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 .
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-20 are pending and are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 18, 20 are amended.
Claims 4, 13 are newly canceled.
No claims are newly added.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 in the previous action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
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.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140228606 by Narayanaswamy in view of KR 20130020439 by Fumiaki et al in further view of US 4119533 by Saitoh in further view of US 8420875 by Mackay et al is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. Narayanaswamy describes a catalyst/polyolefin ratio outside the newly claimed range.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1-3, 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 0066656 by Corma Canos in view of KR 20130020439 by Fumiaki et al in further view of US 4119533 by Saitoh in further view of US 8420875 by Mackay et al is repeated and amended below to reflect applicant’s amendment. Specifically,
Corma Canos describes a plastic waste catalytic cracking process.
Regarding claim 1, Corma Canos describes a process for depolymerizing polyolefins ("cracking" translation p.4 paragraph 3, p.6 paragraph 2) but is silent as to how to arrive at a primarily polyolefin feed, i.e. instant steps a)-d). These are addressed via secondary references below.
Corma Canos describes e) puttting dried polyolefin and depolymerization catalyst into a reactor heated to 300-550C (p.5 paragraph 2) and f) reacting the depolymerize the polyolefin material (p.4 penultimate paragraph).
Regarding the new amount of catalyst, Corma Canos describes a ratio of catalyst/plastic of 1/35 in Examples 1 and 2 (translation p.7 paragraphs 1-3) and up to 2.5/35 in Table 3. This converts to 2.8%-6.7% catalyst in the instant terms. This falls within the claimed range.
Regarding the catalyst temperature, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Corma Canos describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Fumiaki describes a method of separating plastic including polyolefin.
Fumiaki states that many composite plastics exist but in the waste of such plastics it is difficult to recycle and reuse, leading to demand for separation of these waste plastics (translation p.2 paragraph 2). Fumiaki describes how to separate a composite comprising a polyolefin (p.3 “Description of Embodiments”).
Fumiaki describes:
a) adding a polyolefin-based feed stream to a container filled with aqueous solution (p.4 paragraph 2, p.15 paragraph 5)
b) stirring (p.4 paragraph 4) for an exemplary 1 to 8 hours (p.15 paragraph 5; Fig.3; p.5 paragraph 6)
c) separating the solid polyolefin from the liquid (p.4 paragraph 5-8)
d) drying the polyolefin (p.4 paragraph 8)
Fumiaki states that his process makes it possible to decompose polyolefin after it is isolated, but also possible to reuse the polyester (p.5 paragraph 2). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt Fumiaki’s process to arrive at Corma Canos’s preferred polyolefin-heavy feed because it allows one of ordinary skill to also reuse the polyester portion of the composite in a separate process.
Fumiaki describes instant steps c) and d) generically (“separating” and “drying”) where the instant is more specific (“skimming” and “drying…to a residual moisture of less than 5%”).
Saitoh describes a method for separating mixed plastics.
Fumiaki describes the polyolefins staying solid and the polyesters becoming part of the aqueous solution, and separating the solids, but is silent as to skimming. Saitoh states that polypropylene and polyethylene’s hydrophobicity cause them to float (col 1 ln 25-36) and describes collecting the floating plastics (col 1 ln 50-55). Saitoh describes this process as efficient (col 1 ln 22). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to skim off the polyolefins in Fumiaki’s aqueous mixture because it is efficient.
Regarding drying, Fumiaki is merely silent as to the extent of drying; ie. the final moisture content.
Mackay describes conversion of waste plastics to liquid hydrocarbon products.
Mackay describes drying feedstock to a level of approximately 2 wt% and states that this reduces contaminated fines adherence (col 4 ln 48-52). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Mackay’s drying process where Fumiaki merely describes drying in order to reduce contaminated fines adherence.
Regarding claims 2-3, Fumiaki describes sodium hydroxide aqueous solution (p.4 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5, Fumiaki does not apply a pressure and atmospheric pressure is 0.101MPa.
Regarding claim 6, Fumiaki describes a heating of 120-160C (p.4 paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 7, Fumiaki describes separating composite of polyolefin and polyester (p.4 paragraph 3) with reference to composite waste materials (p.2 paragraph 2). Fumiaki describes cut automobile interior material (p.15 paragraph 5) which must be either post-industrial or post-consumer waste. Furthermore the terms “post-consumer” and “post-industrial” are product-by-process terms which Fumiaki meets by merely describing a product which is the same as post-consumer or post-industrial.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Corma Canos describes a zeolite (X, REX, Y, USY, KING, REUSY, L, ZSM-5, Beta and combinations) with a matrix material including clays, metal oxides of silica, aluminum, titanium, zirconium or magnesium, silica-alumina, silicon-magnesium, silicon-zirconium, siliconthorium, silicon-beryllium, silica-titanium, silica-alumina-thorium, silica-alumina-zirconium, silica-aluminamagnesium and silicon-magnesium-zirconium, and mixtures (p.6 paragraph 3-4).
Corma Canos’s catalysts read on the instant zeolites beta, ZSM-5, Y, ultra-stable Y and combinations. They read on the instant solid inorganic clay, metal oxide, silicate (claim 8) and aluminum oxide (claim 9).
The rejection in the previous action of Claims 10-12, 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20130020439 by Fumiaki et al in further view of US 4119533 by Saitoh in further view of US 8420875 by Mackay et al is repeated and amended below to reflect applicant’s amendment. Specifically,
Fumiaki is described above.
Regarding claim 10, Fumiaki describes:
a) adding a polyolefin-based feed stream to a container filled with aqueous solution (p.4 paragraph 2)
b) stirring (p.4 paragraph 4) for an exemplary 1 to 8 hours (p.15 paragraph 5; Fig.3; p.5 paragraph 6)
c) separating the solid polyolefin from the liquid (p.4 paragraph 5-8)
d) drying the polyolefin (p.4 paragraph 8)
The phrase in the preamble stating “before depolymerization” is a future intended use; since Fumiaki’s polyolefin is capable of being depolymerized after his process the art meets this aspect of the claim.
Regarding the new requirement of step (c) that the polyolefin skimmed off the surface contain at least 75 wt% polyolefin, Fumaiki’s invention separates polyolefin from polyester. Fumiaki notes that sodium hydroxide does not decompose polyolefin (translation p.7 paragraph 3), whereas PET is almost completely decomposed (p.6 paragraph 4). Thus Fumaiki’s separated polyolefin stream meets the “treated polyolefin stream contains at least 75 wt% polyolefin” requirement
Fumiaki describes instant steps c) and d) generically (“separating” and “drying”) where the instant is more specific (“skimming” and “drying…to a residual moisture of less than 5%”).
Saitoh describes a method for separating mixed plastics.
Fumiaki describes the polyolefins staying solid and the polyesters becoming part of the aqueous solution, and separating the solids, but is silent as to skimming. Saitoh states that polypropylene and polyethylene’s hydrophobicity cause them to float (col 1 ln 25-36) and describes collecting the floating plastics (col 1 ln 50-55). Saitoh describes this process as efficient (col 1 ln 22). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to skim off the polyolefins in Fumiaki’s aqueous mixture because it is efficient.
Regarding drying, Fumiaki is merely silent as to the extent of drying; ie. the final moisture content.
Mackay describes conversion of waste plastics to liquid hydrocarbon products.
Mackay describes drying feedstock to a level of approximately 2 wt% and states that this reduces contaminated fines adherence (col 4 ln 48-52). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Mackay’s drying process where Fumiaki merely describes drying in order to reduce contaminated fines adherence.
Regarding claims 11-12, Fumiaki describes sodium hydroxide aqueous solution (p.4 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14, Fumiaki does not apply a pressure and atmospheric pressure is 0.101MPa.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Fumiaki describes a heating of 120-160C (p.4 paragraph 4). Since Fumiaki describes heating the aqueous solution, it is obvious to do so prior to the adding step and maintaining the heat. Ex parte Rubin , 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 17, Mackay describes a drying temperature of 90-110C (col 4 ln 52).
Regarding claim 18, Makay describes a water content of about 2% (col 4 ln 48).
Regarding claim 19, Fumiaki describes separating composite of polyolefin and polyester (p.4 paragraph 3) with reference to composite waste materials (p.2 paragraph 2). Fumiaki describes cut automobile interior material (p.15 paragraph 5) which must be either post-industrial or post-consumer waste. Furthermore the terms “post-consumer” and “post-industrial” are product-by-process terms which Fumiaki meets by merely describing a product which is the same as post-consumer or post-industrial.
Regarding claim 20, Fumiaki describes:
a) adding a polyolefin-based feed stream to a container filled with aqueous solution (p.4 paragraph 2) of for example 3N sodium hydroxide (p.15 paragraph 5) which has a pH of about 14.5
b) stirring (p.4 paragraph 4) for an exemplary 1 to 8 hours (p.15 paragraph 5; Fig.3; p.5 paragraph 6) at Fumiaki describes a heating of 120-160C (p.4 paragraph 4). Since Fumiaki describes heating the aqueous solution, it is obvious to do so as a maintaining step. Ex parte Rubin , 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
c) separating the solid polyolefin from the liquid (p.4 paragraph 5-8)
d) drying the polyolefin (p.4 paragraph 8)
The phrase in the preamble stating “before depolymerization” is a future intended use; since Fumiaki’s polyolefin is capable of being depolymerized after his process the art meets this aspect of the claim.
Regarding the new requirement of step (c) that the polyolefin skimmed off the surface contain at least 75 wt% polyolefin, Fumaiki’s invention separates polyolefin from polyester. Fumiaki notes that sodium hydroxide does not decompose polyolefin (translation p.7 paragraph 3), whereas PET is almost completely decomposed (p.6 paragraph 4). Thus Fumaiki’s separated polyolefin stream meets the “treated polyolefin stream contains at least 75 wt% polyolefin” requirement.
Fumiaki describes instant steps c) and d) generically (“separating” and “drying”) where the instant is more specific (“skimming” and “drying…to a residual moisture of less than 5%”).
Saitoh describes a method for separating mixed plastics.
Fumiaki describes the polyolefins staying solid and the polyesters becoming part of the aqueous solution, and separating the solids, but is silent as to skimming. Saitoh states that polypropylene and polyethylene’s hydrophobicity cause them to float (col 1 ln 25-36) and describes collecting the floating plastics (col 1 ln 50-55). Saitoh describes this process as efficient (col 1 ln 22). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to skim off the polyolefins in Fumiaki’s aqueous mixture because it is efficient.
Regarding drying, Fumiaki is merely silent as to the extent of drying; ie. the final moisture content, and the temperature of drying.
Mackay describes conversion of waste plastics to liquid hydrocarbon products.
Mackay describes drying feedstock to a level of approximately 2 wt% and states that this reduces contaminated fines adherence (col 4 ln 48-52). Mackay describes drying at 90-110C (col 4 ln 52). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Mackay’s drying process where Fumiaki merely describes drying in order to reduce contaminated fines adherence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.7 of Remarks submitted 8/15/25 has been considered and is persuasive; the rejection over US 20140228606 by Narayanaswamy is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s argument p.8 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that Corma Canos does not teach or suggest a relationship between the dried polyolefin and the depolymerization catalyst, but Corma Canos does, as cited above in rejection. This value falls within the claimed range.
Applicant’s argument p.9 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that Fumiaki does not teach skimming a treated polyolefin stream containing at least 75 wt% polyolefin. This is not found convincing because the full phrasing of the claim is “skimming the surface of said aqueous solution to remove a treated polyolefin stream wherein the treated polyolefin stream contains at least 75 wt% of a polyolefin”. Saitoh is and has been previously cited to describe the “skimming” aspect. Fumaiki states that the treatment dissolves almost 100% of the comingled polyester and almost none of the polyolefin, cited above in rejection. Therefore the skimmed polyolefin is nearly 100% polyolefin, and the applied art meets the claim.
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 CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766