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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 14 July 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the non-patent literature documents identified as “C33” and “C34” could not be found in the file. It has been placed in the application file, but the noted references have not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, 24-26, 28-30, 33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 15, 17-20, 23, 24, and 31-33, the following limitations lack proper antecedent basis: “the vessel” (claim 1); “the contacting step” (claim 5); “the mixture” (claim 10); “the paper products” (claim 13); “the blending step” (claims 15 and 17); “the average particle size” (claim 18); “the mixture” (claim 19); “the thermal conversion reactor” (claim 19); “the thermally converted liquids” (claim 20); “the blended liquid product” (claims 20 and 23); “the vessel” (claim 24); “the uncondensable vapor stream” (claims 31 and 32); and “the thermal conversion reactor” (claim 33).
With respect to claims 29-31, the following limitations render the claims indefinite inasmuch as it is not at all clear what is meant by such language: “simplified fractions” (claims 29 and 31); “boiling fractions” (claim 30); and “compound classes” (claim 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, 24-26, 28-30, 33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guffey (US 5,753,086).
With respect to claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, 24-26, 28-30, 33, 35, and 36, Guffey discloses a method comprising: (a) pyrolyzing a solid polymeric waste material (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) by heating such material in the absence of oxygen to a temperature 375°C to 450°C (707°F to 842°F) for a duration of one hour and thermochemically converting the material into a first liquid product (see Guffey, Abstract; and Experiments 1-3); (b) separating the first liquid product from residual solids (see Guffey, columns 4 and 5); (c) separating a vapor stream (see Guffey, columns 4 and 5); and (d) condensing as least a portion of the vapor stream into a second liquid product (see Guffey, column 5). The polymeric waste material may be contacted with a liquid blending agent (petroleum derived material) prior to the pyrolyzing step, such blending agent remaining liquid at a temperature of 400°C (752°F) (see Guffey, column 3, lines 27-41). The waste material is reduced in size by mechanical chopper prior to contact with the blending agent (see Guffey, column 4, lines 31-34). The vapor separation step may include collection of acid products and recovery of condensable components (see Guffey, column 5, lines 47-64). The first liquid product may be recycled to the pyrolyzing step (see Guffey, column 5, lines 37-46).
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.
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 4-6, 10, 18, 19, 23, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (US 5,753,086).
With respect to claims 4-6, 10, 19, 23, 27, and 31, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. The first liquid and second liquid may be collected as products (see Guffey, column 5, lines 22-64) and/or used as fuel to provide heat for the process (see Guffey, column 9, lines 12-25). The waste stream may comprise individual or mixed plastics, including polyethylene and polypropylene (see Guffey, Experiments 1-3; and column 9, lines 1-3). The process may initiate at a temperature below 375°C (707°F) (see Guffey, column 3, lines 3-5), indicating the potential or desire for a preheating step. The person having ordinary skill in the art would know to make use of “pumps” to transfer pumpable liquid/slurry from one unit to another as such equipment is ubiquitous in the art for carrying out such purpose. The person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). The person having ordinary skill in the art would likewise be motivated to collect any effluent from the solids storage vessel as a means of maximizing product recovery. The various fractions collected may be separated/purified as used for different purposes (see Guffey, column 9, lines 12-25), such fractions known to contain octane boosting constituents including toluene and ethylbenzene (see Guffey, column 4, lines 16-19).
Claims 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (US 5,753,086) in view of Mastellone (US 2022/0204863).
With respect to claims 11-16 and 18, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. Guffey does not explicitly disclose wherein the plastic waste material comprises non-polymeric material such as paper. However, the person skilled in the art would readily recognize that a source of waste plastic such as municipal waste would contain some level of paper constituents (e.g., plastic packaging labels, stickers, etc.). In this regard, Mastellone discloses wherein such a waste material could be accommodated in a process such as disclosed by Guffey by sorting and drying the plastic waste material to a desired level of moisture (see Mastellone, paragraph [0078]). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Guffey to accommodate plastic waste material having some degree of paper constituents by washing, sorting, and drying the material to a desired level of moisture prior to the pyrolysis step, such modification making it possible to process waste material from a wider variety of sources, e.g. municipal wastes.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (US 5,753,086) in view of Miller (US 2003/0199718).
With respect to claims 20 and 21, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. Guffey discloses wherein the various fractionated products recovered may be used as “refinery stocks” (see Guffey, column 9, lines 12-15). In this regard, Miller discloses a process for processing plastic waste material wherein recovered products may be catalytically hydrotreated in a temperature range of 190°C to 340°C (374°F to 644°F) in order to remove nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen contaminants (see Miller, Abstract; and paragraph [0027]). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Guffey to incorporate a catalytic hydrotreating step as disclosed in Miller, such modification providing for recovery of a higher quality (lesser contaminated) product.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (US 5,753,086) in view of Miller (US 2003/0199718) and Miandad (R. Miandad et al., Effect of Plastic Waste Types on Pyrolysis Liquid Oil, 119 Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation 239-252 (2017)).
With respect to claim 22, see discussion supra at paragraph 18. Miandad discloses a process for the pyrolytic conversion of waste plastics into liquid oils, and indicates that various post-treatment methods could be used to produce a higher quality, lesser contaminated, product including blending it with other diesel and other fuels and/or refining to remove undesired fractions or impurities (see Miandad, Abstract; and page 250, left column, second paragraph).
Claims 32 and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (US 5,753,086) in view of Horlacher (US 11,473,017).
With respect to claims 32 and 34, see discussion supra at paragraph 9. Among the many recoverable products from plastics pyrolysis processes such as disclosed in Guffey are olefins and asphalt material or additives (see Horlacher, column 1, lines 53-58; and column 11, lines 36-38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771