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 and 4-6 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
The amendments to claims 1 and 4-6 and cancellation of claim 3 overcome the previous 112(b) rejection.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that, as acknowledged in the Office Action, Javeed does not teach the step of separating the high-boiling point wax and recycling it to the rotary kiln reactor, thus Javeed corresponds to Comparative Example 1 in the instant specification, and the Examples show superior results to Comparative Example 1.
In response, the Examiner continues to agree that Javeed does not teach the step of separating the high-boiling point wax and recycling it to the rotary kiln reactor. However, Javeed is not used alone. In response to applicant's arguments against Javeed individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the Examples in the Table do not provide evidence of unexpected results over the closest prior art, because the Table is not comparing the invention to the closest prior art which is the combination of Javeed and Lee, but instead only to Javeed which is acknowledged as missing the step of separating and recycling the wax.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Lee does not recognize any improvement in the lightening efficiency as achieved by the invention, and thus the invention has superior unexpected results.
In response, “lightening” is discussed in the instant specification as reducing the content of the heavy wax and increasing the light oil content (paragraphs [0049] and [0112]). This will be the definition used for understanding the argument. Lee teaches that the content of heavy oil including wax in the pyrolysis oil that has gone through a second cycle of treating in the kiln is low (paragraph [0047], page 21). Thus, Lee teaches that recycling the wax to the reactor produces a pyrolysis oil which contains significantly less wax, and as such an increased light oil content. Therefore, Lee teaches that the results of a lightened feed is expected from the step of recycling the wax, and as such the Examples in the instant specification do not provide evidence of unexpected results over the combination of Javeed in view of Lee.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 11, the claim recites “before step (S1), a step (S0) comprising…pyrolyzing…to produce a waste plastic pyrolysis oil feedstock.” This should be “the waste plastic pyrolysis oil feedstock” for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javeed et al. (US 2019/0270939) in view of Lee (KR 20190055975, machine translation provided by Examiner).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 11, and 12, Javeed teaches a process for treatment of waste plastic pyrolysis oils (page 1, title and paragraph [0001]) comprising:
a) passing waste plastics to thermal cracking reactor 7 which can be a rotary kiln (instant claim 12) at a temperature of 300-400°C to produce a hydrocarbon stream (pyrolysis oil) 8 (paragraph [0024]). This is equivalent to step (S0) of instant claim 11, where the temperature of 300-400°C is within the range of 300-600°C of instant claim 11. Javeed does not specifically teach the environment is non-oxidizing. However, Javeed makes no mention of introducing an oxygenated gas into the thermal cracking (pyrolysis). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a non-oxidizing environment for the thermal cracking (pyrolysis) as claimed in instant claim 11.
b) passing the stream 8 through an extruder and then passing the extruder effluent 11 to a thermal cracking reactor to produce a hydrocarbon product stream step (paragraph [0055]). This is equivalent to step (S1) of instant claim 1. Javeed further teaches the thermal cracking reactor in paragraph [0055] is any reactor, such as the reactors described for thermal reactor 7, which can be a rotary kiln (paragraph [0024]).
Javeed fails to specifically teach i) that the temperature of the rotary kiln is increased to a final temperature, ii) that the product of the thermal cracking in the rotary kiln is a gas, iii) separating wax and a refined oil from the product, or iv) recycling the wax to the rotary kiln.
With regard to the increased temperature i), Javeed further teaches the temperature of the thermal cracking reactor (rotary kiln) is 300-730°C (paragraph [0055]). The temperature of Javeed encompasses the claimed range of 400-600°C of instant claim 4, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Javeed also teaches the temperature of the extruder is about 200 to about 400°C (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, because Javeed teaches a final temperature which overlaps the claimed temperatures and an extruder temperature which is less than the claimed reactor temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to increase the temperature in the thermal cracking reactor (rotary kiln) to a final temperature of 400-600°C (instant claim 4), as claimed.
