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 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 indefinite. The “reformation operation” of claim 1 is not clearly defined in the specification or claims. An example is provided in the specification as to what type of process may fit this claim limitation. These limitations do not define the entire scope of what is possibly considered a “reformation operation”. For the purpose of this office action any action which changes the composition of the refined oil is considered a “reformation operation”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "of chlorine and nitrogen" in the secondary mixture. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 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 term “molybdenum-based catalyst” is indefinite. The specification and claims do not define a “molybdenum-based catalyst”. What limitations are inferred by the phrase is unclear. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed any catalyst which contains molybdenum in any amount can be considered a molybdenum based catalyst.
Claims 16 uses the term a “molybdenum based metal”. Molybdenum is a metal. What other metals that may be included in the group a ”molybdenum based metal” is unclear, not defined in the specification or claims.
Claims 18 the phrase “gas-liquid separated stream” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is indefinite. There is a missing phrase of “further comprising making a refined fraction” or the like needed after the phrase “wherein the reformation operation”. The currently stated wording does not make sense. Currently the phrase “refined fraction” lacks antecedent basis. A good faith effort is used in this office action to apply prior art to what the claim limitations may imply.
Claim 20 is indefinite The intended claim limitations are unclear. The phrase “reformation operation mixed oil” has no antecedent basis. Rewording of the entire claim is recommended. The claim limitations seem to imply that the refined oil is mixed with a second amount of hydrocarbons. It is entirely unclear if this mixing happens before or after the reformation process. Since the term “reformation process” is not clearly defined in the specification of claim, the mixing itself could be considered a “reformation operation”. A good faith effort is used in this office action to apply prior art to what the claim limitations may imply.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15, on which 16 depends, allows for only a molybdenum based catalyst. Claim 16 allows for a molybdenum based catalyst or a combination of metals which may include a molybdenum based metal. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed 1n the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18442122. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘122 has all the claim limitations and additional claim limitations..
Applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed 1n the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18443301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘301 has all the claim limitations and additional claim limitations.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18582669. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘669 has all the claim limitations and additional claim limitations.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18429454. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘454 has all the claim limitations and additional claim limitations.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18443295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘295 has all the claim limitations and additional claim limitations..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. (WO 2021/204819) in view of Park et al. “Production of clean oil with low levels of chlorine and olefins in a continuous two stage pyrolysis of a mixture of waste low-density polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride” (this was submitted via IDS).
With regard to claim 1, Adam teaches a process for producing oil (refined hydrocarbons) from pyrolysis of waste plastic (abstract, page 1) is taught.
A. pyrolysis of waste plastics to produce a gaseous pyrolysis product (page 27, lines 33-35).
B. producing a pyrolysis oil from the gaseous pyrolysis product (page 27, lines 35-36).
C. The pyrolysis oil is mixed with washing water and a demulsifier, (page 11, lines 15-25) and then an electric field is used (fulfilling the limitation of voltage) to dehydrate and produce a dehydrated hydrocarbon stream (page 20, lines 15-22).
d) The dehydrated oil stream is than hydrotreated. (page 11, lines 26-27). A diluent comprising a sulfur content is added to the dehydrated oil
e) passing a product from the first hydrotreating unit to a second hydrotreating step (page 8, line 16).
Adam teaches that the waste plastics can comprise chlorinated plastics (page 25, lines 21-24).
Adam is silent with regard to passing the gaseous pyrolysis product through a hot filter filled with a neutralizing agent to produce the pyrolysis oil.
Park teaches a method for pyrolysis of waste plastics (Title).
Park further teaches passing the vapor pyrolysis product through a hot filter comprising lime (neutralizing agent) to remove chlorine (Section 2.2, pages 404-405).
Park additionally teaches that the addition of the lime hot filter reduces the chlorine content to a value which satisfies the demand from the petrochemical industry for the further refining processes (page 411, Conclusion; page 402, Introduction, second full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the hot filter step of Park to the pyrolysis of Adam, because each of Adam and Park teaches a process for pyrolysis of waste plastics for further use to produce products in downstream refinery operations (Adam page 1, lines 2-5; Park page 402, Introduction, second full paragraph).
With regard to claims 2 and 3, Adam teaches that the desalting (dehydrating) includes mixing water with the pyrolysis oil (page 20, line 15-16). Adam is silent with regard to the volume ratio of the pyrolysis oil to the water. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the amount of water would affect the amount of salts which are removed from the pyrolysis oil, and that the amount of salts in the pyrolysis oil would affect the amount of water needed to dissolve the salts. Thus, the ratio of pyrolysis oil to water Is a process parameter, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a ratio of pyrolysis oil to water of greater than 1:1 or 1:0.001 to 1:0.5 as claimed in instant claims 2 and 3, respectively, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(Il).
With regard to claim 4, Adam teaches that the desalting (dehydrating) includes mixing with a demulsifier (page 20, line 20). Adam is silent with regard to the ratio of pyrolysis oil to demulsifier. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the
amount of the demulsifier would affect how well the emulsion is broken, and may depend on the type of demulsifier used. Thus, the ratio of pyrolysis oil to demulsifier is a process parameter which affects the conversion of the demulsifying, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a ratio of pyrolysis oil to demulsifier of 1:0.000001 to 1:0.001 as claimed, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 9, Adam teaches the desalting (dehydration) step above. Adam is silent with regard to the ratio of a content of moisture in the pyrolysis oil before desalting to the content after desalting. However, Adam teaches the similar process comprising mixing water, demulsifier, and plastic pyrolysis oil and applying a voltage (page 20, lines 15-22). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to expect a similar result of a ratio of moisture of the pyrolysis oil to moisture in the dehydrated pyrolysis oil of 1:0.0001 to 1:0.9, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 10, Adam teaches that the desalting includes coalescence of the oil (page 20, lines 30-33). The instant specification defines condensation of the dehydrated mixture as using a coalescer (p 70-71), and thus the coalescence of Adam is considered to be equivalent to the claimed condensation.
