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 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement. Claims 7, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that the parameters of the gasification including pressure, temperature, residence time and the process steps including rapid cooling and hot filtering all provide technical advantages to the process and the yield of propylene.
In response, the Examiner respectfully notes that the arguments are mere assertion. Applicant has not provided any evidence that any parameter or combination of parameters provides criticality or unexpected results to the claimed process. Thus, the obviousness rejections continue to be maintained for the parameters and steps as explained in the rejection below.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Uppili does not teach the rapid cooling after gasification, only teaching that the effluent is cooled to stop the reaction after removing solids.
In response, Uppili does teach cooling to below 500°C right after gasification (paragraph [0033]). Uppili does not specify the time period, but one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the time of cooling affects how quickly the gasification reaction is stopped. Thus, the time period is optimizable, absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results. As above, Applicant has not provided any evidence, thus, the optimization rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Uppili only teaches a range of 300-400°C for stopping the reaction, unlike the claimed 400-600°C, which it is argued prevents the risks of higher deposition of solids.
In response, Uppili does teach that the range of 300-400°C is for stopping the reaction (paragraph [0037]). However, this range touches the claimed range, and thus renders the claimed range obvious. Also, Applicant has still not provided any evidence that the cooling temperature of Uppili is unsuitable. As such, Uppili continues to render obvious the cooling step.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that Uppili does not teach the presence of the hot filter after cooling, but only after solids removal which is before cooling.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out in the rejection, Uppili explicitly teaches that the filters can be present “downstream of one or more other stages” than just the separation stage 170 including the cyclone (paragraph [0063]).. The “other stages” include cooling (paragraph [0063]). Thus, Uppili renders obvious the concept of filtering after cooling, as claimed.
Applicant argues with regard to the secondary reference Davydov that Davydov does not cure the deficiencies of Uppili.
In response, as Davydov is only used for dependent claims 2 and 3 to teach the bubbling bed gasifier is known for similar reactions, the argument that Davydov does not teach the process in claim 1 is moot.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the argument that Uppili is silent regarding the pressure of the reactor has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection over only Uppili has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendment to add the pressure. Uppili continues to teach the process other than the pressure and Wu is added to teach the pressure of a steam pyrolysis reactor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6 and 8 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “under an atmospheric pressure or close the atmospheric pressure”. The phrase “close the atmospheric pressure” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, while the specification does not define the limits of what is “close” to the atmospheric pressure, the specification does follow the phrasing with a recitation that in one embodiment the pressure can be “below 4 bar” as the broadest range (page 6, lines 33-34). As such, the Examiner suggests either deleting “close the atmospheric pressure” or replacing the entire phrase of “under an atmospheric pressure or close the atmospheric pressure” with “at a pressure of below 4 bar” to correct the issue. The Examiner also notes that “close the atmospheric pressure” is also a typographical error of the specification’s recitation of “close atmospheric pressure”.
With regard to claims 2-6 and 8, the claims 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 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (WO 2020/252228) in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0396736).
With regard to claims 1, 4-6, and 8, Uppili teaches a method for conversion of plastics to hydrocarbons (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps:
a) feeding a plastic feed comprising polyolefins and other polymers (instant claim 8) (paragraph [0025]) and diluent steam to a fluidized bed reactor at a temperature of 500-900°C and a residence time of 0.1 to 5 seconds (paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). The range of 500-900°C encompasses the range of 680-740°C of instant claim 1 and the range of 700-730°C of instant claim 4, and the range of 0.1 to 5 seconds overlaps the ranges of less than 4 seconds of instant claim 1, less than 3 seconds of instant claim 5, and 2-3 seconds of instant claim 6, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. Uppili further teaches the product from the reactor includes ethylene, propylene, butadiene, other olefins (paragraph [0040]) and aromatics (paragraph [0037]).