With regard to gas phase ii), Javeed teaches the same process comprising step (S0) of thermal cracking in reactor 7 and step (S1) of thermal cracking in a rotary kiln, where each thermal cracking has a similar temperature to the claimed steps (S0) and (S1), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the product of the thermal reactor of paragraph [0055] of Javeed is also in the gas phase, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to separating iii) and recycling iv), Lee teaches a process for conversion of plastics in rotary kiln reactors (Abstract). Lee further teaches the process comprises:
a) passing a pyrolysis effluent to a second rotary kiln reactor in series at a high temperature (paragraph [0063] and Figure 5).
b) obtaining an effluent which is separated into a light pyrolysis oil (refined oil) and a heavy pyrolysis oil comprising wax (high boiling point wax) (paragraphs [0063] and [0047]).
c) recycling the wax to the rotary kiln reactor (paragraph [0047]).
Lee further teaches that the process allows for production of high-grade oils that can be used for thermal power generation and also high-grade oil manufacturing oil that does not contain low-value components such as wax (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to separate the product of Javeed into a light pyrolysis oil and wax and recycle the wax to the thermal cracking reactor as taught by Lee, because each of Javeed and Lee teach plastic pyrolysis followed by conversion of pyrolysis oils in a rotary kiln at high temperature to produce refined pyrolysis oil, and Lee teaches that separating and recycling the heavy wax allows for production of high-grade oils that can be used for thermal power generation and high-grade oil manufacturing oil that does not contain low-value components such as wax (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
With regard to claim 2, Javeed does not specifically teach the composition of the liquid hydrocarbon extruder effluent (pyrolysis oil). However, Javeed teaches the feedstock is an oil produced by conversion of plastic wastes including PVC, polyolefins, PET, polystyrene, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0022]) in a thermal reactor at a temperature of 300-400°C (paragraph 0024]) and then reacted in the extruder to dechlorinate (paragraph [0032]). The instant feedstock is produced by pyrolysis of plastic wastes including PVC, polystyrene, PET and polyolefins (instant specification paragraph [0077]) at a temperature of 300-600°C (instant claim 11). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the pyrolysis oil of Javeed has the same composition as the claimed pyrolysis oil including 10 to 30 wt% naphtha, 20 to 30 wt% kerosene, 10 to 30 wt% light gas oil, and 30 to 50 wt% vacuum gas oil, because Javeed teaches a similar pyrolysis oil produced from similar plastic wastes which are pyrolyzed at a similar temperature, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 5, Javeed is silent regarding a specific rate of increasing the temperature. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the rate of temperature increase affects how quickly the products breakdown into the desired components. Thus, the temperature increase rate is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have a temperature increase rate of 0.5 to 5°C/minute, 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).
With regard to claims 6-8, Javeed is silent regarding a staged increase of the temperature. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that increasing the temperature in stages allows for different reactions to take place sequentially, such as dechlorination, deoxygenation, and further cracking. Thus, the temperature increases are result-effective variables, and can be optimized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to increase the temperature of the rotary kiln reactor to a first temperature of 50-150°C, a second temperature of 220-300°C, and the final temperature of 400-600°C sequentially, 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).
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Javeed teaches the presence of a catalyst (additive instant claim 9) in the extruder and thermal cracking reactor, where the catalyst comprises a metal loaded zeolite (paragraphs [0038] and [0047]), which is an active metal supported on a metal oxide carrier of instant claim 10.
With regard to claims 13-15, Javeed in view of Lee teaches the similar pyrolysis process of mixed plastics wastes at similar temperatures (claim 12 above) followed by similar thermal cracking in a similar rotary kiln reactor at similar temperatures (claim 1 above). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the process of Javeed in view of Lee to produce a similar refined oil product having the similar properties of a content of chlorine reduced by 50% or more, a content of nitrogen, sulfur, and/or oxygen reduced by 20% or more, and a weight ratio of refined oil to pyrolysis oil of 1.3 or more, as claimed in claims 13-15, absent any evidence to the contrary.
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 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
Prosecution Insights