With regard to claim 11, Adam teaches that the pyrolysis oil can comprise nitrogen and chlorine (page 37, lines 11-12). Adam is silent with regard to the ratio of nitrogen to chlorine in the feed to the hydrotreating step comprising the pyrolysis oil and the diluent. However, Adam teaches a similar process of desalting (dehydrating) a
similar plastic pyrolysis oil and mixing the pyrolysis oil with a diluent comprising sulfur to produce a second mixed solution for hydrotreating. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to expect that the feed to the hydrotreating of Adam comprises a similar nitrogen to chlorine ratio of 1:1 to 1:10, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 12, Adam teaches that the first hydrotreating diluent is a naphtha, diesel, or gasoil comprising sulfur (sulfur-containing oil) (page 12, lines 33-35).
With regard to claim 13, Adam teaches that the feed to the hydrotreating comprises at least 90 wt% pyrolysis oil, with the other portion (less than 10 wt%) being diluent (page 13, lines 9-10). This overlaps the range of less than 0.5 parts by weight sulfur-containing oil per 100 parts pyrolysis oil, or the equivalent of less than 0.49 wt% sulfur-containing oil of instant claim 13.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 14, Adam teaches that the sulfur source comprises DMDS (dimethyl disulfide) (di-sulfide based compound).
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Adam teaches that the first hydrotreating catalyst comprises Mo on a support (page Y, lines 25-30).
With regard to claim 17, Adam teaches that the hydrotreating is at a pressure of 10 to 90 bar (page 9, line 9), which overlaps the range of 50 to 150 bar of instant claim 17.
With regard to claim 18, Adam teaches that the effluent from the second hydrotreating step is washed with water (page 12, line 27) and that the effluent from the second hydrotreating step is subjected to flash separation (gas-liquid separation) (page 11, lines 32-33).
With regard to claim 19, Adam teaches that the effluent from the first hydrotreating step is distilled before the second hydrotreating step (distilling the refined oil from which impurities are removed in the hydrotreating operation) (page 11, lines 32- 33).
With regard to claim 20, Adam teaches mixing the hydrotreated oil with a second diluent comprising naphtha (petroleum hydrocarbons) (page 19, lines 17-22), hydrotreating in a second hydrotreating step, and distilling (page 11, lines 26-33).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Park as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-20 above, and further in view of Groote US Patent No. 1612180).
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Adam teaches that the desalting (dehydrating) electricity (voltage) is applied through a pair of electrodes (page 20, lines 32-33).
Adam is silent with regard to the arrangement of the electrodes and to the current through the electrodes.
Groote teaches a treatment of oil, water, and demulsifying agent for breaking an oil water emulsion (column 1, lines 1-5). Groote teaches that the dehydration apparatus is arranged such that an electrode 4 is arranged in the tank and an electrode 5 is arranged above the electrode 4 (vertical electrodes instant claim 6) (column 2, lines 100-105, Fig. 1). Groote also teaches that the current is preferably an alternating current (instant claim 5). Groote further teaches that this arrangement is known to break the emulsion and that adding the electricity after the demulsifying agent breaks the emulsion more effectively (column 1, lines 41-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the arrangement of electrodes and alternating current of Groote in the process of Adam, because Adam and Groote each teach a process for breaking an emulsion of water, oil, and demulsifying agent by passing electricity through a pair of electrodes, and Groote teaches that the vertical arrangement and alternating current are known and that the demulsifying breaks the emulsion more effectively (column 1, lines 41-54).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Park, and further in view of Soliman et al (US 2019/0211274 A1).
With regard to claim 7, Adam teaches applying electricity (voltage) in the desalting (dehydrating) step.
Adam is silent with regard to the forming of a rag layer or removing the rag layer.
Soliman teaches that rag layers form in separation plants in the desalting step due to lack of clear boundaries between the aqueous and oil phases during the demulsifying (electricity) step (paragraph [0006]). Soliman further teaches that it is desired to control and/or remove the rag layer because the rag layer can cause off- specification oil production and tripping of the transformers for the electrodes (p 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove a rag layer formed in the process of providing electricity to desalting of Adam as taught by Soliman, because Adam and Soliman teach desalting an oil water mixture by applying electricity, Soliman teaches that the electricity causes a rag layer to form, and further teaches that removing the rag layer is desirable in order to prevent transformers tripping or off-specification oil production (p 6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Park and further in view of Bin, Chinese Publication No. CN101613620 (hereinafter referred to as Bin).
With regard to claim 8, Adam teaches the desalting (dehydration) step above.
Adam is silent with regard to the temperature of the desalting.
Bin teaches a method for purification of waste plastic pyrolysis oils by combining water, flocculant (demulsifier), and the pyrolysis oil (Abstract). Bin further teaches that the process is performed at normal (room) temperature and pressure, which provides the benefits of avoiding oil loss by carbonization and coking due to high temperature so that the yield of the oil is improved, reducing energy consumption (p 7). Room temperature is known to typically be between 20 and 27°C,.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the room temperature process of Bin as the temperature of Adam, because Adam and Bin each teach contacting pyrolysis oil from plastics with water and a demulsifier to remove contaminants, and Bin teaches that performing the process at room temperature provides the benefits of avoiding oil loss by carbonization and coking due to high temperature so that the yield of the oil is improved, reducing energy consumption (p 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights