DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 5, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, and 56 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-44 are cancelled.
Claims 5 and 45-57 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that in the Remarks, paragraphs 507, 531, 549, 567, 591, 607, and 614 of the application as filed are cited as support for some of the amendments. However, no such paragraphs exist in the instant specification as filed (stops at [0475]) and most do not exist in the PGPub (stops at [0548]). As such, the Examiner is not aware what support is being cited for which limitations, and as detailed in the rejection below, continues to see new matter issues even after reviewing the specification thoroughly.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that the source of the ethane is critical, in that the scope of a claim reciting “non-recycle content ethane” has a different scope than one which merely recites ethane, because non-recycle content is argued to be free of or substantially free of less desirable compounds. Thus, the phrase non-recycle content ethane should be given patentable weight.
In response, the Examiner notes that the phrase was given patentable weight, it was just found to be obvious. Uppili recites “ethane” which is broadly considered to include recycle content ethane and non-recycle content ethane as the finite list of options. There is no evidence that ethane from non-recycle content sources has any different properties than ethane from recycle-content sources. While streams comprising ethane from non-recycle content sources may contain impurities, neither the claim nor Uppili recites a stream comprising ethane, but each instead each state “ethane”. The compound ethane is the same compound no matter the source. Thus, it remains obvious to select non-recycle content ethane as the ethane of Uppili, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Uppili and the other references do not teach the newly claimed limitations of cracker feed comprising non-recycle content ethane and at least 20 wt% r-pyrolysis oil or the resulting at least 40 wt% ethylene and at least 1.4 wt% butadiene or aromatics.
In response, the Examiner notes that Uppili teaches the cracker feed comprising light and heavy hydrocarbons, where the light hydrocarbons include ethane and the heavier hydrocarbons include pyrolysis oil (paragraphs [0042] and [0061]), where the amount of heavier components is at least 10 wt% (paragraph [0047]). Thus, Uppili renders obvious the claimed cracker feed. Further, while Uppili does not explicitly teach the amounts of the resulting compounds as claimed, because Uppili teaches the same steam cracking of the same feed having similar amounts, and teaches the same olefin-containing effluent and separation, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect similar results including the claimed ethylene and butadiene or aromatics amount, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues on pages 9-10 that the instant specification provides unexpected results of the combination of ethane and pyrolysis oil, citing tables 2 and 10.
In response, as fully explained in the final office action of 30 May 2024, there is no evidence of unexpected results, only expected results from the combination, because most of the examples are not commensurate with the claims. Table 2 is merely pyrolysis oil contents, which are not unexpected in and of themselves, and the Table 10 merely shows expected results of increasing the aromatics and diolefins in the product because of the required higher cracking temperatures for ethane. Thus, the argument of unexpected results remains unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 48 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 48 recites the new limitation of step (d). However, claim 48 does not have a step (c). Thus, the new limitation should be step (c).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 45-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The paragraphs referenced herein are the PGPub paragraphs.
Claims 5, 46, and 48 each recite a new step (d) requiring “separating at least a portion of said olefin-containing effluent to provide a product stream comprising” at least 40 wt% ethylene and at least 1.4 wt% 1,3-butadiene or aromatics. However, there is no support for obtaining a product stream from the olefin-containing effluent having the claimed components and amounts, and also no support for the open-ended range of “at least 1.4 wt%” for both aromatics and 1,3-butadiene. The olefin-containing effluent stream contains at least 40 wt% ethylene (paragraph [0368]). Applicant cites Table 10 as support, and this provides support for the specific amounts of 1.42, 2.18, or 2.79 wt% aromatics in the total product stream of the cracker. Also, the Examiner reviewed the rest of the specification, and paragraph [0385] recites the ranges of at least 0.5 wt%, at least 1 wt%, at least 2 wt%, or at least 2.5 wt% and/or not more than about 20, 19, 18, etc. all the way down to 1 wt% with regard to the olefin-containing effluent, not the claimed separated product stream. With regard to the 1,3-butadiene content, Table 10 supports the specific amounts of 1.45, 1.69, or 2.06 wt%. Reviewing the specification further, paragraph [0368] recites that the olefin-containing effluent stream contains "C4 olefins” in an amount of at least 5 wt% of the olefin-containing effluent, where C4 olefins can be butadiene (paragraph [0367]).
However, while some amounts are supported, there is no mention of separating a further stream from the olefin-containing effluent where the further stream has the claimed amounts of ethylene, 1,3-butadiene, and aromatics, and no support for the open-ended ranges for the aromatics and butadiene. Thus, the new step (d) includes new matter.
Claim 51 is amended to recite “wherein, prior to cracking, the first stream and the second stream are co-fed at the second coil to form the cracker feed stream”. However, claim 45 requires feeding the first feed and the second feed separately to the first and second coil, respectively, which are separate from each other. There is no support for both feeding separately and also combining the feeds to feed them both together to the second coil. Paragraph [0273] recites that the r-pyoil stream may be combined with the non-recycle stream upstream of the convection section, and in addition the r-pyoil containing feed may be introduced into a first furnace coil, while the non-recycle content feed is introduced into a separate or second coil. However, claim 45, upon which claim 49 depends, recites that the ethane (non-recycle content feed) is introduced into the first coil and the r-pyoil is introduced into the second coil, and claim 51 recites feeding the combined feed to the second coil, not just generally to the convection section as recited in paragraph [0273]). Thus, there is no support for the specific arrangement in claim 51, and the claim is new matter.
Claim 56 recites "wherein the olefin-containing effluent comprises a recycle content pyrolysis gas." The Examiner does not find support for the recycle content pyrolysis gas being the olefin-containing effluent from the cracker. The instant specification does recite that a recycle content pyrolysis gas stream is produced during pyrolysis and is separated from the pyrolysis oil (paragraphs [0156] and [0173]). However, the olefin containing effluent is produced during cracking. Thus, there is no support for the olefin-containing effluent comprising pyrolysis gas, and the limitation is new matter..
Claims 45, 47, 49, 50, 52-55, and 57 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 5 and 45-57 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.
Any paragraphs referenced herein are the PGPub paragraphs.
Claims 5, 46, and 48 each recite a new step (d) which requires “separating at least a portion of the olefin-containing effluent to provide a product stream comprising” specific amounts of ethylene and butadiene or aromatics. However, it is unclear if the “separating” in step (d) is the same as the separating of step (c), or if it is performed on a different at least a portion of the olefin-containing effluent, or if it takes place before or after step (c). As such, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the separation in step (d) is a different separation step in the separation train (paragraphs [0062] and [0402]-[0453] discusses multiple separation steps and obtain effluents with butadiene content and aromatic content). Appropriate clarification as to whether the product produced in step (d) is obtained before the separation in step (c) or after the separation in step (c) is respectfully requested.
Claim 51 is amended to recite “wherein, prior to cracking, the first stream and the second stream are co-fed at the second coil to form the cracker feed stream”. However, claim 45 already recites that the first feed is fed to the first coil and the second feed is fed to the second coil. It is unclear whether claim 51 is intending to further limit claim 45 by requiring that an additional portion of the first stream is fed to the second coil along with the feed stream already recited as being passed to the first coil, or if claim 51 is intended to require only that both streams are fed to the second coil, which would not further limit claim 45. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites that the r-pyoil can be introduced into both coils, and that the non-recycle feed is introduced into the second coil (paragraphs [0273]-[0274]). This is backward from the current depiction of the non-recycle feed being introduced into the first coil and the r-pyoil into the second coil of claim 45. However, as paragraphs [0273]-[0274] are recited as support for the amendments, this appears to be the intent of the claim. Appropriate correction and clarification of claims 45 and 51 is respectfully requested to match the specification and the desired steps.
Claim 54 recites “wherein, after cracking…the first feed stream and the second feed stream are co-fed at an inlet to the cracking furnace.” However, the cracking furnace is where the cracking takes place. It is unclear how the streams could be co-fed to the furnace after cracking, as claimed, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites that the feeds may be co-fed into the cross-over section and thus the radiant zone of the furnace (paragraph [0273]). This will be used as the intent of the claim, similar to claim 52. If this interpretation is correct, the Examiner suggests that claim 54 could be amended to have the same wording as claim 52, because claim 54 depends from claim 49 instead of claim 45.
Claims 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 55-57 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 46-48, and 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309) in view of Stabel et al. (US 5,731,483).
With regard to claim 5, Uppili teaches a method for pyrolysis and steam cracking (paragraph [0007]) comprising:
a) steam cracking a cracker feed comprising light hydrocarbons including ethane (paragraph [0047]) and recycled liquid hydrocarbons 354 from the plastic pyrolysis reactor (paragraph [0061]), where the cracking produces a steam cracking effluent (claimed olefin-containing effluent) comprising ethylene and propylene (paragraph [0042]). Uppili further teaches the feed to the steam cracker comprises light hydrocarbons and heavier hydrocarbons, where in an embodiment the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the steam cracker feed is 10 wt% or more (paragraph [0047]). The heavier hydrocarbons include the pyrolysis oil 354 recycled to the steam cracking (paragraph [0061]) and thus the amount of pyrolysis oil overlaps the range of at least 20 wt% pyrolysis oil of instant claim 5, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to the term “recycle content”, the instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis oil” as an oil obtained from pyrolysis and having recycled content (paragraph [0050]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Thus, the pyrolysis oil of Uppili is recycle content pyrolysis oil, as claimed.
b), c), and d) providing the steam cracking effluent to a separation train (paragraph [0069]) including a quench tower 211 to obtain a C4- fraction (claimed separation step (d) to provide a product from an olefin-containing effluent) and separator 261 which separates an overhead ethylene stream 265 and a bottoms ethane stream 269 (claimed ethylene fractionator step (b)) (paragraph [0071], Fig. 2).
Uppili fails to explicitly teach i) that the ethane in the steam cracker feed is non-recycle content ethane, ii) the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil, iii) that the mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the feed to the column 261 is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, iv) that the output of ethylene and propylene in the effluent is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, and v) that the product stream comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene and at least 1.4 wt% 1,3-butadiene or aromatics.
With regard to the ethane being non-recycle content i), The instant specification recites that “non-recycle” means a composition which is not derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (specification paragraph [0082] as filed). Uppili is entirely silent regarding the source of the ethane (paragraph [0047]), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ethane could be selected from all known sources, where the sources are a finite list of recycle content ethane and non-recycle content ethane. Further, there is no evidence that the ethane source is critical in the instant application as filed, as there is no evidence that the source of the ethane affects the cracking of the ethane.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use non-recycle content ethane in the steam cracker feed of Uppili, as claimed, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, because the non-recycle content ethane is an obvious selection from the finite list of non-recycle content ethane and recycle content ethane, and because any ethane from any source is expected to function in the process of Uppili, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil ii), Uppili teaches the plastics feed to the pyrolysis is a mixture of polyolefins including polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0016]) but is completely silent as to the composition of the plastic pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine the composition of the oil produced by the pyrolysis .
Stabel teaches a process for conversion of waste plastics comprising polyethylene and polypropylene (column 7, lines 12-13) into a distillate product (pyrolysis oil) followed by steam cracking the distillate product (column 2, lines 36-50). Stabel further teaches that the distillate product (pyrolysis oil) comprises 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons (column 8, Table 1) and that the steam cracker product comprises ethylene and propylene (column 9, Table 3). This amount of 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons is within the range of at least 30 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons of instant claim 5. Thus, Stabel teaches that pyrolysis oil comprising the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons is known to be produced from plastic pyrolysis and is a suitable steam cracker feed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the process of Uppili also produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons, because each of Uppili and Stabel teach pyrolysis of polyolefins to produce an oil product, followed by steam cracking the product, Uppili is silent regarding the composition of the pyrolysis oil, and Stable teaches that the claimed pyrolysis produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons which can be used as a steam cracker feed (Column 8, Table 1).
