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 .
This communication is in response to the application filed 2/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Definition
The phrase “a reforming operation of reforming” in claim 1 is interpreted as defined in the specification at par. [00101], which states “[t]he reforming or ‘reformation’ in the present disclosure refers to a process of converting components . . . included in hydrocarbons into aromatic hydrocarbons.”
Throughout the claims “the refined oil from which impurities are removed” is a term with sufficient antecedent basis in claim 1 which recites “hydrotreating . . . to produce refined oil from which impurities are removed”.
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 15, 16, 18 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.
Claims 15-16 recite “molybdenum-based hydrotreating catalyst”. It is unclear what molybdenum-based catalyst is and thus the claims are indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “molybdenum-based metal”. It is unclear what molybdenum-based metal is and thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “the gas-liquid separated stream”. Subjecting to gas-liquid separation implies two streams, a gas and a liquid are formed. It is unclear what “the gas-liquid separated stream” is referring, and thus the claim is indefinite.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, examiner suggests amending “the reforming the refined oil operation” to be “the reforming operation” for consistency and clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantley (US 2022/0135449) in view of Murray (US 11,802,250) and Straka et al., Production of transportation fuels via hydrotreating of scrap tires pyrolysis oil, Chemical Engineering Journal 460 (2023) 141764, published online 8 Feb 2023.
With respect to claim 1, Cantley teaches upgrading pyrolysis oil, including plastic pyrolysis oil, using a dehydration operation comprising mixing with a demulsifier, applying an electric field, and desalting the mixture, separating into an aqueous and an oil phase (0031-0036). The desalted/dehydrated oil is subject to fractionation and fractions passed to a refinery for further upgrading (0032). Cantley is silent regarding the specific refinery operations.
In analogous art of upgrading plastic pyrolysis oil, Murray teaches upgrading waste plastic pyrolysis oil to produce valuable fuel products (abstract). The waste plastic pyrolysis oil is fractionated, a portion sent to a hydrotreating reactor for removal of impurities and the hydrotreated oil is subject to catalytic reforming (abs; Figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to pass the fractionated pyrolysis oil of Cantley to hydrotreating and reforming process as taught in Murray to produce circular aromatic product.
Murray is silent regarding hydrotreating the oil phase together with a sulfur source. Straka teaches a process for upgrading pyrolysis oil derived from scrap tires, a waste plastic, to produce product for blending into fuels. Straka teaches subjecting the pyrolysis oil to hydrotreating to remove contaminants and produce product containing aromatics. The product can be blended in the gasoline pool or subject catalytic reforming to improve octane rating first. Straka teaches activating the hydrotreating catalyst with gas oil and a disulfide. Sulfur and disulfide are added in amounts of 0.23% and 3% of the gas oil. It is known catalyst may be activated prior to or during hydrotreatment.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Cantley teaches wherein the water may be added in an amount of 10-50% (0035), thus the waste plastic pyrolysis oil is mixed in a greater volume than the washing water and in the rage claimed.
With respect to claim 4, Cantley teaches that “small amounts of the chemicals may be added in or injected into the effluent to aid in the breaking of the emulsion. Such chemicals may include Truscent Ascent 840, Truscent Ascent 850, Baker Hughes Xeric 7010, and/or other demulsifying chemicals as will be understood by those skilled in the art.” (0036) The amount of demulsifier is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amount to achieve the desired breaking of the emulsion.
With respect to claim 5, Cantley teaches wherein the voltage is applied as an alternating current or direct current (0038).
With respect to claim 6, Cantley teaches wherein the voltage is applied through at least one pair of electrodes (0038). Would have been obvious to select vertical electrodes as one of a limited number of choices.
With respect to claim 7, Cantley is silent regarding removing a rag layer, but teaches using known desalters and teaches using series of desalters (Figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to remove a rag layer for second separation of components, as known in the art of desalting.
With respect to claim 8, Cantley teaches wherein the dehydration operation is performed under a temperature of about 100° F. to about 300° F (0038).
With respect to claim 9, Cantley teaches wherein all or most of the water such as all but about 0.7%, about 0.5%, about 0.3%, or even trace amounts of the water remains (0046).
With respect to claim 10, Cantley teaches using series of dehydration and fractionation for water removal (Figures 9).
With respect to claim 11, Cantley and Murray are silent regarding the nitrogen and chlorine content of the second stream. However, given the same feed is desalted using the same desalting process prior to forming the second mixed stream, it is expected that the nitrogen to chorine content will fall within a range as claimed.
With respect to claims 12-16, Straka teaches wherein the hydrotreating occurs in the presence of a hydrotreating Ni-Mo/γ-Al2O3 catalyst, i.e. molybdenum based (sec 2.2). The catalyst was sulfided with a mixture of gasoil and dimethyldisulfide (sec 2.2).
With respect to claim 17, Straka teaches a hydrotreating pressure of 6-10 MPa (sec 2.2), which falls within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 18, separation gas/liquid separation and washing of hydrotreated effluent is well known in the art and would have been obvious to apply at the time of filing to remove gases and chlorine and other contaminants.
With respect to claim 19, Murray teaches after the hydrotreating operation fractionation of the effluent prior to reforming (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 20, Straka teaches petroleum hydrocarbons is reformed.
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/442113 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely overlap in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant
18/442113
1. A method for producing refined hydrocarbons from waste plastic pyrolysis oil, the method comprising:
1. A method for producing refined hydrocarbons from waste plastics, the method comprising: a pyrolysis operation introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor and pyrolyzing the waste plastics to produce pyrolysis gas; an oil production operation producing waste plastic pyrolysis oil by introducing the pyrolysis gas into a hot filter filled with a neutralizing agent;
a dehydration operation of applying a voltage to a first mixed solution obtained by mixing waste plastic pyrolysis oil, washing water, and a demulsifier to dehydrate the first mixed solution;
a dehydration operation applying a voltage to a first mixed solution obtained by mixing the waste plastic pyrolysis oil, washing water, and a demulsifier to dehydrate the first mixed solution; (claim 1)
a hydrotreating operation of hydrotreating a second mixed solution obtained by mixing the first mixed solution dehydrated in the dehydration operation and a sulfur source to produce refined oil from which impurities are removed; and
a hydrotreating operation hydrotreating a second mixed solution obtained by mixing the first mixed solution dehydrated in the dehydration operation and a sulfur source to produce refined oil from which impurities are removed; and (claim 1)
a reforming operation of reforming the refined oil from which impurities are removed. (claim 1)
a reformation operation reforming the refined oil from which impurities are removed. (claim 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771