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, 2, and 4-16 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled.
The amendments to the drawings overcome the previous drawing objections. The amendments to the claims overcome the previous 112(b) rejections and claim objections.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under USC 103 over Ullom have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the catalyst of Ullom in the desulfurization step is a heteroatom scavenger, thus the mechanism of the sulfur removal in Ullom is different than the claimed devulcanization in the presence of hydrogen and Ullom does not teach the claimed devulcanization, is persuasive.
The Examiner contacted the attorney to discuss an Examiner’s Amendment combining the limitations of claim 5 into claim 1 and making formal amendments to place the application in condition for allowance. Unfortunately, agreement was not able to be reached between all parties in the time allotted.
Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly presented prior art. The action below has been made Non-Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites “the plasmix”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis and should be amended to recite “the waste plastic”.
With regard to claim 12, the claim recites “The process of claim 11, wherein methanol is converted”. However, claim 11 already recites that methanol is produced. Thus, the claim should recite “wherein the methanol is converted” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 6-9 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 6, the claim recites “conventional-type waste plastic”. The term “conventional-type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional-type” 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, there are many types of waste plastic known in the art, and the term in and of itself is well understood in the art. Thus, the Examiner suggests that removing the phrase “conventional-type” and just reciting waste plastic is supported and is sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claims 7-9, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113).
With regard to claim 1, Alpert teaches a method for hydroconversion of waste rubbers (column 1, lines 3-4) comprising the following steps:
a) grinding rubber tires (scrap tires) and removing metals (inorganic material) to produce a particulate (ground) rubber (column 9, claim 12).
b) preheating the particulate (ground) rubber with a liquid hydrocarbon at a temperature of 500 to 800°F (260-427°C) (column 9, claim 12).
c) passing the preheated rubber and liquid hydrocarbon along with hydrogen to a reaction zone operating at a temperature of 700-850°F (371 to 454°C), a pressure of 500 to 3000 psi (34 to 207 bar) (column 9, claim 12), and in the presence of a catalyst comprising molybdenum oxide and/or cobalt oxide on alumina (column 4, lines 20-23). The ranges of 371-454°C and 34 to 207 bar overlap ranges of 300-400°C and 10-150 bar of instant claim 1, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. Alpert further teaches the reactor comprises an ebullated bed (heterogeneous moving bed reactor) (column 5, line 68).
d) withdrawing products from the reaction zone (column 9, claim 12) where the products include methane, ethane, and propane (products of commercial value which are paraffins) (column 6, lines 20-24) and H2S (column 4, lines 44-45).
Alpert does not specifically teach i) that the heating step produces a molten material, ii) that the reaction zone comprises devulcanization according to reaction R1 to produce desulfurized hydrocarbons and H2S, iii) splitting the H2S produced in the devulcanization to produce hydrogen and elemental sulfur according to reaction R3, or iv) recycling the hydrogen produced in the splitting to the devulcanization step.
With regard to the molten material i), Alpert teaches heating at temperatures of 260-427°C (column 9, claim 12). The instant specification recites that the melting of the scrap tires to form the molten material takes place at temperatures preferably above 250°C (page 8, lines 13-14). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the heating of Alpert performed on the same waste tires and at the same temperature of above 250°C would also produce a molten material, as claimed.
With regard to the devulcanization ii), Alpert teaches that the purpose of the reaction includes desulfurizing the polymers which are cross-linked by sulfur in a vulcanization step (column 3, line 13), that the reaction takes place in the presence of hydrogen (column 4, line 16), and that the reaction produces H2S (column 4, lines 43-44). Therefore, because Alpert teaches a similar melted waste tire feed reacting at a similar temperature and pressure and in the presence of hydrogen and a similar catalyst to produce a product which comprises H2S, and because the reaction of Albert is stated as having a similar purpose of removing sulfur from vulcanization, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the desulfurization of Alpert is a devulcanization process according to reaction R1, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to H2S splitting iii) and hydrogen recycling to devulcanization iv), Lupton teaches a process for recovering hydrogen from hydrogen sulfide (Abstract) comprising providing hydrogen sulfide to an electrochemical cell and producing gaseous hydrogen (H2) and elemental sulphur (paragraph [0004]). While Lupton does not specifically teach that the reaction proceeds according to reaction R3, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that splitting hydrogen sulfide to produce elemental sulfur and gaseous hydrogen is necessarily going to follow reaction R3, absent any evidence to the contrary. Lupton additionally teaches recycling the hydrogen back to a hydrotreatment process which removes sulfur from hydrocarbons (paragraph [0014]) and Lupton further teaches that the production of hydrogen from hydrogen sulfide has lower greenhouse gas emissions than steam methane reforming and thus is environmentally friendly (paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the steps of splitting the hydrogen sulfide into hydrogen and sulfur and recycling the hydrogen to the reaction step of Alpert, because each of Alpert and Lupton teaches hydroprocessing a feed to remove sulfur and produce hydrogen sulfide, and Lupton teaches that splitting the hydrogen sulfide into hydrogen and sulfur and recycling the hydrogen to the hydroprocessing step reduces the need for new hydrogen produced by steam methane reforming, where steam methane reforming is a less environmentally friendly process than H2S splitting (paragraphs [0003] and [0014]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McFarlane et al. (US 2006/0116431, cited on IDS of 8/15/2023).
With regard to claim 2, Alpert teaches the method above, which comprises both desulfurization (devulcanization) and conversion in the reactor zone at temperatures of 700-850°F (371-454°C).
Alpert fails to teach the desulfurization can be carried out at temperatures of 300-350°C.
McFarlane teaches a method for catalytic devulcanization of rubber (paragraph [0001]). McFarlane further teaches that higher temperatures result in cracking as compared to devulcanization at lower temperatures, where the temperature is tested from 25-475°C (paragraph [0054] and Fig. 1). Thus, McFarlane teaches the temperature is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized to provide the best balance between cracking and devulcanization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention use a temperature of between 300-350°C for the desulfurization (devulcanization), as claimed, since 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)
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2021/0071093) and Ullom (US 2016/0024390).
With regard to claim 6, Alpert teaches the method above, which comprises conversion of tires (column 9, claim 12).
Alpert does not specifically teach i) adding plastic to the tires for conversion, ii) a dechlorination step, or iii) that the dechlorination step is after the melting and before the devulcanizing.
With regard to i), Taylor teaches a method for purification of hydrocarbons comprising pyrolysis of tires and plastics together to yield of hydrocarbon liquid (Abstract). Taylor further teaches that end of life materials such as tires and plastics are known to be pyrolyzed together to produce hydrocarbons which have a superficial similarity to diesel fuel and a char material similar to carbon black (paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to convert both plastics and tires in the process of Alpert, because Alpert and Taylor both teach conversion of tires to hydrocarbons, Alpert is silent regarding plastics, and Taylor teaches that plastics are known to also be converted with tires to similar products (paragraph [0009]).
With regard to ii), Ullom teaches a process for conversion of polymeric waste (paragraph [0001]) including both plastics and tires (paragraph [0034]). Ullom further teaches the process comprises melting in Zone 3, heteroatom scavenging in Zone 4, and pyrolysis in Zone 5 ( Figure 1). Ullom further teaches that the heteroatom scavenging in Zone 4 includes dechlorination to produce hydrochloric acid (paragraph [0035]). The dechlorination reaction is understood to proceed by reaction R5 as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a step of dechlorination to the process of Alpert in view of Taylor, because Ullom teaches that when the feed comprises both plastics and tires, the process includes a dechlorination step proceeding by reaction R5.
With regard to iii), Ullom teaches that the dechlorination is downstream of the melting (Figure 1). Ullom does not specifically teach the placement of the dechlorination step relative to the desulfurization (devulcanization) step. However, because Ullom teaches that the dechlorination takes place before the conversion of the feed to hydrocarbon oils in Zone 5, and Alpert teaches that the desulfurization (devulcanization) and conversion take place in the same zone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the dechlorination step upstream of the devulcanization/conversion step, as taught by Ullom and as claimed.
With regard to claim 7, Ullom teaches the dechlorination takes place at a temperature of 572-690°F (300-365°C) (paragraph [0075]), which overlaps the range of 300-350°C of instant claim 7, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Ullom also teaches a residence time of not less than 30 minutes (paragraph [0075]), which is within the range of higher than 3 minutes of instant claim 7.
With regard to claim 8, Ullom teaches the feed to the melting step includes the plastics with the tires (paragraph [0034]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113), Taylor (US 2021/0071093), and Ullom (US 2016/0024390) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Marion et al. (US 2013/0149767).
With regard to claim 9, Alpert in view of Lupton, Taylor, and Ullom teaches the process comprising dechlorination to produce hydrochloric acid above.
Alpert in view of Lupton, Taylor, and Ullom fails to teach ii) electrolyzing the HCl to obtain hydrogen and Cl2, or ii) recycling the hydrogen to devulcanization step c).
With regard to i) and ii), Marion teaches electrolysis of hydrochloric acid to produce hydrogen (page 13, claim 4). Marion further teaches that the hydrogen is produced from non-fossil resources (paragraph [0001]) and that the use of non-fossil hydrogen sources allows for reducing undesirable CO2 emissions (paragraph [0027]). Marion further teaches using the produced hydrogen in processes for conversion of renewable feedstocks to hydrocarbon liquids (paragraph [0024]) where the renewable feedstocks include plastics (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use electrolysis to convert the hydrochloric acid from the dechlorination into hydrogen and use the hydrogen in the desulfurization (devulcanization) process of Alpert in view of Ullom, because Alpert and Marion each teach use of hydrogen in converting renewable feedstocks to hydrocarbons, Alpert is silent regarding the source of the hydrogen, Ullom teaches producing hydrogen chloride, and Marion teaches that electrolysis of hydrogen chloride provides non-fossil hydrogen which reduces CO2 emissions and can be used in similar conversion of renewable feedstocks to hydrocarbons processes (paragraphs [0024] and [0027]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schingnitz et al. (US 5,550,312), Norbeck et al. (US 2008/0021121), Tio et al. (US 2007/0140954) and Erkiaga, et al. (HDPE pyrolysis-steam reforming in a tandem spouted bed-fixed bed reactor for H₂ production).
With regard to claim 10, Alpert in view of Lupton teaches the method above. Alpert teaches the process comprises desulfurization (step c) and conversion (step d) in a hydrogen atmosphere (column 4, lines 16-18). Alpert further teaches that the product comprises saturated hydrocarbons including methane, ethane, and propane (column 6, lines 20-24). While Alpert does not explicitly teach that the conversion proceeds by reaction R7, because Alpert teaches the same desulfurized (devulcanized) tires and the same hydrogen being present, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the reaction to include the same hydrogenation R7, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Alpert fails to teach i) gasification of a portion of the product of step c) to produce syngas by reaction R6, ii) methane steam reforming by reaction R4, iii) the gasification and steam reforming processes being in a plant comprising tube bundles comprising catalysts and two distinct reactive units, or iv) that the gasification provides energy support for the reforming by reaction R9
With regard to i), Schingnitz teaches a method for conversion of waste materials to clean gas (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing waste materials including tires (column 3, line 3) to a pyrolysis reactor to produce a product pyrolysis gas comprising hydrocarbons (column 3, lines 5-10 and column 6, line 51); and
b) passing the pyrolysis gas comprising hydrocarbons and water vapor (column 6, line 61) to a gasification reactor to produce a product gas comprising CO and H2 (column 3, lines 17-23) which is syngas (column 1, line 67). Thus, reaction R6 has taken place, as claimed.
Schingnitz further teaches that while gasification of waste material provides a desirable clean gas product which can be used as fuel gas and synthesis gas (column 1, lines 57-67), gasification and pyrolysis individually have issues when converting waste materials, such as the need for flowing materials in gasification and the production of weak gas which needs to be purified for pyrolysis (column 2, lines 1-3 and 18-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of gasification to produce synthesis gas as taught by Schingnitz to the method of Alpert, because each of Alpert and Schingnitz teaches producing products from tires by conversion into a product comprising gas and liquid hydrocarbons, and Schingnitz teaches that adding a step of gasification of the gas allows for the production of a clean gas which is useful as synthesis gas and which does not require purification (column 1, lines 55-67).
With regard to ii), Norbeck teaches a method for producing syngas from a feedstock comprising natural or synthetic polymer material (paragraph [0007]). Norbeck teaches that the material is gasified in a gasification system, followed by steam reforming of the product gases including methane to produce further hydrogen and carbon monoxide (paragraph [0022]) in accordance with R4 (paragraph [0016]). Norbeck further teaches that the combination of gasification and steam reforming provides control of the H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas (paragraph [0018]) which is useful to provide desired products (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of methane steam reforming to the process of Alpert in view of Schingnitz, because Alpert in view of Schingnitz and Norbeck each teach gasification of polymer based feedstocks to produce synthesis gas, and Norbeck teaches that adding the step of methane reforming provides control of the H2/CO ratio in the synthesis gas (paragraph [0018]) which is useful to provide desired products (paragraph [0013]).
With regard to iii), Norbeck further teaches that the gasification and steam reforming are performed in physically distinct units comprising a gasification unit and a reforming unit (FIG. 1 HGR and SMR). Norbeck teaches that the reforming portion of the plant uses a catalyst (paragraph [0033]), but does not specifically teach that the catalyst is provided in a tube bundle.
Tio teaches a method comprising steam reforming with a nickel catalyst (paragraph [0025]). Tio teaches that it is well known and conventional in the art to use tube bundles for the reactor in steam reforming using this type of catalyst (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the tube bundles of Tio in the process of Norbeck, because each of Norbeck and Tio teaches steam reforming in the presence of a catalyst, Norbeck is silent regarding the tube bundles, and Tio teaches that catalyst tube bundles for steam reforming are known and conventional in the art (paragraph [0015]).
With regard to iv), Erkiaga teaches a system for gasification and steam reforming of polymers (Abstract). Erkiaga teaches that addition of oxygen into the gasification provides energy efficiency by increasing the temperature during gasification, which is maintained during reforming (page 38, second column, second full paragraph starting "Operability and flexibility...").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add oxygen to the gasification by reaction R9 to provide energy support for the reforming portion, because Norbeck and Erkiaga each teach gasification in combination with steam reforming of polymeric materials, and Erkiaga teaches that adding oxygen to the gasification provides greater energy efficiency for the process (page 38, second column, second full paragraph).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schingnitz et al. (US 5,550,312) and Lynch et al. (US 2023/0406805).
With regard to claims 11-13, Alpert in view of Lupton teaches the method above.
Alpert fails to teach i) producing syngas as a product in step d) or ii) converting the syngas to acetic acid using the claimed reactions.
With regard to i), Schingnitz teaches a method for conversion of waste materials to clean gas (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing waste materials including tires (column 3, line 3) to a pyrolysis reactor to produce a product pyrolysis gas (column 3, lines 5-10); and
b) passing the pyrolysis gas to a gasification reactor to produce a product gas comprising CO and H2 (column 3, lines 17-23) which is syngas (column 1, line 67).
Schingnitz further teaches that while gasification of waste material provides a desirable clean gas product which can be used as fuel gas and synthesis gas (column 1, lines 57-67), gasification and pyrolysis individually have issues when converting waste materials, such as the need for flowing materials in gasification and the production of weak gas which needs to be purified for pyrolysis (column 2, lines 1-3 and 18-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of gasification to produce synthesis gas as taught by Schingnitz to the method of Alpert, because each of Alpert and Schingnitz teaches producing products from tires by conversion into a product comprising gas and liquid hydrocarbons, and Schingnitz teaches that adding a step of gasification of the gas allows for the production of a clean gas which is useful as synthesis gas and which does not require purification (column 1, lines 55-67).
With regard to ii), Lynch teaches conversion of syngas from gasification of carbonaceous materials to acetic acid (Abstract), comprising the following reactions (paragraph [0076]):
PNG
media_image1.png
119
253
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Lynch, the syngas is converted to methanol by reaction R11, the methanol is converted to dimethyl ether by reaction R12, and the dimethyl ether is converted through the last two reactions to acetic acid, similar to reaction R13 (instant claims 11-13). While Lynch teaches intermediate conversion steps not shown in reaction R13, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reaction R13 does not necessarily show all intermediates produced or intermediate reactions taking place, or exclude such reactions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the last two reactions of Lynch above function as rection R13, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Lynch further teaches that acetic acid is an important component for synthesis of acrylic acid (paragraph [0109]), where acrylic acid is a valuable industry product (paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the process of Lynch to convert the syngas of Alpert in view of Schingnitz to acetic acid, because Alpert in view of Schingnitz teaches the production of synthesis gas and Lynch teaches acetic acid is a desirable intermediate in producing valuable acrylic acid (paragraph [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Lele et al. (Assessment of the impact of reactor residence time distribution, provided by Examiner 8/27/2025).
With regard to claim 14, Alpert teaches that the desulfurization and conversion (steps c and d) take place under hydrogen atmosphere (column 4, lines 16-20). Thus, the reaction takes place in the absence of oxygen, as claimed. Alpert further teaches the temperature is 700 to 850°F (371 to 454°C), which overlaps the range of 410-500°C of instant claim 14, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Alpert is silent regarding the residence time.
Lele teaches a process for pyrolysis (Abstract). Lele further teaches that it is known that the average flow residence time governs the overall progress of the process and the products (page 127327, Introduction, first paragraph). Thus, the residence time is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the residence time to a time of 5 to 20 minutes in order to produce the desired product of mainly low boiling hydrocarbons, 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as evidenced by Lele et al. (Assessment of the impact of reactor residence time distribution) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tucker (US 2014/0301934).
With regard to claim 15, Alpert as evidenced by Lele teaches the method above.
Alpert does not specifically teach the conversion reaction takes place in a tubular reactor with multiple multipass tubes.
Tucker teaches pyrolysis of tires (paragraph [0057]) where the pyrolysis includes a tubular reactor (paragraph [0062]) with multiple multipass tubes (paragraph [0079]). Thus, Tucker teaches that a tubular reactor with multiple multipass tubes is suitable for pyrolysis of tires as in Ullom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the reactor of Tucker in the process of Alpert, because each of Alpert and Tucker teach conversion of tires in a reactor, Alpert is silent regarding the specific arrangement of the reactor, and Tucker teaches that a tubular reactor with multiple multipass tubes is known and suitable for pyrolysis of tires.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schingnitz et al. (US 5,550,312) and Bell et al. (US 4,423,155).
With regard to claim 16, Alpert in view of Lupton teaches the method above.
Alpert fails to teach i) producing syngas as a product in step d) or ii) converting the syngas directly to dimethyl ether.
With regard to i), Schingnitz teaches a method for conversion of waste materials to clean gas (Abstract) comprising the following steps:
a) providing waste materials including tires (column 3, line 3) to a pyrolysis reactor to produce a product pyrolysis gas (column 3, lines 5-10); and
b) passing the pyrolysis gas to a gasification reactor to produce a product gas comprising CO and H2 (column 3, lines 17-23) which is syngas (column 1, line 67).
Schingnitz further teaches that while gasification of waste material provides a desirable clean gas product which can be used as fuel gas and synthesis gas (column 1, lines 57-67), gasification and pyrolysis individually have issues when converting waste materials, such as the need for flowing materials in gasification and the production of weak gas which needs to be purified for pyrolysis (column 2, lines 1-3 and 18-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of gasification to produce synthesis gas as taught by Schingnitz to the method of Alpert, because each of Alpert and Schingnitz teaches producing products from tires by conversion into a product comprising gas and liquid hydrocarbons, and Schingnitz teaches that adding a step of gasification of the gas allows for the production of a clean gas which is useful as synthesis gas and which does not require purification (column 1, lines 55-67).
With regard to ii), Bell teaches a process for synthesis of dimethyl ether from syngas (column 1, lines 6-8). Bell teaches the process comprises direct conversion of syngas to dimethyl ether (column 2, lines 30-31) and that a principal advantage to be gained in producing dimethyl ether (DME) directly from syngas is that DME can be readily converted to gasoline range hydrocarbons (column 1, lines 44-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of direct conversion of synthesis gas to dimethyl ether to the process of Alpert in view of Schingnitz, because Alpert in view of Schingnitz teaches gasification of the conversion product to produce a synthesis gas, Bell teaches direct conversion of synthesis gas to dimethyl ether, and teaches that DME is useful for conversion to gasoline range hydrocarbons, which are a desirable product (column 1, lines 44-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Alpert (US 3,704,108) in view of Lupton et al. (US 2022/0205113) and Guzman-Bofill et al. (4,336,063).
With regard to claim 4, the claim recites that the H2S splitting is thermal and that the splitting takes place in an oven comprising a radiant zone, a convection zone, a first series of tubes through which methane and water flows and a second series of tubes through which hydrogen sulfide flows, where the first series of tubes comprises a catalyst and the second series of tubes is made of material resistant to acidic gases
Alpert in view of Lupton teaches H2S splitting, but is silent regarding the oven.
Guzman-Bofill et al. teaches (see column 3, line 13 - column 4, line 60; figure 1) a furnace comprising a radiant chamber (see section 32 on figure 1) and a convection chamber (see parts 34 and 82 on figure 1), wherein
-the radiant chamber is provided with a first bundle of catalyst-packed reforming tubes (first series of tubes), said tubes being fed with a first process flow of preheated natural gas (methane) and steam (water) through a furnace inlet pipe located in the radiant zone. The reformed gas leaves the furnace via an outlet pipe also located in the furnace's radiant zone (58)
- the convection chamber (34 + 82) is provided with a second series of pipes (heating tubes 81), said tubes being fed with a second process flow of reducing gas from the iron ore reducing furnace supplemented with make-up synthesis gas through a furnace inlet pipe. The second series of pipes (81) in the convection chamber (82) are in contact with combustion flue gas which contain acid gases and in particular carbon dioxide (said gases circulate externally to the pipes), they are thus made of a material resistant to acid gases.
However, while Guzman-Bofill teaches the oven comprising methane reforming in a first series of tubes comprising a catalyst and a second series of acidic gas resistant tubes, Guzman-Bofill does not teach or suggest that the second set of tubes is suitable for H2S splitting. Thus, there is no motivation to perform the H2S splitting of Lupton in the furnace (oven) of Guzman-Bofill, and the claim includes allowable subject matter.
With regard to claim 5, the claim recites that the H2S splitting is catalytic and that the splitting takes place in an oven comprising a radiant zone, a convection zone, a first series of tubes through which methane and water flows and a second series of tubes through which hydrogen sulfide flows, wherein the second series of tubes comprises a catalyst and is made of material resistant to acidic gases
Alpert in view of Lupton teaches H2S splitting, but is silent regarding the oven.
Guzman-Bofill et al. teaches (see column 3, line 13 - column 4, line 60; figure 1) a furnace comprising a radiant chamber (see section 32 on figure 1) and a convection chamber (see parts 34 and 82 on figure 1), wherein
-the radiant chamber is provided with a first bundle of catalyst-packed reforming tubes (first series of tubes), said tubes being fed with a first process flow of preheated natural gas (methane) and steam (water) through a furnace inlet pipe located in the radiant zone. The reformed gas leaves the furnace via an outlet pipe also located in the furnace's radiant zone (58)
- the convection chamber (34 + 82) is provided with a second series of pipes (heating tubes 81), said tubes being fed with a second process flow of reducing gas from the iron ore reducing furnace supplemented with make-up synthesis gas through a furnace inlet pipe. The second series of pipes (81) in the convection chamber (82) are in contact with combustion flue gas which contain acid gases and in particular carbon dioxide (said gases circulate externally to the pipes), they are thus made of a material resistant to acid gases.
However, while Guzman-Bofill teaches the oven comprising methane reforming in a first series of tubes comprising a catalyst and a second series of acidic gas resistant tubes, Guzman-Bofill does not teach or suggest that the second set of tubes is suitable for H2S splitting or that the second set of tubes comprises a catalyst. Thus, there is no motivation to perform catalytic H2S splitting in the furnace (oven) of Guzman-Bofill, and the claim includes allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772