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
This is the response to amendment filed 12/01/2025 for application 17714543.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-25 and 28-29 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 4, 7, 10, 13, 15-16, 18, 21, 23, 26-27 and 30 have been cancelled.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/01/2025, in view of the references provided is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20, 22 and 28-29 based upon MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) in view of SAITO et al. (U.S. 6107532) and the rejections of claims 5, 6, 24, and 25 based upon MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) in view of SAITO et al. (U.S. 6107532) in view of PLATEN (WO 2008/054190) nor the rejections of claims 24-25 based upon in view of MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) and SAITO et al. (U.S. 6107532) in view of DOWNIE et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0114307) as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicant has provided references that discuss how supercritical water interacts with plastics such as polyethylene and some of the different factors that affect the process. Some of the references refer a slurry of plastic particles in supercritical water. The references explore different reaction changes to the process such as reaction temperature, reaction time and reaction pressure. The references compare supercritical water cracking to thermal cracking. The references also teach that pyrolysis reaction of polyethylene is considered to proceed mainly in a molten PE phase.
The references do not appear to provide reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider performing supercritical-water conversions of polymer with greater polymer concentrations than 50 wt%.
This is especially in contrast with the teachings of SAITIO et al. SAITO et al. is published before 2016 and explicitly teaches a supercritical water conversion of polymers into oils and explicitly teaches that synthetic polymer concentration of more than 30% may be used. Supercritical water conversion of polymers at polymer concentrations of more than 30% was therefore known in the art.
Applicant has not provided evidence comparing the different % of water (with data points inside and outside the range claimed) and how the range is critical and present unexpected results.
Applicant states that the 3 sequential heating/treatment stages adopted in present claim 1 allows for the processing of higher concentration of polymer feedstocks.
This is not persuasive as MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) teach a method that is substantially similar to the one that is presently claimed. MATSUBARA et al. teaches 3 heating/treatment stages.
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 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) 1-3, 8, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20, 22 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) in view of SAITO et al. (U.S. 6107532).
MATSUBARA et al. teach a method for converting a plastic waste into oil in a stainless reactor.
The process is illustrated by Fig 1.
Regarding claim 1, MATSUBARA et al. teach in ln 50-65 of column 6 and Fig 1 that plastic waste is heated and melted.
Plastic waste is mixed with supercritical water.
The plastic waste is melted in a melting tank with agitating means where the temperature is in the range of 200-400°C to form a molten plastic waste. The molten plastic waste is pressurized in a press fitting unit that may be provided a single shaft or two shaft screw. (extruding polymeric material in an extruder to thereby form a melt stream comprising the polymeric material, wherein the melt stream exits the extruder at a temperature of between 280 – 380°C) The molten plastic waste is continuously press-fi from the press fitting unit into a mixer.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the temperature ranges wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
MATSUBARA et al. teach that the molten plastic waste is pressurized.
MATSUBARA et al. also teach in ln 9-18 of column 7 that mixture of the molten plastic waste and water is sent to a continuous reactor at supercritical or near supercritical state.
The supercritical pressure of water is at 220 bar.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be led to pressurize the molten plastic waste and water to supercritical conditions of 220 bar or higher given that MATSUBARA et al. teach both molten plastic waste and water are pressurized prior to mixing and the mixture is at or near supercritical state prior to being sent to a continuous reactor.
Wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Water is taught in ln 66-67 of column 6, ln 1-8 of column 7, and Fig 1 to be heated in a preheater and then sent to the mixer (providing a steam of aqueous solvent that is separate to the melt stream).
MATSUBARA et al. teach in ln 35-42 of column 6 that plastic waste may be mixed with supercritical water (wherein the aqueous solvent is supercritical prior to contacting the plastic waste).
Supercritical water is used which would be construed as 100% supercritical water and thus more than 90% supercritical water (stream of aqueous solvent is supercritical and comprises more than 90% supercritical water).
A mixture of water and molten plastic waste is taught in ln 3-4 of column 7 (contacting the melt stream with the stream of aqueous solvent to from a reaction mixture).
Mixture of the molten plastic waste and water is taught in ln 9-18 of column 7, is sent to a continuous reactor. The mixture is in supercritical or near supercritical state is heated and decomposed in the continuous reactor into low molecular weight hydrocarbons.
A plastic waste can be decomposed to oil by selecting the reaction temperature, reaction pressure, the plastic waste to water ratio and reaction time (treating the reaction mixture in a reactor vessel at a reaction temperature and a reaction pressure for a time period suitable for conversion of all or a portion of the polymeric material present in the reaction mixture into a product comprising the bio-oil).
The continuous reactor is taught in ln 59-66 of column 7 to be heated between a temperature of 400-600°C (reaction temperature is between 375°C and 550°C).
The continuous reactor is taught in ln 59-66 of column 7 to be decomposed at a pressure of between 18 – 50 MPa 18-50 MPa would be about 180 -500 bar (reaction pressure of 50 bar and 300 bar).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
The mixture of low molecular weight hydrocarbons and supercritical water is taught in ln 5-7 of column 8 to leaves the reactor and is then cooled by a cooling unit. Although MATSUBARA et al. do not explicitly teach depressurizing the mixture of low molecular weight hydrocarbons and supercritical water, the step of leaving the reactor under pressurized conditions would be expected to result in depressurization (depressurizing and cooling the product).
MATSUBARA et al. teaches in ln 5-8 of column 7 that it is preferable that an amount of water added thereto, which is represented in terms of the ratio of the weight of plastic waste to the weight of added water, becomes within a range of 0.05 to 0.5.
MATSUBARA et al. do not teach a mixture of molten plastic waste and water in which the molten plastic waste is greater than 50wt% of the mixture.
However, SAITO et al. teach a process and system for converting plastic waste into oil.
SAITO et al. teach in ln 13-23 of column 3 the general process.
The process comprises mixing powdered plastic with water to form a slurry. The slurry is fed to a continuous reactor wherein the powdered plastics are degraded under reaction conditions causing the water to be at or near the supercritical region. An oil product is taught to be recovered.
SAITO et al. teach in ln 3-10 of column 4 that there are no limitations on the temperature and pressure of the water used to prepare the slurry.
SAITO et al. teach in ln 7-11 of column 4 that the weight ratio of powdered plastics to water may be in the range of 1:0.3 to 1:20. For a ratio of 1:0.3 weight ratio of powdered plastics to water, the percentage of the powdered plastics would be about 76%.
It appears to be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of the weight of molten plastic to the weight of water in the mixture of the molten plastic and water taught in MATSUBARA et al. after the formation of the mixture to a range of 1:0.3 to 1:20.
The motivation to do so can be found in MATSUBARA et al.
MATSUBARA et al. also teach in reference claim 11 selecting the plastic waste to water ratio to produce a heavy oil.
The plastic waste to water ratio do not appear to be limited to “amount of water added thereto, which is represented in terms of the ratio of the weight of plastic waste to the weight of added water, becomes within a range of 0.05 to 0.5”.
MATSUBARA et al. further teach in ln 47-52 of column 8 that similar results were obtained with molten plastic mixed with water and crushed plastic waste mixed with water in a slurry. SAITO et al. teach crushed plastic waste mixed with water in a slurry.
MATSUBARA et al. teach in ln 9-18 of column 7 that a plastic waste can be decomposed to oil, which is in any form from that of heavy oil to that of light oil by selecting the reaction temperature, reaction pressure, the plastic waste to water ratio and reaction time.
Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the ratio of the weight of molten plastic to the weight of water in the mixture of the molten plastic and water taught in MATSUBARA et al. after the formation of the mixture to a range of 1:0.3 to 1:20 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, modified MATSUBARA et al. based on the reasoning above would be led to a ratio of the weight of molten plastic to the weight of water in the mixture of the molten plastic and water taught in MATSUBARA et al. after the formation of the mixture to a range of 1:0.3 to 1:20.
For a ratio of 1:0.3, the percentage of the molten plastics would be about 76%. For a ratio of, 1:20 the percentage of the molten plastics would be about 4.8%.
One of ordinary skill in the art would use a percentage of molten plastics of between 4.8% to 76% with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, molten plastic waste is taught in ln 43-48 of column 8 of MATSUBARA et al. to be pressurized in a press fitting unit provided with a single-shaft or two-shaft screw.
Regarding claim 3, MATSUBARA et al. teach in ln 51-62 of column 6 that exhaust gases such as decomposition gases are produced from melting the plastic waste and may exits through the top of melting tank 2.
MATSUBARA et al. do not explicitly teach one or more ports, for venting gases, on the press fitting unit used to pressurize the molten plastic waste.
However, given that MATSUBARA et al. recognizes that exhaust gases are generated from the molten plastic waste and that the press fitting unit will pressurize the molten plastic waste, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add vents to the top of the press fitting unit used to pressurize the molten plastic waste.
The motivation to do so would be to prevent pressure buildup and allow any additional decomposition gases to exit the press fitting unit.
MATSUBARA et al. teach in ln 3-16 of column 2 that decomposition gases such as hydrogen chloride are removed such that they do not corrode piping and reactors.
Regarding claim 8, MATSUBARA et al. teach in ln 4-18 of column 5 of MATSUBARA et al. a continuous process for treating plastic waste.
The process is taught in ln 62-67 of column 6, and lines 1-18 of column 7, of MATSUBARA et al. to comprise press-fitting molten plastic waste and water into a mixer to form a mixture of molten plastic waste and water. The mixture of molten plastic waste and water is sent to a continuous reactor.
Regarding claim 9, the process is taught in ln 1-6 of column 6 of MATSUBARA et al. to comprise pretreatments such as crushing, separating, fractionating, heating, neutralizing of the plastic waste.
Regarding claim 11, plastic that maybe present are taught in ln 28-31 of column 4 of MATSUBARA et al. and may include polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene chloride, ABS resin, polyvinyl alcohol, polycarbonate, polyester resin or polyamide.
Regarding claim 14, polyethylene is taught in ln 28-31 of column 4 of MATSUBARA et al. which would be expected to have less than about 5 wt% nitrogen and less than about 1 wt% total halogens.
Regarding claim 17, supercritical water is used which would be construed as 100% supercritical water.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is written such that that the aqueous solvent may be 100% supercritical water.
Regarding claim 20, a mixture of low molecular weight hydrocarbon and supercritical water is taught in ln 5-16 of column 8 of MATSUBARA et al. to exit the reactor, where the molten plastic waste is decomposed, and sent to an apparatus where generated gas is separated from liquid.
Regarding claim 22, MATSUBARA et al. do not explicitly teach collecting fractions.
However, SAITO et al. teach in ln 28-43 of column 6 producing oil with hydrocarbons ranging from low-boiling to 500°C. The oil with hydrocarbons may be fractionated and the resulting fractions may be used as fuel. A portion of the fuel may be used for the process.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fractionate the oil product taught in MATSUBARA et al. and collect specific fractions to use as fuel that are boiling in specific ranges of fuels to be used for fuel such as diesel.
The motivation to do so would be to collect different fraction such as those that may be used as fuel.
SAITO et al. teach in ln 28-43 of column 6 fractions that may be used as fuel may be used for the process.
Regarding claim 28, MATSUBARA et al. do not explicitly teach that the reaction mixture comprises an oil.
However, MATSUBARA et al. teach a process for the production of bio-oil.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to recycled unconverted residue that comprises some bio-oil back in the reaction mixture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, MATSUBARA et al. teach a mixture of the molten plastic waste and water which does not comprise lignocellulosic matter, coal, coke, peat, kerogen, tar sand, oil shale, shale tar, asphalt, asphaltene, natural bitumen, or bituminous sand.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) in view of SAITO et al. (U.S. 6107532) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20, 22, and 28-29 above, and further in view of PLATEN (WO 2008/054190).
The above discussion of MATSUBARA et al. in view of SAITO et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
MATSUBARA et al. do not teach adding a base as an additional component to plastic waste, the molten plastic waste, the water, or the mixture of molten plastic waste and water.
However, PLATEN teaches a method and system for conversion of waste into fuel and other by-products. PLATEN teaches treating waste in an alkaline medium by degrading it and then purifying it by separating impurities to form a purified product stream. The purified product stream is fractionated to form a plurality of streams. PLATEN teaches in ln 15-20 of page 6 of PLATEN the waste includes plastic materials that are undigested in the waste stream until they melt when heat is applied.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the alkaline digestion process taught in PLATEN to the mixer that MATSUBARA et al. teach.
The motivation to do so can be found in PLATEN.
PLATEN teaches in ln 31-32 of page 4, and ln 1-14 of page 5, of PLATEN an alkaline treatment process allows treatment of mixed streams without extensively sorting the waste or specific water content.
Regarding claim 5, the waste is taught in ln 24-30 of column 5 of PLATEN subjected to alkaline treating step in which the molarity is at least 1. Examples of alkaline medium include sodium hydroxide.
PLATEN does not explicitly state that the alkaline medium precipitates metal halides in the reaction mixture facilitating their removal.
However, PLATEN does teach examples such has sodium hydroxide which would be expected to function the same as currently claimed as it has been held that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
A preferable range of the weight ratio of alkaline medium to waste is given as 2 to 1.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use alkaline medium in other ratios such as 1:1 given that PLATEN also explicitly states that the ratio is given only as illustration of the method of present invention and one using the method may find other ratios more economical or more suited to his/her needs.
A ratio of 1:1 may be seen as more economical and/or more suited.
Wherein the general conditions are known, optimization or workable ranges involve only routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, the alkaline medium is taught in ln 24-30 of column 5 of PLATEN used has a pH value of at least 11.
The product from the process in MATSUBARA et al. would be expected to have a pH value of greater than 3 given that it is molten plastic waste with water (pH of around 7) that would be treated with an alkaline medium that has a pH value of at least 11.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, examples of alkaline medium are taught in ln 24-30 of column 5 of PLATEN include sodium hydroxide.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUBARA et al. (U.S. 6504068) in view of SAITO et al. (U.S. 6107532) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20, 22, and 28-29 above, and further in view of DOWNIE et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0114307).
The above discussion of MATSUBARA et al. in view of SAITO et al. is incorporated herein by reference.
MATSUBARA et al. do not explicitly teach the addition of a supplemental catalyst to the reaction mixture.
However, DOWNIE et al. teach the generation of bio-oil from organic matter feedstocks by hydrothermal/thermochemical conversion.
DOWNIE et al. teach in Para 173, and Para 190 -192 of DOWNIE et al. that the organic matter feedstock may comprise synthetic organic materials such as plastics.
Regarding claims 24-25, DOWNIE et al. teach in Para 69-72 of DOWNIE et al. aspects in which a catalyst additive is mixed with the feedstock and/or solvent prior to treating. The catalyst additive may be a base catalyst such as sodium hydroxide as well as water-gas catalyst.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the reaction mixture in MATSUBARA et al. with the catalyst additive that DOWNIE et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is that DOWNIE et al. teach in Para 239 of DOWNIE et al. The catalyst additives assist in the process and stabilize the biofuel formed.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025, reference some of the same arguments filed 09/09/2024, and have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s discussion of the general state of the art is not persuasive because the prior art SAITO et al. explicitly and specifically teach ratios of plastic to water that may be performed under supercritical conditions.
MATSUBARA et al. teaches a process with substantially the same steps as the ones currently claimed. MATSUBARA et al. teach that waste plastic can be combined with supercritical water. MATSUBARA et al. teach a preferred range of plastic to water. SAITO also teaches examples.
In regards to MATSUBARA et al. having a preferred range of plastic to water of 0.05 to 0.5 and having examples that state a ratio of 0.2, MATSUBARA et al. also teach in ln 9-18 of column 7 that the process can, based on the product desired, be adjusted for temperature, pressure, plastic waste to water ratio, and reaction time.
SAITO is relied on to teach that it is known to use a weight ratio of the powdered plastics to water of 1:0.3 to 1:20. At the weight ratio of 1:0.3 of powder plastics to water, the percentage of powdered plastics is about 76%.
Examples in MATSUBARA et al. and SAITO do not exclude from the teachings of the teachings of the entire references.
In regards to SAITO not teaching an extruder, MATSUBARA et al. explicitly teach an extruder and is the parent reference.
In regards to SAITO teaching a slurry with plastic and water rather than a molten stream of plastic and water, MATSUBARA et al. is the primary reference and teaches a molten stream of plastic and water.
In regards to SAITO not explicitly teaching a molten stream of plastic and water, MATSUBARA et al. appear to, in lines 42-49 of column 4, equate heating and melting the plastic waste mixed with supercritical water to crushed fragments of plastic waste in supercritical water. MATSUBARA et al. also appear to teach in lines 47-51 that similar results are achieved with both.
In regards to PLATEN teaching a weight ratio of alkaline medium to waste of 2 to 1, PLATEN explicitly states that the ratio is given only as illustration of the method of present invention and one using the method may find other ratios more economical or more suited to his/her needs.
In regards to DOWNIE et al. being directed toward polymers of biological origin, DOWNIE et al. that the organic matter feedstock may comprise synthetic organic materials such as plastics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771