With regard to the mole ratio, output, and ethylene and 1,3-butandiene or aromatic content iii), iv), and v), Uppili in view of Stabel teaches the same step of steam cracking a similar feed comprising the same non-recycle content ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil having at least 30 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same claimed results, namely a higher mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the feed to the separator than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; a higher output of ethylene and propylene in the olefin-containing effluent than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; an amount of at least 40 wt% ethylene in the product stream separated from the olefin-containing effluent, and at least 1.4 wt% 1,3-butadiene or aromatics in the product stream separating from the olefin-containing effluent, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 46 and 47, Uppili teaches a method for pyrolysis and steam cracking (paragraph [0007]) comprising:
c) steam cracking a cracker feed comprising light hydrocarbons including ethane (C2) (paragraph [0047]) and recycled liquid hydrocarbons 354 from the plastic pyrolysis reactor (paragraph [0061]), where the cracking produces a product comprising ethylene and propylene (olefin-containing effluent) (paragraph [0042]). Uppili further teaches the feed to the steam cracker comprises light hydrocarbons and heavier hydrocarbons, where in an embodiment the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the steam cracker feed is 10 wt% or more (paragraph [0047]). The heavier hydrocarbons include the pyrolysis oil 354 recycled to the steam cracking (paragraph [0061]) and thus the amount of pyrolysis oil overlaps the range of at least 20 wt% pyrolysis oil of instant claim 46, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to the term “recycle content”, the instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis oil” as an oil obtained from pyrolysis and having recycled content (paragraph [0050]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Uppili teaches that the pyrolysis oil is from pyrolysis of plastics, and that the feed to the cracker comprises the pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0061]). Therefore, the pyrolysis oil is recycle content pyrolysis oil, as claimed, and the olefin-containing effluent from the steam cracker is recycle content ethylene, as claimed.
a), b), and d) providing the steam cracking effluent to a separation train (paragraph [0069]) including a quench tower 211 to obtain a C4- fraction (claimed separation step (d) to provide a product from an olefin-containing effluent) and separator 261 which separates an overhead ethylene stream 265 and a bottoms ethane stream 269 (claimed ethylene fractionator step (b)) (paragraph [0071], Fig. 2).
Uppili fails to explicitly teach i) the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil; ii) that the mass flow rate of ethane in said ethylene stream 265 is at least 0.1% lower than if the feed to the separator did not include r-ethylene, iii) that the output of ethylene and propylene in the effluent is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, and iv) that the product stream comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene and at least 1.4 wt% 1,3-butadiene or aromatics.
With regard to the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil i), Uppili teaches the plastics feed to the pyrolysis is a mixture of polyolefins including polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0016]) but is completely silent as to the composition of the plastic pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine the composition of the oil produced by the pyrolysis .
Stabel teaches a process for conversion of waste plastics comprising polyethylene and polypropylene (column 7, lines 12-13) into a distillate product (pyrolysis oil) followed by steam cracking the distillate product (column 2, lines 36-50). Stabel further teaches that the distillate product (pyrolysis oil) comprises 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons (column 8, Table 1) and that the steam cracker product comprises ethylene and propylene (column 9, Table 3). This amount of 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons is within the range of at least 30 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons of instant claim 46. Thus, Stabel teaches that pyrolysis oil comprising the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons is known to be produced from plastic pyrolysis and is a suitable steam cracker feed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the process of Uppili also produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons, because each of Uppili and Stabel teach pyrolysis of polyolefins to produce an oil product, followed by steam cracking the product, Uppili is silent regarding the composition of the pyrolysis oil, and Stable teaches that the claimed pyrolysis produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons which can be used as a steam cracker feed (Column 8, Table 1).
