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
As previously set forth: Applicant’s election of Group I, chlorine (claim 3), polymer contents (claim 10) in the reply filed on 6/14/24 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-6, 11, 13-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Argument/Amendment
Applicant argues the hydrotreating of claim 1 is not met. Applicant argues new claims 21-24 further define the hydrotreating and also are not met.
The Examiner disagrees. Stanislaus discloses that the pyrolysis unit may comprise various vessels, therein hydrogen may be added to convert unsaturated bonds to saturated bonds. This meets the hydrotreating requirement of claim 1. The process conditions of new claims 21-24 in the pyrolysis step are met, as set forth below. As such Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection stands as set forth below.
Applicant argues they will consider filing a terminal disclaimer once allowable subject matter is agreed upon.
The Examiner notes that the filing of a TD cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP 804 (I) (B) (1) quoted below:
“As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanislaus (WO 2018/025104) in view of Neissl (US 2015/0152203).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. Regarding new claims 21-24: [0021] discloses that the pyrolysis unit may include various reactors, vessels, fixed beds, fluid beds, ect (e.g. it is not limited to solely just one pyrolysis vessel), [0025] discloses they pyrolysis unit may include a hydrogen feed such that reactions may occur to convert unsaturated bonds to saturated bonds [meeting the hydrogenation of claim 24], [0027] discloses the temperature of the pyrolysis may be from 300-500C [meeting claim 21] and [0028] discloses the use of a pressure of 1 bar or 10 bar (which converts to 0.1 Mpa, 1 Mpa, respectively) [meeting the pressure requirements of claims 22-23].
Stanislaus discloses a process for producing olefins wherein a plastic waste feedstock (11) is passed into a pyrolysis unit (10) to provide a hydrocarbon product (21) which passes into a hydroprocessing zone (40) and an optional first hydroprocessing zone (30) to provide a treated hydrocarbon liquid stream A (41) and optional stream B (31), the hydrotreated hydrocarbon (21) having boiling point of lower that 350oC [0056], [within the claimed ranges of claim 2] and has a chlorine content of less than 10 ppmw [0049] [meeting claim 3]. The treated hydrocarbon liquid stream (21) has 10 wt% of more of n-paraffins and iso-paraffins [0050], 10 wt% of less of olefins [0051], 10 wt% or less, or, 10 wt% or more naphthenes [0053] and 5 wt% or more aromatics [0054], (21) thusly meets the wt% of stream A of claim 1.
(21) may be fed along with (31) into a second hydroprocessing unit (40). (21) meets stream A, (31) meets stream B, and their introduction into (40) meets feed C of claim 1. Herein, stream (31) has an olefin content less than (21) [0062], thus less than the 10 wt% above. Stream (31) has aromatics less than or equal to that of (21), thus less than the 5% or more above [0063]. Further, stream (31) seems to have the same wt% as (21) above for n-paraffins, iso-paraffins and naphthenes. These are all within the requirements of stream B of claims 7, 19, 20.
The treated hydrocarbon stream is passed into a thermal cracking zone in the presence of steam (50) comprising a cracking coil, followed by a separation operation in a separation unit (60) to produce olefins comprising propylene (61). The cracking coil temperature is 840oC. The steam to hydrocarbon ratio is about 0.35 [meeting the claimed range of claim 1]. The feedstock can be comprised only polymer plastic waste [meeting the greater than 90 % polymer material of claim 9] and a mix of any of those of [0017], thus, a mix not having any of those of [0017], such as polyesters and/or polyamides and/or polyvinyl chloride, is also embraced (meeting claim 10). See also abstract; Figure 1, claims 1, 10-20; [0017], [0042], [0049], [0050], [0056], [0057], [0062]-[0064], [0068]-[0076], [00124]-[00127].
Stanislaus discloses the recycling of polypropylene and discloses producing propylene from the steam cracking operation, but does not explicitly disclose to make polypropene from the propylene.
Neissl discloses (Abstract, [0040]-[0051], [0065]) a process to make polypropylene from propylene in the presence of a catalyst by gas-phase polymerization and/or slurry polymerization (meeting I and III of claim 12). Neissl discloses that polypropylene is used in many applications and is often the material of choice ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have polymerized Stanislaus’s propylene as taught by Neissl to make polypropylene since Neissl further discloses that polypropylene is used in many applications as a material of choice.
Regarding the coil outlet temperature from 800-835oC:
Stanislaus discloses an example of the coil outlet temperature of 840oC ([00125]), failing to teach explicitly 800-835oC. However:
(1) It has been held that a range of “more than 5%” would overlap a disclosure of 1-5%, In re Wertheim, 541 F. d. 257, 191 USPQ (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d. 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
(2) where the claimed range and prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05);
(3) where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and
(4) merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Accordingly, barring experimental evidence of new and unexcepted results, it is expected that both the claimed 835oC and Stanislaus 840oC would provide for the same satisfactory thermal cracking operation and results. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to vary the temperature, through routine experimentation, to ensure Stanislaus’ stated objective of thermal cracking.
Elements above meet claims 1-3, 7, 8 (claim 1 optionally includes stream B, and, Stanislaus discloses the processing unit 30 to be optional, thus 100% of stream A can go to (40) and meet claim 8), 9, 10, 12, 19-20.
Regarding claims 16-18: Stanislaus discloses that propylene is a high value product recovered from the steam cracking, and gives an example of 12.21 wt% propylene ([0076], [0080], [00125]) [meeting the greater or equal to 10 wt% of claim 16]. Stanislaus 12.21 wt% is close to the claimed 12.5 and 15 wt% of claims 17-18; and, further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to start with the desired waste plastics, such as taught by Stanislaus who discloses several mixed waste plastics, including PE, PP, PVC, PET, etc. ([0017]), and to vary the process parameters, such as the temperature and duration of the thermal cracking or the conditions of the separation operation of the cracked hydrocarbon into different streams, and have thus arrived at the claimed 12.5 and 15% with reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,879,102.
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in italics in its entirety.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while both inventions recite processes to provide hydrocarbon obtained from hydrotreatment of pyrolysis oil from waste plastics, performing thermal cracking in the presence of steam to obtain a product and polymerizing said product, ‘102 recites that said product is ethylene while the present claims recite propylene, making them obvious variants of each other.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,685,867.
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in italics in its entirety.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while both inventions recite processes to provide hydrocarbon obtained from pyrolysis oil from waste plastics, performing thermal cracking in the presence of steam to obtain a product and polymerizing it to make a polymer, the present claims recite that the polymer is polypropylene, making them obvious variants of each other.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,667,854.
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in italics in its entirety.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while both inventions recite processes to provide hydrocarbon from waste plastics, performing thermal cracking in the presence of steam to obtain propylene and polymerizing it to make polypropylene, the present claims recite that the hydrocarbon is obtained from pyrolysis oil from waste plastics while ‘854 recites that the hydrocarbon is obtained by treatment of waste plastics, making them obvious variants of each other.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,683.
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in italics in its entirety.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while both inventions recite processes to provide hydrocarbon obtained from pyrolysis oil from waste plastics, performing thermal cracking in the presence of steam to obtain a product and polymerizing said product, ‘102 recites that said product is ethylene while the present claims recite propylene, making them obvious variants of each other.
Conclusion
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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights