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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 12 November 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12-14, 19-25, 27-30, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapp (US 5,158,983) in view of Garforth (WO 2012/076890), Quignard (US 2011/0167713), Shoshany (US 2008/0167507), and Kalnes (US 5,969,201).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Strapp teaches catalytic hydroconversion of polystyrene, poly propylene, and polyethylene polymers (column 3, lines 45-60 and column 4, lines 26-36). Strapp teaches pretreating the waste plastic/polymeric material by comminution (size reduction) or melting (heating) (column 4, lines 20-45). Strapp teaches hydroconversion using oil soluble molybdenum octoate (2-ethylhexanoic acid) catalyst (column 4, lines 53-60). Examiner notes that it is expected that the same in situ catalyst formation would occur, since the same catalyst is used with the same waste plastic feed at the same conditions. Strapp teaches conversion to produce liquid hydrocarbon products which can be separated into gasoline, diesel, and gas oil (column 2, lines 50-68 and column 3, lines 45-60).
Strapp teaches high density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and mixtures thereof (column 4, lines 4, lines 25-45).
Strapp does not explicitly disclose (1) the claimed pretreatment cryogenic grinding size or pretreatment melting temperatures (2) the specific fractionation steps (3) the ratio of recycle vacuum bottoms to plastic feed.
Regarding (1), Garforth teaches a similar process for hydrocracking waste plastic feeds. Garforth teaches various waste plastic feeds including polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, nylon, PVC, and polyurethane (page 4, lines 30-37). Garforth teaches waste plastic feeds may be washed, chopped, shredded and powdered prior to processing (page 5, lines 30-37). Garforth teaches heating the waste plastic prior to treatment in order to melt the plastic to improve transportation (page 6, lines 10-15). Garforth teaches melting temperatures of 200°C (page 8, lines 1-10), which reads on the claimed range. Garforth further teaches heating in dechlorination at temperatures of 50-300°C (page 10, lines 1-10).
Further, Shoshany teaches a method for preparing waste plastics by mechanical size reduction [0002], [0006]. Shoshany teaches the particle size reduction can be performed by cryogenic mill to obtain sub micron or less than 1000nm particle size material [00031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Garforth powdering/mechanical size reduction step, prior to hydrocracking, in order to perform the Stapp waste plastic feedstocks comminution. Further, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the cryogenic mill of Shoshany to perform the particle size reduction, in order to obtain the desired smaller particle size material to be subject to further treatment.
Regarding (2), Examiner notes that as discussed above, separation of hydrocarbon products is conventional in the art. Further in this regard, Quignard teaches a similar process for treating waste plastic followed by hydroconversion. Quignard teaches conventional separation the effluent in at least one high pressure high temperature separator to obtain a vapor phase and a slurry phase, and further treating to obtain hydrogen, light gases, naphtha, kerosene, diesel, gas oil, vgo, and resid [0113-0125]. Quignard teaches separating out a solid phase (claimed purge) and recycling the remaining heavy vgo [0138], which reads on the claimed portion of heavy organic products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used conventional separation equipment, such as that disclosed by Quignard, in order to obtain desired product fractions, including liquid fractionation. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding (3), Kalnes teaches a similar process for hydroconversion of a blend of plastic with vacuum resid recycle feed (column 3, lines 25-65). Kalnes teaches selecting an appropriate ratio of recycle to plastic feed, so there is a ratio of recycle to plastic of 1:1 to about 10:1 (column 3, lines 25-65), which would overlap with the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate ratio of recycle resid to plastic, such as the ratio disclosed by Kalnes, in order to achieve desired conversion and products. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Stapp teaches high density polyethylene feed (column 4, lines 26-36). Garforth teaches high density and low density polyethylene and polypropylene plastics are suitable as waste plastic feedstocks to hydrocracking (page 4, lines 30-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that such materials would be suitable waste plastic feedstocks to hydrocracking.
Regarding claims 4-5, Stapp teaches polypropylene and polystyrene feed (column 4, lines 26-36).
Regarding claims 6-9, Garforth teaches PVC, PET, nylon, and polyurethane are suitable as waste plastic feedstocks to hydrocracking (page 4, lines 30-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that such materials would be suitable waste plastic feedstocks to hydrocracking.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose two parallel reactors and separators.
However, Examiners considers this to be an obvious modification. The person having ordinary skill in the art may choose to duplicate the reactor and separation system in order to process larger quantities of feeds, in order to produce more products. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B: Duplication of Parts.
Regarding claims 13-14, Quignard teaches gas liquid separation using any methods known in the art including combining high pressure separators, low pressure separators, stripping, liquid liquid extraction, solid liquid extraction/centrifuging [0113-120]. In this regard, it would have been obvious to incorporate any further conventional separation equipment, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where the claimed separation equipment would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claims 19-25, Quignard teaches using appropriate separation equipment and conditions including distillation columns, extraction columns, centrifuges, heat exchangers (cooling steps), filtration and solid/liquid separations steps known in the art [0113-0125].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate separation equipment and conditions as known in the art, such as the claimed steps, for the benefit of obtaining the desired solid/liquid separation. It is not seen where such separation steps would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 27, Stapp teaches temperatures of 350-450°C and pressures of 500-5000 psig (34-340 atm) (column 4, lines 1-20), encompassing the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 28, Stapp teaches various synthetic polymers (column 4, lines 25-36).
Regarding claim 30, Stapp teaches various polymeric feeds (column 4, lines 25-36). Garforth also teaches various waste plastic feeds (page 4, lines 30-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that any such available of waste plastic would be suitable for conversion. The person having ordinary skill in the art may select the components based on availability and economic factors. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 33, Garforth teaches polystyrene feeds (page 5, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 35, Strapp teaches high density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and mixtures thereof (column 4, lines 4, lines 25-45). Further, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art that any such available of waste plastic would be suitable for conversion. The person having ordinary skill in the art may select appropriate amounts of the components based on availability and economic factors. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapp (US 5,158,983) in view of Garforth (WO 2012/076890), Quignard (US 2011/0167713), and Shoshany (US 2008/0167507), and Kalnes (US 5,969,201) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Devanathan (US 5,624,642).
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose a bubble reactor.
However, Devanathan teaches a similar process for hydroconversion of waste plastic and resid with molybdenum catalyst in a slurry bubble column (column 1, lines 1-30; column 4, lines 1-25 and 58-65 and column 7, line 50-column 8, line 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an appropriate reactor, such as the bubble slurry reactor of Devanathan.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapp (US 5,158,983) in view of Garforth (WO 2012/076890), Quignard (US 2011/0167713), Shoshany (US 2008/0167507), and Kalnes (US 5,969,201) as applied to claim 1 above, alone, or alternatively further in view of Zhou (US 2007/0158236).
Regarding claim 26, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Stapp teaches molybdenum octoate precursor (column 4, lines 52-60).
Since Stapp teaches the same molybdenum octoate (2 ethylhexanoate), it is expected that the same or similar amount of molybdenum would be present.
Alternatively, Zhou teaches a similar process for hydroconversion of vacuum resid and other heavy oil feeds with liquid molybdenum catalysts [0002-0007]. Zhou teaches mixing molybdenum with 2-ethyl hexanoate/hexanoic acid [0025], [0032] precursors in order to form a catalyst which reduces fouling and increases conversion rates [0023]. Zhou also teaches selecting appropriate amount of molybdenum [0048]. Zhou teaches 18.4% molybdenum [0081], which reads on the claimed range of at least 15.5%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Zhou catalyst precursor having the claimed amount of molybdenum, since it is also known as a hydroconversion catalyst.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapp (US 5,158,983) in view of Garforth (WO 2012/076890), Quignard (US 2011/0167713), Shoshany (US 2008/0167507), and Kalnes (US 5,969,201) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 5,744,668).
Regarding claims 32 and 34, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Garforth teaches dechlorination prior to hydrocracking (page 4, lines 24-37).
Garforth does not explicitly disclose sulfuric acid or naoh or ca hydroxide to perform the dechlorination.
However, Zhou teaches a similar process including dechlorination of waste plastic feeds (column 3, lines 1-34). Zhou teaches using 10% Naoh in order to perform the dechlorination (column 4, lines 4-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the 10% solution of naoh of Zhou to perform the dechlorination step of Garforth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Borremans (US 2013/0172638) – teaches molybdenum octoate (molybdenum 2-ethylhexanoate) as a slurry hydroconversion catalyst for conversion of tires/and polymer feeds with reduced coke formation (abstract, [0077]).
Pelrine (US 6,139,723) – previously relied upon, teaches hydroconversion of waste plastic feeds
Ganguli (US 6,270,655) – teaches acid digestion of waste plastics prior to further conversion (abstract).
Ganguli (US 6,000,639) – teaches acid digestion of waste plastic prior to further treatment (abstract).
JP 2009242555A - translation from google patents - waste plastic slurry preheat 300-400 deg C then hydrocrack (page 4).
US 6,270,655 - waste plastic feed (column 3, lines 57-67), heating step (column 5, lines 1-30) followed by reaction with hydrogen at 315-460 deg c (column 5, lines 30-45)
Kalnes (US 5,969,201) – teaches liquefaction and hydroconversion of waste plastic (abstract).
Hippo (US 4,879,021) – teaches hydrogenation of coal (abstract).
Merz (US 4,941,996) – teaches hydroconversion of waste plastic and resid (abstract).
Patron (US 2010/0200463) – previously relied upon, teaches slurry bubble reactors for improved fluid dynamics and reduced coking [0016].
Ward (US 2016/0362609) – previous relied upon, teaches higher temperature pyrolysis of waste plastic followed by hydrocracking with atmospheric resid
Medoff (US 2010/0203495) – previously relied upon, teaches cellulose polymer feeds [0025].
Kumar (US 2017/0058212) – teaches slurry hydroconversion of heavy oils with separation and recirculation of HVGO.
Benham (US 5,755,955) -teaches hydrocracking of heavy oils with separation train and recycle elements.
Guidetti (US 2021/0395623) – is a related application for conversion of heavy hydrocarbons. Guidetti instant claims do not require the instantly claimed polymer coprocessing with the heavy petroleum feeds.
Bauer (US 2009/0299112) – teaches slurry hydroconversion of biomass feedstocks.
Boykin (US 2008/0295390) – teaches methyl cellulose, cellulose acetate, and rayon feeds to produce synthetic fuels [0040], [0063].
Yang (US 2012/0000821) -teaches slurry hydrocracking resid and polymer feeds with separation/washing/drying of catalyst [0007], [0018], see figures.
Comolli (US 6,190,542) – teaches slurry hydroconversion of plastic waste and petroleum feeds.
Narayanaswamy (US 2018/0002609) – teaches pyrolysis and slurry hydroconversion of plastic waste including PVC, PET, PVDC, polyurethane, polyamides, etc. [0017], [0023].
Reynolds (US 2009/0134064) – teaches slurry bubble reactor for hydroconversion of heavy oil and polymer mixtures.
Pradhan (US 5,871,638) -teaches slurry hydroconversion of waste plastics and petroleum resids with liquid molybdenum catalyst.
Pradhan (US 5,866,501) – teaches slurry hydroconversion of petroleum resids and plastic wastes with liquid molybdenum catalyst.
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771