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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the expression “carbo chain” in the claim. The expression should be recited as --carbon chain--. Appropriate correction is 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 1-20 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.
The phrase “much less than” on lines 9-10 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase has no objective boundary.
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because claim 3 depends on itself.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the more than 50%" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sánchez-Rivera et al. “Catalytic Hydrogenolysis of Polyolefins into Alkanes” ACS Cent. Sci. 2021, 7, pages 17−19 in view of Garforth et al. (WO 2012/076890 A1) and Tarach et al. “Operando Study Reveals the Superior Cracking Activity and Stability of Hierarchical ZSM-5 Catalyst for the Cracking of Low-Density Polyethylene” ChemSusChem 2019, 12, pages 633 – 638.
Sánchez disclose a method for depolymerizing polyolefins by catalytic hydrogenolysis in the presence of hydrogen gas, wherein polyethylene and polypropylene are contacted with a supported metal catalyst under elevated temperature and hydrogen pressure to cleave C–C bonds and form lower-molecular-weight hydrocarbon products.
Sánchez does not specific identity of cobalt and/or nickel and the specific zeolite carrier.
Garforth discloses hydrocracking and depolymerization of waste plastics, including polyethylene and polypropylene, in the presence of hydrogen, using metal-loaded zeolite catalysts. Garforth explicitly teaches:
use of cobalt and nickel as catalytic metals(Group VIII metals including Co and Ni; ¶[0021]);
supporting the metal on a zeolite carrier(zeolite supports disclosed; ¶¶[0023]–[0026]);
plastic depolymerization in hydrogen atmospheres(hydrocracking processes for plastics; ¶¶[0002]–[0006]);
batch and continuous reactor configurations(¶¶[0034]–[0036]).
Tarach discloses catalytic cracking of polyethylene over ZSM-5, a pentasil-type zeolite, demonstrating that ZSM-5 frameworks are effective at cleaving long polyolefin chains into lighter hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
start from the polyolefin hydrogenolysis process of Sánchez;
select cobalt and/or nickel as alternative transition-metal hydrogenolysis catalysts as taught by Garforth, in view of their known activity in hydrocracking and hydrogenolysis reactions; and
support the metal catalyst on a zeolite carrier, including ZSM-5, as taught by Garforth and exemplified by Tarach, because zeolites were known to promote C–C bond cleavage in polyolefin conversion.
This modification represents a predictable substitution of known catalyst components to perform the same function (polyolefin C–C bond cleavage in hydrogen) and therefore would have been obvious.
Claims 2–5
Plastic materials, including polyethylene and polypropylene, are explicitly disclosed by Sánchez-Rivera et al. and Garforth.
Claim 6
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of cited references by producing products having a high selectivity towards light alkanes because achieving a high selectivity toward selected light alkanes represents an expected result of practicing the combined teachings of the cited references.
Claim 7
Formation of light hydrocarbons from polyolefin depolymerization is disclosed by Sánchez-and Tarach ; selecting for light products is an expected outcome of known hydrogenolysis/cracking processes.
Claim 8
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified cited references by having more than 50 % of the decomposition products comprises a carbon chain as claimed because more than 50 % of the products comprise ethylene-derived chains represents an obvious and prediction outcome of the known production distribution and falls within the routine experimentation of result-effective variables.
Claim 9
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified cited references by having more than 50 % of the decomposition products comprises a carbon chain as claimed because more than 50 % of the products comprise propylene-derived chains represents an obvious and prediction outcome of the known production distribution and falls within the routine experimentation of result-effective variables.
Claim 10: Co or Ni supported on a zeolite carrier — taught by Garforth (¶¶[0021]–[0026]).
Claim 11: Pentasil-zeolite carrier — ZSM-5 is a known pentasil zeolite (Tarach).
Claim 12: Metal loadings represent routine optimization of known supported catalysts.
Claim 13: ZSM-5 — explicitly taught by Tarach .
Claim 14: Specific Co/ZSM-5 variants represent obvious variations of known Co-zeolite catalysts.
Claims 15–17
The claimed temperature and hydrogen-pressure ranges overlap or are obvious optimizations of those disclosed in Sánchez and Garforth, representing result-effective variables.
Claims 18–19
Garforth explicitly teaches continuous plastic depolymerization processes with continuous feed and product withdrawal.
Claim 20
Isolating the decomposition products is an inherent and obvious post-reaction step.
Conclusion
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