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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment and reply filed 6/27/2025.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending.
Previous rejections of claims under 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks. New rejections are provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/27 have been considered and are persuasive with respect to the application of the secondary reference to Marker. New rejections are provided below in view of Ward.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the crude oil distillation unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by or alternatively 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2019/0161683).
With respect to claims 13-15, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein processing the plastic to produce pyrolysis oil includes an extruder to produce an extruder effluent (0040); removing chlorine (0034-0039); catalytic cracking in a fluidized bed or fixed bed reactor (0031-0033) comprising a ZSM-5 catalyst (0060) under reaction conditions sufficient to crack at least some hydrocarbons of the thermally cracked and/or partially thermally cracked plastic (0031-0033). The pyrolysis oil is subject to hydroprocessing, in a first hydroprocessing unit (0056-57). The first hydroprocessing unit may further include a fluid catalytic cracking unit. Additionally, the hydroprocessed effluent may be subject to downstream steam cracking and/or downstream second stage hydroprocessing which may be a fluid catalytic cracking unit operating in hydropyrolysis mode (0056-0057) in the presence of a catalyst (0060) under reaction conditions sufficient to produce a product stream comprising one or more aromatics.
With respect to claim 16, Narayanaswamy shows in example 3 hydrotreating to produce an effluent having 0.01 ppmw chloride (0128).
With respect to claim 17, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein the catalyst may be CoMo,NiMo, CoNiMo, NiW, NiWMo, or combination on alumina or silica or aluminosilicates, or CoMo, NiMo, CoNiMo, NiW, NiWMo or combinations on alumina or silica or aluminosilicates or zeolite Y, USY, ZSM-5, ZSM-11 (0058-0060).
With respect to claim 19, Narayanaswamy teaches catalytic cracking in a fluidized bed or fixed bed reactor (0031-0033) comprising a ZSM-5 catalyst (0060)
Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2019/0161683) in view of Ward (US 2016/0362609).
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 14, Narayanaswamy teaches a process comprising: extruding the plastics and producing pyrolysis oil from plastics comprising a thermally cracked and/or partially thermally cracked plastic in a fixed bed fluid catalytic cracking unit under reaction conditions sufficient to crack at least some hydrocarbons of the thermally cracked and/or partially thermally cracked plastic (0031-0033), remove at least some of chlorine from the thermally cracked and/or partially thermally cracked plastic (0034-0039), and produce a pyrolysis oil stream comprising pyrolysis oil (0043); hydroprocessing, in a first hydroprocessing unit, a hydrocarbon stream comprising (0056-57): (1) a pyrolysis oil obtained from a plastic (2) optionally mixed with a hydrocarbon recycle stream or hydrocarbon containing sulfur (0062; 0080; 0109); treating one portion of the hydroprocessed effluent in a steam cracking reactor and treating another portion of the hydroprocessed effluent in a second hydroprocessing unit which may be a fluid catalytic cracking unit operating in hydropyrolysis mode (0056-0057) in the presence of a catalyst (0060) under reaction conditions sufficient to produce a product stream comprising one or more aromatics. Narayanaswamy is silent regarding wherein a hydrocarbon stream from a crude oil distillation unit is hydroprocessed with the pyrolysis oil.
Ward teaches coprocessing pyrolysis oil and atmospheric residue from a crude oil distillation unit in a hydroprocessing reactor to upgrade both the residue and the pyrolysis oil, increasing valuable product while providing improved operation with respect to hydroprocessing each of the residue and the pyrolysis oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to blend atmospheric or vacuum residue with the pyrolysis oil prior to upgrading in the hydroprocessing unit to increase the valuable products.
With respect to claim 18, where an atmospheric or vacuum distillation column were used to produce a co feed as taught in Ward, it is expected that a condensate and naphtha would also be produced from the distillation unit.
With respect to claim 2, Ward teaches that the distillate and pyrolysis oil may also be fed to an FCC unit or coker to produce valuable petrochemicals including olefins and BTX aromatics (0042). Ward teaches wherein the petroleum stream contains significant metals (0058) which need to be reduced. Thus, where the streams are sent to an FCC unit as taught in Ward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to subject the crude fraction to hydrotreating to remove at least metals prior to combining with pyrolysis oil and subject to FCC.
With respect to claim 3, Ward teaches wherein the crude oil fraction may be atmospheric or vacuum residue (0037).
With respect to claims 4-6, 15, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein the hydroprocessing comprises low pressure hydrocracking and/or hydrotreating (0067) such as less than 100 barg (0067).
With respect to claims 7-8, 17, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein the catalyst may be hydrotreating or hydrocracking catalyst including CoMo,NiMo, CoNiMo, NiW, NiWMo, or combination on alumina or silica or aluminosilicates, and the hydrocracking catalyst comprises CoMo, NiMo, CoNiMo, NiW, NiWMo or combinations on alumina or silica or aluminosilicates or zeolites such Y, USY, ZSM-5, ZSM-11 (0058-0060).
With respect to claim 10, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein processing the plastic to produce pyrolysis oil includes an extruder to produce an extruder effluent (0040); removing chlorine (0034-0039); catalytic cracking in a fluidized bed or fixed bed reactor (0031-0033) comprising a ZSM-5 catalyst (0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the order of operations including removing chlorine prior to extruding as one of a limited number of options.
With respect to claim 12, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein the fluid catalytic cracking unit is operated under hydropyrolysis conditions (0056).
With respect to claim 16, Narayanaswamy shows in example 3 hydrotreating to produce an effluent having 0.01 ppmw chloride (0128).
With respect to claim 19, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein processing the plastic to produce pyrolysis oil includes catalytic cracking in a fluidized bed or fixed bed reactor (0031-0033) comprising a ZSM-5 catalyst (0060).
With respect to claim 20, Narayanaswamy teaches wherein processing the plastic to produce pyrolysis oil includes an extruder to produce an extruder effluent (0040); removing chlorine (0034-0039); among others. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the order of operations including removing chlorine prior to extruding as one of a limited number of options.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2019/0161683) in view of Marker (US 2008/0035528) as applied to claims 1-10 and 12-20, further in view of Javeed (WO 2018/025103).
With respect to claim 11, the art is silent regarding wherein the chlorine removing step is conducted via density based separation and solvent system. Javeed teaches a process for dichlorination of plastics pyrolysis oils using stripping and scrubbing with a solvent (0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilizes known dichlorination steps of Javeed for treating the plastic pyrolysis oil of Narayanaswamy to achieve a low chlorine hydrocarbon for downstream treatment.
Conclusion
Additional art made of record:
Narayanaswamy (US 20180002609). Narayanaswamy teaches an integrated process comprising (Figures 1- 2) extruding and catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastic to crack the hydrocarbons and remove a portion of chlorine (0020), hydrocracking the pyrolysis liquid (0024), and fluid catalytic cracking a portion of the hydrocracked effluent (0025-0027) and/or steam cracking a portion of the hydrocracked effluent to produce light olefins and aromatics (0028). Narayanaswamy teaches wherein the hydrocraking catalyst is may be cobalt-molybdenum Co—Mo oxides, nickel-molybdenum Ni—Mo oxides or tungsten-molybdenum W—Mo oxides on alumina substrate or metal loaded zeolites (0023). Narayanaswamy teaches pyrolysis using known methods such as US 8,895,790 (0020), and US 8,895,790 recites pyrolysis using ZSM-5 catalyst (abstract).
Timken (US 20240076555) (provisional filed 3/30/2020). Timken teaches a process for upgrading pyrolysis oil derived from waste plastics in a traditional FCC unit. Timken teaches extruding plastic, subjecting to treatment to produce pyrolysis oil, subjecting the pyrolysis oil to an upgrading unit such as hydroprocessing, and then sending the hydroprocessed effluent to a traditional FCC unit co-fed with a traditional petroleum refinery fraction.
Conclusion
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 Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771