DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-21 and 27-30 under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 2/24/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 31-33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 31-33 drawn to an apparatus system.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 31-33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The status of claims 31-33 should be recited as either “canceled” or “withdrawn”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 16-21, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (WO-2018/069794 A1) in view of Hofer (US 9,920,255 B2) and Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248 A1)
Ramamurthy discloses a process for producing olefins and aromatic hydrocarbons from mixed plastics, wherein mixed plastics are converted in a pyrolysis unit to a hydrocarbon product comprising a gas phase and a liquid phase, and wherein the gas stream and the liquid stream are further converted in steam crackers to form an olefin-containing stream. The pyrolysis unit may include one or more of heated extruders (same as screw extruders), heated rotating kiln, heated tank-type reactors, packed bed reactors, bubbling fluidized bed reactors, circulating fluidized bed reactors ([0030]). The pyrolysis processes in the pyrolysis unit (Figure 1(10)) may be low severity or high severity ([0036]). Low severity pyrolysis processes may occur at a temperature of 250°C to 450°C. High severity pyrolysis processes may occur at a temperature of 450°C to 750°C. The pyrolysis separating unit 20 can be a condenser ([0039]). Ramamurthy teaches that the gas phase fraction comprises hydrogen chloride (HCl) (¶ [0062]) and that such gas streams are subjected to scrubbing to remove HCl (¶¶ [0081]–[0082]). Ramamurthy teaches conveying a hydrocarbon liquid stream to a hydroprocessing unit to produce a treated hydrocarbon liquid stream (¶¶ [0056]–[0061]). Ramamurthy further teaches that the treated hydrocarbon liquid stream has a reduced chloride content, including embodiments where the chloride content is less than about 10 ppmw (¶ [0065]). The limitations of present claims 6, 8, 10, 16-19, 21 and 30 are found in Figure 4, (23)(27)(35)(43)(47)(53); [0026], [0010], [0062], [0065]. Also see Figure 1; claims 1-20.
Ramamurthy does not teach a step of adding a hydrocarbon stream to reduce viscosity of the plastic feedstock before initial extrusion in which plastic is melted, does not teach the gas fraction is used to generate heat for the pyrolysis reactor, and Ramamurthy does not explicitly teach that the plastic particles is reduce a median particle size of 3.0 cm or less.
Hofer discloses a process for thermal cracking (pyrolysis) of mixed plastic waste comprising a heated screw extruder connected via to a thermal reactor vessel. An initial charge of raw mixed plastic waste feedstock is heated a heated screw extruder to form molten mixed plastic stream which is maintained at a temperature of 150o C-300o C. The molten plastic stream is then mixed with a hydrocarbon solvent (e.g., oil) to lower the viscosity. The mixture of molten plastic and solvent is then passed into a thermal cracking vessel. The transfer conduit is horizontal relative to direction of gravitation force (see the figure). Hofer also teaches the limitations of claims 2-5, 9, and 28. See col. 2, lines 13-32; the figure; claims 1-20.
Hofer does not teach that the solvent is added before the initial extrusion and does not teach the used of multiple extruders arranged in a symmetric.
Cartolano teaches that:
a byproduct gas stream generated in a pyrolysis process may be recycled (¶¶ [0038]–[0045]); and
“a portion of the byproduct gas stream can be passed to the regenerator to increase the heat generation therein” (¶ [0048]).
Thus, Cartolano explicitly teaches using a portion of a gas phase fraction as fuel in a regenerator to generate heat for the process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Ramamurthy to use a portion of the produced gas phase fraction as fuel in the regenerator, as taught by Cartolano, in order to improve process energy efficiency and reduce external fuel requirements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Hofer by adding the solvent before the initial extrusion because it would be expected the results would be the same or similar when adding solvent either before or after the initial extrusion because in either case the plastic stream is mixed with the solvent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Hofer by utilizing multiple extruders arranged in a symmetric as claimed because utilizing more than one extruder to increase the productivity is within the level of one of skill in the art. Since each extruders operating the same, it is within the level of one of skill in the art to arrange the extruders in a symmetric.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy to incorporate Hofer’s extrusion and viscosity-reduction techniques (adding solvent) to improve feed handling and enable continuous introduction of molten plastic into the reactor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ramamurthy by reducing the particles size to 3.0 cm or less because is well known that plastic is chopped to small particles before melting. It is within the level of one of skill in the art to reduce plastic to any small particles size including less than 3.0 cm.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rau et al. (US 2014/0163152 A1) or Takada et al. (US 5,379,805)
The process of Ramamurthy is as discussed above.
Ramamurthy does not teach that the plastic feedstock comprising calcium oxides as an additive.
Rau teaches a plastic waste comprising CaO. See [0002] and [0043].
Takada teaches a plastic waste comprising CaO wherein CaO is converted into CaCl2.See abstract; col. 3, line 53 through col. 4, line 5. Figures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ramamurthy by having CaO in the plastic feedstock as suggested by either Rau and Takada to improve the surface appearance and processing of plastics.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. “Biomass fast pyrolysis in fluidized bed reactor under N2, CO2, CO, CH4 and H2 atmospheres” Bioresouce Technology 102 (2011) pages 4258-4264.
Ramamurthy does not teach that a portion of the gas fraction is used as a fluidizing gas.
Zhang teaches the use of recycling gas a fluidizing gas. See abstract.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ramamurthy by recycling
a portion of the gas phase fraction as a fluidizing gas to improve reactor fluidization and reduce reliance on external gas supply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Gephart does not teach removal of nitrogen and silicon, and therefore fails to meet the amended limitation. The argument is not persuasive because of the new rejection above. Ramamurthy teaches step of removal of contaminants from both gaseous fraction and liquid fractions.
The argument that the cited references do not teach using at least a portion of the gas phase fraction as additional fuel in a regenerator to heat the pyrolysis reactor is not persuasive because of new cited reference Cartolano (¶[0048]) teaches using a portion of pyrolysis gas as fuel in a regenerator.
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches use of recycled product gas as a fluidizing gas in a fluidized bed pyrolysis system. It would have been obvious to recycle a portion of the gas phase fraction for fluidization to reduce external gas requirements and improve reactor efficiency.
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 TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem C Singh can be reached on 571-273-6381. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771