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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, claim 21 recites alkali metal or alkaline earth metal is selected from the group consisting of Li, Nb, K, Rb, Cs, Fr, Be, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra, but alkali metal Cs, Fr, alkaline earth metal Ra not described in the original disclosure (See instantly published application US 20240182384 para. [0047]).
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.
Claim 1-15 and 20-21 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. In this case claim 1 and 20 respectively recite “LGO”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what such abbreviated “LGO” is, nor the specification gives explanation what “LGO” is. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation. Similarly, both claim 1 and 20 respectively recite “VGO/AR”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what such abbreviated “VGO/AR” is, nor the specification gives explanation what “VGO/AR” is. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation. All claim 1 and 20’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4 is 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. In this case, claim 4 recites “a ratio (Mg/Al) of the Mg in the magnesium oxide to the Al in the zeolite”, but one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what ratio is this being, such as molar ratio, mass ratio or volume ratio. Therefore, such limitation renders confusion for one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 10 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. In this case, claim 10 recites “the waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprises a vacuum gas oil component having a boiling point of 340 °C or more at atmospheric pressure”, but such limitation does not further its parent claim 1 recited “the waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprises a mixture of C7 to C9 naphtha having a boiling point of 80 to 150 °C, C10 to C17 kerosene having a boiling point of 150 to 265 °C, C18 to C20 LGO having a boiling point of 265 to 340 °C, and C21 or more VGO/AR having a boiling point of 340 °C or more”. 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12, 14, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al. (EP3950889) in view of Wu (CN102039155A) (it is noted that applicant provided machine translation has been used for citations hereof) , Li (WO2022002091) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US20230357644 has been used for citations), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089).
Pradeep et al. teaches a process of converting waste plastic oil in a reactor in the presence of catalyst cracking catalyst (para. [0014]-[0016], [0027], [0028], [0033]) to produce olefins (para. [0045], table 3), wherein the catalyst containing zeolite, and the waste plastic oil including liquid hydrocarbon feedstock is selected from hydrocarbon feedstocks like fractions starting from carbon number of 5 in naphtha to vacuum gas oil, atmospheric residue etc. (para. [0028]). Pradeep et al. also teaches product vapor containing light olefin (item 42, Fig. 1, item 22, Fig 2), specifically ethylene (table 4-5) being separated from catalyst cracking catalyst and waste plastic oil (para. [0036], [0040], Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 1 and 20, Pradeep et al does not expressly teach the cracking catalyst containing 1 to 10 wt.% of alkali metal or alkaline earth metal compound, or 20 to 70 wt.% of zeolite, or the waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprising a mixture of C7 to C9 naphtha having a boiling point of 80 to 150 °C, C10 to C17 kerosene having a boiling point of 150 to 265 °C, C18 to C20 LGO having a boiling point of 265 to 340 °C, and C21 or more vacuum gas VGO/AR having a boiling point of 340 °C or more.
Wu teaches a plastic cracking oil catalytic upgrading catalyst (i.e., a catalytic cracking catalyst) is a metal or non-metal oxide modified HZSM-5 molecular sieve, the metal or non-metal oxide is one or two of zinc, nickel oxide, zirconium oxide, magnesium oxide, gallium oxide or phosphorus oxide, the content of metal or non-metal oxide is 0.5 to 10.0 wt.% (para. [0009], [0010], example 1-3, claim 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” 0.5 to 10 wt.% of magnesium oxide for help providing a desired plastic cracking oil upgrading catalyst because choosing magnesium oxide from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of metal oxide would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143 KSR). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such catalytic cracking catalyst having 0.5 to 10wt% of magnesium oxide as shown by Wu to practice the catalyst of Pradeep et al because by doing so can help providing a catalytic cracking catalyst can help improve the yield and grade of the liquid product when cracking waste plastic oil as shown by Wu (para. [0008]).
Li teaches catalytic cracking catalyst comprises a zeolite, an inorganic oxide binder, and optionally a clay; preferably, the zeolite is present in an amount of 5 to 50 wt. %, the inorganic oxide is present in an amount of 5 to 90 wt.%, and the clay is present in an amount of 0 to 70 wt.%, based on the total weight of the catalyst (para. [0120]) wherein the zeolite can have a MFI structure or combinations including such MFI structure zeolite.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known content of zeolite from 5 to 50 wt.% as shown by Li to practice the catalyst composition of Pradeep et al because applying such known content of zeolite to a known cracking catalyst for improvement in waste plastic oil pyrolysis process would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
It is noted that Li disclosed zeolite content in the catalyst composition is greater than the content of alkaline earth compound as shown by Wu.
As for the claimed “the waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprising a mixture of C7 to C9 naphtha having a boiling point of 80 to 150 °C, C10 to C17 kerosene having a boiling point of 150 to 265 °C, C18 to C20 LGO having a boiling point of 265 to 340 °C, and C21 or more vacuum gas VGO/AR having a boiling point of 340 °C or more”, Pradeep et al. already teaches waste plastic oil including liquid hydrocarbon feedstock is selected from hydrocarbon feedstocks like fractions starting from carbon number of 5 in naphtha to vacuum gas oil, atmospheric residue etc. (para. [0028]), but silent about boiling point of such hydrocarbon feedstock including naphtha having carbon number starting from 5 to vacuum gas oil, atmospheric residue etc. However, it is well-known in the art that naphtha consists of hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C6 through C12 and boiling in the range of approximately 65 °C to 200°C (See https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-details/340737, see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/heavy-naphtha, see also https://cargohandbook.com/Naphtha).
Portela teaches catalytic cracking waste plastic pyrolysis oil (para. [0011]-[0013]) which light hydrocarbon fraction of naphtha fraction having boiling point no greater than about 200 °C, and heavy hydrocarbon fraction, such as vacuum gas oil with boiling point range from about 250°C to 600 or 700 °C (para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt naphtha fraction having boiling point not greater than 200 °C and vacuum gas oil with boiling point range from ab out 250°C to 600 or 700 °C as shown by Portela to practice the naphtha fraction with carbon number starting from 5 and vacuum gas oil in the waste plastic of Pradeep et al. because by doing so can help recircle such hydrocarbon stream together with waste plastic material for obtaining valuable olefin product as suggested by Portela (para. [0042]).
Jeon expressly teach a plastic pyrolysis oil includes H-Naphtha (heavy naphtha) having carbon number about (~C8, bp < 180°C), Kerosene (i.e. KERO) having C9-C17, boiling point 150-265 C, and vacuum gas GO/AR with carbon number C21 and boiling point greater than 340°C (para. [0040], [0042], table 1).
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known plastic pyrolysis oil includes H-Naphtha (heavy naphtha) (~C8, bp < 180°C), Kerosene (i.e. KERO) having C9-C17, boiling point 150-265 °C, and vacuum gas GO/AR with carbon number C21 and boiling point greater than 340°C as shown by Joen to practice the waste plastic of Pradeep et al. because by doing so can help recycle or use such waste plastic pyrolysis oil for obtaining valuable olefin and other desired consumer product as suggested by Portela (para. [0042]). Furthermore, adopting such well-known plastic pyrolysis oil includes H-Naphtha (heavy naphtha) (~C8, bp < 180°C), Kerosene (i.e., KERO) having C9-C17, boiling point 150-265 °C, and vacuum gas GO/AR with carbon number C21 and boiling point greater than 340°C into a known method of cracking a waste plastic oil for obtaining valuable (olefin or other consumer) product for improvement would have predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 2-3, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Pradeep teaches the zeolite comprising Y-zeolite (para. [0034]) while Wu teaches zeolite comprising ZSM-5 (noted HZSM-5 is hydrogen ion exchanged ZSM-5).
Regarding claim 6, Pradeep et al further teaches the cracking catalyst contains binder. Li already teaches the catalyst can contain a clay.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known clay as shown by Li to modify the catalyst of Pradeep et al because applying such known clay to a known cracking catalyst for improvement in waste plastic oil pyrolysis process would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 8, Li disclosed clay content and binder content respectively overlapping with those of instantly claimed clay content and binder content thus render a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known content of clay and such well-known content of binder as shown by Li to practice the catalyst composition of Pradeep et al because applying such known content of clay and such known-content of binder to a known cracking catalyst for improvement in waste plastic oil pyrolysis process would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 9, Pradeep et al. does not expressly teach the catalyst having an average particle size of 50 to 2000 µm.
Portela teaches first cracking catalyst size can be 20-200 microns while second cracking catalyst particle size can be 20-360 microns (para.[0044], [0051]), wherein such size of cracking catalyst particle overlapping with that of instantly claimed catalyst particle size thus render a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known cracking catalyst particle size as shown by Poertela to practice the catalyst average particle size of Pradeep et al because applying such known catalyst particles size to known cracking catalyst for improvement in waste plastic oil pyrolysis process would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 10, Portela et al. already discloses the feed material can be heavy hydrocarbon having boiling point ranging from 200 °C or 250°C up to about 600°C or 700 °C, e.g., a vacuum gas oil (para. [0043], [0058], [0062]). Portela et al. does not requires specific pressure for such boiling point, which means such boiling point is under ambient or atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known VGO having boiling point up to 600°C or 700 °C as shown by Poertela to practice the hydrocarbon feed of the waste plastic oil pyrolysis process because adopting such known VGO having high boiling point to known waste plastic oil pyrolysis process would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 11, Pradeep also teaches the converting plastic waste to olefin being performed under temperature 490 to 680 °C and a pressure of 0.9 to 2 Kg/cm2 (i.e. 88.26 KPa to 147.10 KPa), wherein such temperature and pressure respectively overlap with that of instantly claimed temperature and pressure thus render a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 12, Pradeep further teaches recovering the used catalyst through a spent catalyst standpipe (item 43, Fig 1, item 19 Fig. 2), putting the spent catalyst into a regenerator (item 45, Fig. 1, item 16, Fig. 2) by burning off the coke in the presence of air, recirculating the regenerated catalyst back into the pyrolysis reactor (para. [0036], [0040]). As for the claimed oxidizing the alkaline earth metal to an oxidized alkaline earth compound, Pradeep teaches a same or substantially the same heating the coked catalyst in the presence of air while Wu teaches such catalyst can contain Mg (i.e., an alkaline earth metal compound), therefore, same or substantially the same oxidizing the alkaline earth metal compound, then recirculating such oxidized alkaline earth metal compound into the reactor as those of instantly claimed are expected.
Regarding claim 14, Pradeep also teaches stripping the catalyst in a stripper (item 41, Fig. 1, item 18. Fig. 2) before it being sent to regenerator (para. [0036], [0040]).
Regarding claim 21, Pradeep does not expressly teach alkaline earth metal being Ca.
Portela further teaches cracking catalyst can be used together with contaminant trapping catalyst which may include MgO, CaO, Ca/Mg etc. (para. [0013], [0046], [0048], [0049]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well known CaO to modify the catalyst composition of Pradeep et al. in view of Wu and Li because by doing so can help trapping the undesired contaminants this improve cracking catalyst effectiveness in the waste pyrolysis oil stream in producing olefin as suggested by Portela (para. [0047]-[0049]). Furthermore, substituting Mg with known equivalents of Ca for the same purpose is prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP § 2144. 06).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al. (EP3950889) in view of Wu (CN102039155A) (it is noted that applicant provided machine translation has been used for citations hereof), Li (WO2022002091) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US20230357644 has been used for citations), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089) as applied above, and further in view of Nesterenko(US20200392418).
Regarding claim 4, Pradeep et al does not expressly teach the catalytic cracking catalyst satisfies an Mg/Al molar ratio of 10 to 40.
However, Wu teaches 0.5 to 10.0 wt.% of MgO can be included in the catalytic cracking catalyst thus help improving the yield and grade of the liquid product when cracking waste plastic oil, while Li teaches zeolite from 5 to 50 wt.% as discussed above. It is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Al contained in such zeolite would be from less than 5wt% to less than 50 wt.%.
Nesterenko teaches a catalytic cracking catalyst comprising one or more more zeolite catalysts have a Si/Al molar ratio ranging from 10 to 100, preferably from 20 to 80, more preferably from 30 to 60, wherein the zeolite preferably H-ZSM-5 (para. [0033], [0036]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such Si/Al molar ratio of zeolite catalyst as shown by Nesterenko to practice the zeolite catalyst of Pradeep et al. in view of Wu, Li, Portela and Jeon because by doing so can help avoid extensive purification of hydrogen during hydrocracking as suggested by Nesterenko (para. [0022]). Furthermore, adopting such zeolite with well-known Si/Al ratio to practice a well-known cracking catalyst containing zeolite for improvement would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Since Al2O3 having molar mass of 102 g/mol, SiO2 having molar mass of 60 g/mol, when Si/Al molar ratio in zeolite being 10 to 100, corresponding to molar ratio of SiO2:Al2O3 in such zeolite being 5(:1) to 50 (:1), correspondingly, weight ratio of such Al2O3 in the zeolite (based on total amount of SiO2 and Al2O3) being from 1x102/(1x102+50x60) x100%=3.3% to 1x102/(1x102+5x60) x100%=25.4%. Since MgO content in the catalyst can be 10 wt.% (as disclosed by Wu), and MgO having molar mass of 40 g/mol, while zeolite is present in an amount of 5 to 50 wt. % in the catalyst (as disclosed by Li). MgO molar amount in 1 gram of such catalyst can be 0.1/40=0.0025 mol, while zeolite amount in such 1 gram of zeolite being 0.05 to 0.5 gram, and weight ratio of Al2O3 in such zeolite being 3.3% to 25.4%, therefore, Al amount in such catalyst being from 0.05x3.3%=0.165% g to 0.5x25.4%=12.7% g. Base on Al’s molar mass being 27 g/mol, such Al’s molar amount being from 6.1X10^(-5) to 0.0047 mol. Thus, the molar ratio of Mg in the magnesium oxide to Al in the zeolite can be 0.0025/6.1x10^(-5)=41.6 to 0.0025/0.0047=0.53, such range overlapping with that of instantly claimed Mg/Al ratio, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144. 05 I). It is also noted that other MgO weight ratio as disclosed by Wu also suggesting overlapping Mg/Al ratio when following similar analysis.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al. (EP3950889) in view of Wu (CN102039155A) (it is noted that applicant provided machine translation has been used for citations hereof), Li (WO2022002091) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US20230357644 has been used for citations), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089) as applied above, and further in view of Liu (US20230085274).
Pradeep et al. in view of Wu, Li, Portela and Jeon does not expressly teach the inorganic binder comprising a compound having at least one of Si and Al.
Liu teaches a catalytic cracking catalyst containing zeolitic catalyst and binder include silica, silica-alumina, alumina, clays or other known inorganic binders (para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well known silica, silica-alumina or alumina to practice the binder of Pradeep et al in view of Wu , Li, Portela and Jeon because silica, silica-alumina or alumina can be mixed with zeolitic catalyst material to form desired shape for catalytic cracking plastic as suggested by Liu (para. [0062]). Furthermore, mixing such known silica, silica-alumina or alumina binder to a known cracking zeolitic catalyst material for improvement of catalyst for intended use in waste plastic oil pyrolysis process would yield predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al. (EP3950889) in view of Wu (CN102039155A) (it is noted that applicant provided machine translation has been used for citations hereof), Li (WO2022002091) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US20230357644 has been used for citations), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089) as applied above, and further in view of Gaffney (US20200016581).
Pradeep et al. already teaches regenerating the coked cracking catalyst in the presence of air (i.e., oxygen gas) as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Pradeep et al. in view of Wu, Li, Portela and Jeon does not expressly teach the regenerating coked catalyst under temperature of 600 to 800 °C.
Gaffney teaches coked cracking catalyst can be regenerated in the presence of
oxygen, or air, or a mixture of oxygen and other inert gases under from about 450° C. to about 900° C, or under temperature from about 600° C. to about 750° C (para. [0093]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such temperature as shown by Gaffney to practice the regeneration process of Pradeep et al. in view of Wu, Li, Portela and Jeon because by adopting such temperature can help effective to convert the coke (in the spent catalyst) to carbon dioxide and water and to regenerate the catalyst as suggested by Gaffney (para. [0093]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradeep et al. (EP3950889) in view of Wu (CN102039155A) (it is noted that applicant provided machine translation has been used for citations hereof), Li (WO2022002091) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US20230357644 has been used for citations), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089) as applied above, and further in view of Weiss (WO2022023263) (For applicant’s convenience, Equivalent document US20230287283 has been used for citations hereof).
Pradeep et al. in view of Wu, Li, Portela and Jeon does not expressly teach the recovered light olefin having a content of chlorine being 10 ppm or less, and a content of nitrogen being 50 ppm or less.
Weiss teaches hydrocarbon-based effluent or hydrocarbon-based stream(s)
obtained by treatment of a plastics pyrolysis oil having nitrogen content is less than or equal to 100 ppm by weight, preferably less than or equal to 50 ppm by weight and preferably less than or equal to 5 ppm by weight (para. [0190]), while the total content of chlorine element is less than or equal to 10 ppm by weight, preferably less than 1.0 ppm by weight (para. [0192]), wherein such hydrocarbon-based effluent or streams can be used to produce light olefin product, such as ethylene etc. (table 10, 11 etc.). Weiss suggests that chlorine and nitrogen content is undesired in the obtained olefin product or hydrocarbon effluent containing olefin.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize such undesired nitrogen content (being less than 5 ppm) and chlorine content being less than 1.0 ppm as shown by Weiss via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) to modify the process of converting waste plastic oil to olefin product as shown by Pradeep et al. in view of Wu, Li, Portela and Jeon because by doing so can help obtaining desired light olefin product with minimized impurities of nitrogen and chlorine as suggested by Weiss.
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 1-11, 15 and 20-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-11 and 13 of co-pending Application No.18/476364 in view of Wu (CN102039155A), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089). Co-pending application’364 teaches a substantially the same process except the catalyst containing 1-10% alkali or alkaline earth compound, or “the waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprising a mixture of C7 to C9 naphtha having a boiling point of 80 to 150 °C, C10 to C17 kerosene having a boiling point of 150 to 265 °C, C18 to C20 LGO having a boiling point of 265 to 340 °C, and C21 or more vacuum gas VGO/AR having a boiling point of 340 °C or more”. Wu teaches catalyst containing 1-10% alkali or alkaline earth compound as discussed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such catalytic cracking catalyst having 0.5 to 10wt% of magnesium oxide as shown by Wu to practice the catalyst of Pradeep et al because by doing so can help providing a catalytic cracking catalyst can help improve the yield and grade of the liquid product when cracking waste plastic oil as shown by Wu (para. [0008]).
Portela and Jeon both teaches waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprising the claimed hydrocarbon as described above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt naphtha fraction having boiling point not greater than 200 °C and vacuum gas oil with boiling point range from ab out 250°C to 600 or 700 °C as shown by Portela to practice the naphtha fraction with carbon number starting from 5 and vacuum gas oil in the waste plastic of co-pending application’364 because by doing so can help recircle such hydrocarbon stream together with waste plastic material for obtaining valuable olefin product as suggested by Portela (para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known plastic pyrolysis oil includes H-Naphtha (heavy naphtha) (~C8, bp < 180°C), Kerosene (i.e. KERO) having C9-C17, boiling point 150-265 °C, and vacuum gas GO/AR with carbon number C21 and boiling point greater than 340°C as shown by Joen to practice the waste plastic of co-pending application’364 because by doing so can help recycle or use such waste plastic pyrolysis oil for obtaining valuable olefin and other desired consumer product as suggested by Portela (para. [0042]). Furthermore, adopting such well-known plastic pyrolysis oil includes H-Naphtha (heavy naphtha) (~C8, bp < 180°C), Kerosene (i.e., KERO) having C9-C17, boiling point 150-265 °C, and vacuum gas GO/AR with carbon number C21 and boiling point greater than 340°C into a known method of cracking a waste plastic oil for obtaining valuable (olefin or other consumer) product for improvement would have predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claims 12- 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-11 and 13 of co-pending Application No.18/476364 in view of Wu (CN102039155A), Portela (US20220204870) and Jeon (EP4141089) as applied above, and further in view of Pradeep et al. (EP3950889). Co-pending application’364 in view of Wu, Portela and Joen does not expressly teach the claimed regenerating, stripping spent catalyst, but such limitations are taught by Pradeep et al. as discussed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in art to adopt such spent catalysts stripping and regenerating steps as shown by Pradeep et al. to regenerate the spent catalyst of co-pending application’364 in view of Wu , Portela and Joen because by doing so can help regenerate used catalyst for reusage in waste plastic pyrolysis process as suggested by Pradeep et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 12/04/2024 have been acknowledged and thus previous objection to specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/04/2024 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of current rejections.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Wu or Li not teaching Al content in the zeolite, newly applied reference Nesterenko(US20200392418) suggests Al weight ratio in similar zeolite as elaborated in previous rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached on 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732