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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Obviousness rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruhnic et al. 3978199.
Maruhnic teaches, especially in the figure and the examples, treating tires to recover carbon black. Note the similarity to the specification figures. The temperatures and pressures overlap the claimed ranges, thus rendering them obvious (1.5 MPa=15 atm; 425C=797F). The weight ratio of solvent to rubber is about 4 (Table II). While the exact content of the various oil fractions is not characterized, no (actual or patentable) difference is seen in the composition of the rubber starting material, and the exact parameters of the distillation unit can be altered to recover the fractions desired. Example 2 teaches the carbon recovery parameters. For former claim 3, see col. 1 lines 40-50, the second reactor being obvious to assure destruction of the larger pieces.
For claim 2, see element 14.
For claims 4-10 and 13-15, see also col. 5 lines 10-20. In so far as the parameters differ, choosing them is obvious to readily recover the desired fractions. See also col. 3 lines 38-44 and element 46.
For claims 11 and 12, see figure elements 19, 20, 22 and 25.
Performing the claimed operations using the claimed parameters is thus obvious to assure efficient recovery of carbon black and hydrocarbon fractions.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solbakken et al. 4284616.
This is an equivalent of France ‘312 cited in the written opinion. The comments in the Written Opinion are incorporated by reference. Solbakken teaches, especially in fig. 3 and col. 4-6, recovering carbon black from tires. While the properties of the various fractions are not explicitly identified, it is obvious to alter reaction conditions to permit recovery of the desired fractions. Note columns 12 and 16. Col. 3 teaches 750F or above, while the ratio of solvent to rubber can be varied to optimize heat transfer; see col. 6-7. For former claim 3, see elements 410 and 426; the second reactor being obvious to assure destruction of the larger pieces. See also col. 6 lines 8-15.
For claim 2, see element 20.
For claims 4-10 and 13-15, see also col. 5 lines 10-20. In so far as the parameters differ, choosing them is obvious to readily recover the desired fractions. See also Table I.
For claims 11 and 12, see col. 11 lines 35-40.
Performing the claimed operations using the claimed parameters is thus obvious to assure efficient recovery of carbon black and hydrocarbon fractions; see col. 9.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Maruhnic teaches adding anthracene (5-10 carbons) oil and aromatic oil initially so the reactor is seeded with 100% aromatic compounds, and recycling a small amount of the heavy oils, consistent with the claimed value. Since the oil comes from tires, no difference is seen in the composition thereof. As noted above, choosing the claimed fractions is obvious to optimize the process. The claims are not limited to filtration time, product recovery efficiency or the other specific features implied as unexpected results. The specification is not a comparison to the closest (ie, applied) prior art. Given that the reactor parameters (and presumably feed) are constant in runs 1-4, it is not understood why there is any difference at all. Did applicant change how the distillation of the oil product was done? The arguments concerning Solbakken are not persuasive for the same reasons.
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 STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736