Uppili does not use the term “gasification” to describe the reaction taking place in the reactor. However, as Uppili teaches a similar plastic feed comprising polyolefins and reacting at similar temperature and time with steam and in a similar fluidized bed reactor to produce a similar product, one of ordinary skill in the art expects that the reaction taking place in Uppili includes the claimed gasification reaction, absent evidence to the contrary.
b) cooling the pyrolysis effluent to below 500°C at the end of the reaction time (paragraph [0033]) where the cooling helps to stop the reaction (paragraph [0037]). The cooling produces a cooled product mixture. The range of below 500°C overlaps the range of 400-600°C of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
c) a filtration step to remove fine particles (claimed solid components) from vapor, where the filtration step can be located downstream from the separation stage or downstream from one or more other stages, wherein the other stages include the cooling stage (paragraph [0063]).
Uppili teaches that the inclusion of steam increases the yield of ethylene and propylene from the process (paragraph [0034]).
Uppili does not specifically teach i) the pressure of the gasification; ii) the time period of the cooling; iii) the filtration is located after the cooling step; or iv) that the filter is a hot gas filter.
With regard to i) the pressure, Wu teaches a pyrolysis reaction of plastics in the presence of steam (Abstract). Wu further teaches that the reactor is a fluidized bed reactor (paragraph [0173]) and conditions include temperatures of 500-1100°C (paragraph [0185]), residence time of at least 1 second to 30 minutes (paragraph [0186]), and pressure of about atmospheric pressure (paragraph [0187]). The temperature and residence time of Wu overlap the temperature and residence time of Uppili and as claimed, and the pressure of Wu overlaps the claimed atmospheric pressure, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the pressure of Wu in the process of Uppili, because each of Uppili and Wu teach steam pyrolysis (claimed gasification) of plastics in a fluidized bed reactor at similar temperature and residence time conditions, Uppili is silent regarding the pressure, and Wu teaches that about atmospheric pressure is a suitable pressure for the pyrolysis process.
With regard to ii) the time period, the time period of the cooling step affects how quickly the reaction stops. Thus, the time for the cooling step is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a time period of the cooling step of below 2 seconds, as claimed, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to iii) the filtration located after the cooling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place a filter after the cooling, as claimed, because Uppili teaches filtering and that the filtering can be located after separation or after one or more other stage of the process, where the other stages include the cooling stage.
With regard to iv) the hot gas filter, Uppili teaches filtering the product vapor where the filtration can be located after cooling (paragraph [0063]) and that the cooling reduces the temperature to below 500°C which overlaps the claimed range of 400-600°C. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the filter of Uppili which is present in the same location and used on a vapor stream at a similar temperature is a hot gas filter, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppili et al. (WO 2020/252228) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davydov (US 2022/0010218).
With regard to claim 2, Uppili teaches the fluidized bed reactor (paragraph [0033]).
Uppili fails to teach the fluidized bed reactor is specifically a bubbling fluidized bed reactor.
Davydov teaches a process for producing olefins from polyolefins containing plastic (paragraph [0002]) in a fluidized bed reactor (paragraph [0019]). Davydov further teaches the fluidized bed reactor operates as a dense bubbling bed (paragraph [0027]) at a similar temperature of 600-1100°C (paragraph [0020]) and similar residence time of 0.5 to 30 seconds. Thus, Davydov teaches that it is known to convert plastics to olefins in a bubbling bed fluidized bed reactor when the temperature and residence time are similar to the temperature and residence time of Uppili.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a bubbling bed fluidized bed reactor in the process of Uppili because Uppili teaches conversion of plastics comprising polyolefins to a product comprising olefins in a fluidized bed reactor, but does not specifically teach the operating regime of the fluidized bed reactor, and Davydov teaches that it is known and suitable to convert polyolefins plastics to olefins at a similar temperature and residence time in a bubbling bed fluidized bed reactor.
With regard to claim 3, Uppili in view of Davydov does not specifically teach the yield of the propylene is at least 15 wt%. However, Uppili in view of Davydov teaches a similar gasification process in a similar bubbling bed reactor of a similar plastic feed comprising polyolefins and other polymers at a similar temperature, quenching at a similar temperature, and filtering, and producing a similar product comprising ethylene, propylene, butadiene, aromatics, and other hydrocarbons, as recited above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the process of Uppili provides a propylene yield of at least 15 wt%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
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