With regard to the flow rate, output, and ethylene and butadiene or aromatics content ii), iii), and iv), Uppili teaches the same step of steam cracking a feed comprising the same non-recycle content ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same results, namely a lower mass flow rate of ethane in the overhead stream than if the effluent did not contain r-ethylene; a higher output of ethylene and propylene in the olefin-containing effluent than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; and an amount of at least 40 wt% ethylene in the olefin-containing effluent, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 55, Uppili does not specifically teach the mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the column feed stream is at least 0.1% higher than if the column feedstream did not include the recycle content ethylene but had the same mass flow rate. However, Uppili teaches the same step of steam cracking a similar feed comprising the same ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same result of a higher mole ratio of ethylene to ethane in the feed to the separator than if the feed to the separator did not comprise the recycle content ethylene, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 56 and 57, Uppili teaches separating the pyrolysis effluent to produce the pyrolysis liquid fraction and a gaseous C4- fraction, which is then sent to the steam cracker process train (paragraph [0040]) which includes the quench tower and C2 separator (paragraph [0071]). The instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis gas” as a fraction which is gaseous at 25°C and 1 atm obtained from pyrolysis and having recycle content (paragraphs [0051]-[0052]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Thus, the stream to the quench tower (olefin-containing effluent) which comprises the steam cracking product and the gaseous product separated from the pyrolysis effluent of Uppili comprises a recycle content pyrolysis gas from recycled waste as claimed in instant claims 56 and 57.
With regard to claim 48, Uppili teaches a method for pyrolysis and steam cracking (paragraph [0007]) comprising:
steam cracking a cracker feed comprising light hydrocarbons including ethane (paragraph [0047]) and recycled liquid hydrocarbons 354 from the plastic pyrolysis reactor (paragraph [0061]), where the cracking produces a product comprising ethylene and propylene (olefin-containing effluent) (paragraph [0042]). Uppili further teaches the feed to the steam cracker comprises light hydrocarbons and heavier hydrocarbons, where in an embodiment the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the steam cracker feed is 10 wt% or more (paragraph [0047]). The heavier hydrocarbons include the pyrolysis oil 354 recycled to the steam cracking (paragraph [0061]) and thus the amount of pyrolysis oil overlaps the range of at least 20 wt% pyrolysis oil of instant claim 48, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to the term “recycle content”, the instant specification defines “recycle content pyrolysis oil” as an oil obtained from pyrolysis and having recycled content (paragraph [0050]), “recycle content” as a component which is derived directly or indirectly from recycled waste (paragraph [0043]), and “recycled waste” as including plastics (paragraph [0101]). Thus, the pyrolysis oil of Uppili is recycle content pyrolysis oil, as claimed.
a), b), and d) providing the steam cracking effluent to a separation train (paragraph [0069]) including a quench tower 211 to obtain a C4- fraction (claimed separation step (d) to provide a product from an olefin-containing effluent) and separator 261 which separates an overhead ethylene stream 265 and a bottoms ethane stream 269 (claimed ethylene fractionator step (b)) (paragraph [0071], Fig. 2).
Uppili fails to explicitly teach i) the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil, ii) that the volumetric or mass flow rate of liquid within column 261 is at least 0.1% lower than the flow rate if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, iii) that the output of ethylene and propylene in the effluent is higher than if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil, and iv) that the product stream comprises at least 40 wt% ethylene and at least 1.4 wt% 1,3-butadiene or aromatics.
With regard to the amount of C8+ hydrocarbons in the pyrolysis oil i), Uppili teaches the plastics feed to the pyrolysis is a mixture of polyolefins including polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0016]) but is completely silent as to the composition of the plastic pyrolysis oil from the pyrolysis. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine the composition of the oil produced by the pyrolysis .
Stabel teaches a process for conversion of waste plastics comprising polyethylene and polypropylene (column 7, lines 12-13) into a distillate product (pyrolysis oil) followed by steam cracking the distillate product (column 2, lines 36-50). Stabel further teaches that the distillate product (pyrolysis oil) comprises 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons (column 8, Table 1) and that the steam cracker product comprises ethylene and propylene (column 9, Table 3). This amount of 88.52 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons is within the range of at least 30 wt% C8+ hydrocarbons of instant claim 48. Thus, Stabel teaches that pyrolysis oil comprising the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons is known to be produced from plastic pyrolysis and is a suitable steam cracker feed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the process of Uppili also produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons, because each of Uppili and Stabel teach pyrolysis of polyolefins to produce an oil product, followed by steam cracking the product, Uppili is silent regarding the composition of the pyrolysis oil, and Stable teaches that the claimed pyrolysis produces a pyrolysis oil having the claimed amount of C8+ hydrocarbons which can be used as a steam cracker feed (Column 8, Table 1).
With regard to the flow rate, output, and ethylene and butadiene or aromatics content ii), iii), and iv), Uppili in view of Stabel teaches the same step of steam cracking a similar feed comprising the same non-recycle content ethane and the same plastic pyrolysis oil having predominantly C8+ hydrocarbons to produce the same product comprising ethylene and propylene, and the same step of sending a stream comprising ethylene and ethane from the steam cracker to a separator to separate the ethane from the ethylene. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the same results, namely a lower volumetric or mass flow rate of liquid than the flow rate if the cracker feed did not include pyrolysis oil; a higher output of ethylene and propylene in the olefin-containing effluent than if the cracker feed had a same mass flow rate but did not comprise the recycle content pyrolysis oil; an amount of at least 40 wt% ethylene in the product stream separated from the olefin-containing effluent, and at least 1.4 wt% 1,3-butadiene or aromatics in the product stream separating from the olefin-containing effluent, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 45, 49, 50, and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309) in view of Stabel et al. (US 5,731,483) as applied to claims 5 and 48 above, and further in view of Brewer et al. (US 2008/0029434).
With regard to claims 45 and 49, Uppili in view of Stabel teaches the method above, where a feed comprising ethane (C2) and pyrolysis oil from plastics is cracked in a steam cracker (paragraph [0047]).
Uppili in view of Stabel does not specifically teach that the cracker comprises a single radiant section comprising a first coil and a second coil, where the ethane is passed to a first coil and the pyrolysis oil is passed to a second coil separate from said first coil.
Brewer teaches a process for steam cracking of multiple hydrocarbon feeds (paragraph [0001]) where the cracking furnace comprises at least one fired radiant chamber which is divided into two separate independent radiant zones, and where each independent radiant zone comprises at least one process coil (paragraph [0008]). When the furnace comprises one fired radiant chamber, as taught by Brewer, this is equivalent to the claimed single radiant zone having two separate coils separate from each other as claimed. Brewer further teaches cracking two different feedstocks in the same radiant chamber at separate and independent conditions in the separate coils, thereby allowing improved flexibility (paragraph [0027]). Brewer additionally teaches that while certain feedstocks are exemplified, other feedstocks known to be used as feedstocks in steam cracking can be employed (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the steam cracker comprising a single radiant section with multiple separate coils of Brewer in the process of Ward to pass the ethane to a first coil and the pyrolysis oil to a second coil in a single radiant chamber as claimed, because Ward teaches a process for cracking ethane and pyrolysis oil in the same steam cracker, and Brewer teaches that using a furnace comprising at least one radiant section with distinct coils for cracking distinct feeds provides increased flexibility for a variety of cracking feedstocks and solves problems in prior art furnaces including increased capacity while using different reaction conditions (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]).
With regard to claims 50 and 53, Brewer teaches vaporizing the first feedstock before introducing to the radiant zone which comprises the first coil (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
With regard to claims 52 and 54, Brewer teaches that the feeds are fed separately through the coils in the convection chamber 4 before both being fed into the radiant chamber 6 (paragraph [0019]). Thus, Brewer teaches co-feeding the streams into the radiant zone as in instant claims 52 and 54.
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 ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights