N-aryl, and N-alkaryl succinimides [0055].
Vyakaranam discloses that the antifouling agent comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of a combination of one or more antifouling agents [0062]. Vyakaranam discloses that the antifouling agents may be added in neat or with an adjuvant such as solvents or other dispersants (e.g., surfactants) [0066]. Vyakaranam discloses that other additives such as antioxidants can be added to the pyrolysis oil during processing and storage. Vyakaranam discloses in [0069] that suitable antioxidants include those cited in U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/159,266 (now U.S. 2022/0289648; issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,304,888 to Arnst et al.). Although metal passivators and metal chelating agents are not set forth, Vyakaranam allows for the addition of other additives to the pyrolysis oil during processing and storage [0069].
Applicant’s claimed invention differ by adding hindered phenols and metal salts thereof to the hydrocarbon steam containing at least 1 wt.% of plastic liquefied oil; however, Arnst et al [“Arnst”] discloses hindered phenols as antioxidants which maybe used to stabilize synthetic feedstocks (from distilling pyrolysis effluent) derived from plastic.
Arnst discloses that the breakdown of plastic can result in varying types of and amounts of oligomeric chains or monomers high in ethylene, propylene, butadiene, styrene and other unsaturates which are inherently unstable and subject to deterioration due to oxidation, or the monomers can repolymerize which can result in gums or sediment within the plastic-derived synthetic feedstocks. COL.1, L12-36. Arnst discloses that the inventive stabilizer composition and method are used to prevent or reduce oxidation of polymers, formation of gum or residue, discoloration or combinations thereof, during recovery, transport, storage or use of the synthetic feedstocks derived from plastics. COL.1, L40 to COL.2, L10.
Arnst discloses that examples of antioxidants include phenolic antioxidants such as hindered phenols and phenylenediamines thereof. Arnst discloses that the hindered phenol includes alkyl-substituted hindered phenols and aromatic amines or mixtures and combinations thereof. Arnst discloses that in some embodiments the phenol is a butyl-substituted phenol containing 2 or 3 tert-butyl groups. COL.5, L64 to COL.6, L1-67. Arnst teaches that the stabilizer composition can include other additives such as other antioxidants, paraffin inhibitors, asphaltene dispersants, wax dispersants, tar dispersants, neutralizers, surfactants, biocides, preservatives, or any combination thereof. COL.8, L1-5.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have added any of the phenolic antioxidants disclosed in Arnst, or any of the additional additives disclosed in Arnst, to the antifouling compositions disclosed in Vyakaranam, if the known imparted properties were so desired.
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Although the bromine number is not specifically taught in Vyakaranam and Arnst, the bromine number is a measure of unsaturation, specifically the presence of carbon-carbon double bonds, in a sample of petroleum products, oils, or aliphatic hydrocarbons. As set forth above, both prior art references disclose a measurable content of unsaturates in the synthetic feedstocks derived from plastic. Further, as set forth above, both prior art references disclose a measurable content of dienes (conjugated double bonds) in the synthetic feedstocks derived from plastic. The examiner is of the position that the claimed hydrocarbon stream containing at least 1 wt.% of plastic liquefied oil containing contaminants (no upper limit is claimed) does not differ from the synthetic feedstocks derived from plastic (i.e., pyrolysate or pyrolysis oil) described in the applied prior art references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyakaranam et al (US 2023/0120367) in combination with Hagney (US 3,567,623).
Vyakaranam et al [“Vyakaranam”] is relied on as outlined above. Claims 19 and 20 differ wherein the at least one additive capable to reduce gums formation or buildup is the product of tall oil fatty acids reacted with a polyamine. However, such as additive is known in the art as taught by Hagney.
Hagney discloses a method for reducing or eliminating fouling deposits that are encountered in the processing or purification of hydrocarbon streams by adding an antifouling amount of the product obtained by reacting an alkylene polyamine carboxylic acid reaction product with a lower aldehyde. Hagney discloses that the carboxylic acid is tall oil which is composed primarily of a mixture of oleic acid, nonconjugated linoleic acid and conjugated linoleic acid. See the claims.
Thus, having the prior art references before the inventor(s) at the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to have added the reaction product disclosed in Hagney as a foulants in synthetic feedstocks derived from plastic disclosed in Vyakaranam with a reasonable expectation of success.
Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success” in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khanlari et al (US 10,745,35) disclose compositions and methods for preventing or reducing polymer formation and polymer deposition in equipment used in petrochemical processes. The prior art discloses an antifoulant composition including one or more antioxidants such as hindered phenolic compounds, one or more antipolymerants, one or more dispersants including the reaction product of tall oil fatty acid and a tetraethylene polyamine, and one or more solvents.
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
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights