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 .
Response to Amendment
Since a new Final Office Action is follows, applicant’s arguments will not be address.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 10–11, 13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abu-Omar et al. (US 2023/0279194 A1).
Abu-Omar teaches a method for depolymerizing hydrocarbon polymers including polyethylene and polypropylene by catalytic hydrogenolysis in the presence of hydrogen to produce lower molecular weight hydrocarbon products. Abu-Omar teaches polyethylene and polypropylene feedstocks (e.g., ¶¶[0021], [0036]), catalytic hydrogenolysis of hydrocarbon polymers (e.g., ¶¶[0112]-[0183]), and depolymerization of polyethylene (Example 2).
Specifically, Abu-Omar teaches:
Claim 1: preparing a catalyst comprising cobalt, nickel, or both (¶¶[0065]-[0087]); combining the catalyst with polyolefins in the presence of hydrogen (¶¶[0021], [0036], [0112]-[0183]); and depolymerizing the polyolefins via hydrogenolysis to lower molecular weight hydrocarbon products (¶¶[0112]-[0183], [0342]).
Claim 2: plastic-derived feedstocks and waste plastic materials (¶¶[0040]-[0058]).
Claim 3: polyethylene and polypropylene feedstocks (¶¶[0021], [0040]-[0058]).
Claim 4: decomposition products derived from polyethylene hydrogenolysis (¶¶[0112]-[0183], [0342]).
Claim 5: decomposition products derived from polypropylene hydrogenolysis (¶¶[0112]-[0183]).
Claim 10: cobalt or nickel catalysts supported on zeolite supports (¶¶[0065]-[0087], [0091]).
Claim 11: cobalt or nickel supported on a pentasil-zeolite carrier because Abu-Omar expressly teaches ZSM-5 (¶[0091]), and ZSM-5 is a pentasil zeolite.
Claim 13: catalyst comprising ZSM-5 (¶[0091]).
Claim 16: reaction temperature of about 250°C (523 K) (e.g., Example 2).
Claim 17: hydrogen pressures encompassing 20–60 bar, including disclosed ranges of 10–60 bar and 20–50 bar (e.g., ¶¶[0118], [0120]).
Claim 20: recovery and separation of reaction products following depolymerization (e.g., ¶¶[0180]-[0183], [0342]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 6-9, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Omar et al. (US 2023/0279194 A1).
Abu-Omar teaches catalytic hydrogenolysis of polyolefins in the presence of hydrogen using cobalt- and/or nickel-containing catalysts as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Abu-Omar does not teach that the decomposition products consist of a high selectivity towards selected light alkanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Abu-Omar to increase selectivity toward light alkane products because product selectivity is a recognized result-effective variable in catalytic hydrogenolysis processes, and optimization of catalyst composition and reaction conditions to favor desired light alkane products would have been achieved through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Abu-Omar does not teach that more than 50% of the decomposition products comprise a carbon chain having the structure (CH₂CH₂)m.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Abu-Omar such that more than 50% of the decomposition products comprise a carbon chain having the structure (CH₂CH₂)m because the relative distribution of decomposition products produced from polyethylene hydrogenolysis is a result-effective variable that depends on known operating parameters including catalyst composition, temperature, pressure, and residence time. Optimization of these known variables to increase the proportion of ethylene-derived products would have been within the routine skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Abu-Omar does not teach that more than 50% of the decomposition products comprise a carbon chain having the structure (CH₂CH(CH₃))m.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Abu-Omar such that more than 50% of the decomposition products comprise a carbon chain having the structure (CH₂CH(CH₃))m because the relative distribution of decomposition products produced from polypropylene hydrogenolysis is a result-effective variable that depends on known operating parameters including catalyst composition, temperature, pressure, and residence time. Optimization of these known variables to increase the proportion of propylene-derived products would have been within the routine skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, Abu-Omar does not teach that the decomposition products comprise up to 84% C₃H₈.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Abu-Omar to obtain decomposition products comprising up to 84% propane because propane selectivity represents a result-effective variable of the hydrogenolysis process. Optimization of known process variables, including catalyst composition and reaction conditions, to increase propane production would have been achieved through routine experimentation and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claims 15, Abu-Omar does not specifically teach a temperature range of 300–600 K.
Abu-Omar teaches hydrogenolysis temperatures encompassing 250°C (523 K) and overlapping portions of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate within the claimed temperature range because reaction temperature is a recognized result-effective variable affecting hydrogenolysis conversion and product selectivity, and optimization of temperature would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Abu-Omar does not specifically teach a continuous process including continuous feed introduction and continuous product withdrawal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the hydrogenolysis process of Abu-Omar in a continuous mode, including continuously introducing polyolefin feedstock and continuously removing decomposition products, because continuous operation is a well-known alternative to batch operation in catalytic hydrocarbon conversion processes and would have been expected to provide predictable advantages including increased throughput, reduced downtime, improved process efficiency, and facilitation of commercial-scale operation. Continuous feed and product withdrawal represent routine process engineering modifications within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Omar et al. (US 2023/0279194 A1) in view of Huynh et al., Hydrodeoxygenation of Bio-Oil on Bimetallic Catalysts: From Model Compound to Real Feed, Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, Vol. 5, pp. 131–145 (2015).
The process of Abu-Omar is as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, Abu-Omar does not teach that the catalyst comprises greater than 5 wt.% cobalt and greater than 5 wt.% nickel.
Huynh teaches bimetallic Ni-Co catalysts and expressly discloses catalyst 10Ni10Co/HZSM-5, wherein the catalyst contains 10 wt.% Ni and 10 wt.% Co. Huynh states that: “xNiyCo/Z, where x and y are the contents (wt%) of nickel and cobalt, respectively,”
and Table 1 discloses 10Ni10Co/HZSM-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the known bimetallic Ni-Co catalyst composition taught by Huynh in the hydrogenolysis process of Abu-Omar because Ni and Co were known hydrogenation and hydrogenolysis metals and Huynh teaches effective hydrogen-processing catalysts containing greater than 5 wt.% Ni and greater than 5 wt.% Co.
Regarding claim 14, Abu-Omar does not teach that the catalyst is Co/ZSM selected from the group consisting of Co/ZSM-5 and 10-Co/ZSM-5, 15-Co/ZSM-5, and 20-Co/ZSM-5.
Abu-Omar teaches cobalt catalysts supported on ZSM-5 (¶¶[0065]-[0087], [0091]), thereby teaching Co/ZSM-5.
Huynh further teaches HZSM-5-supported cobalt-containing catalyst systems including 10Ni10Co/HZSM-5, which contains 10 wt.% cobalt on an HZSM-5 support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ known cobalt loadings on ZSM-5 supports as a matter of routine optimization because catalyst metal loading is a recognized result-effective variable affecting catalytic activity and selectivity.
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 TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights