DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13-15, 17, 22, 26, 28, 32, and 37-41, 57, and 60 are pending
Claims 40-41, 57, and 60 are withdrawn
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13-15, 17, 22, 26, 28, 32, and 37-39 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 40-41, 57, and 60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
Claim Interpretation
4. Claim 17, line 1, recites the phrase “BTX”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to benzene, toluene, and xylene in line with the specification, p. 1, paragraph 3.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
6. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the catalyst” to “the rinsed catalyst” in claim 1 - line 7.
7. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the rinse solution” to “the aqueous liquid solution” in claim 1 - line 7 and claim 38 - line 1.
8. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the wash solution” to “the liquid wash solution” in claim 2 - line 2, claim 4 - line 1, claim 5 - line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
8. Claims 2, 17 and 37 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.
9. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the unwashed used catalyst" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
10. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the unwashed catalyst" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
11. Claim 37 recites the limitation "the wash process" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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
13. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13-14, 17, 22, 26, 28, 32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazanec et al. (US 20140303414 A1) (Mazanec) in view of Dorado et al., H‑ZSM5 Catalyzed Co-Pyrolysis of Biomass and Plastics (Dorado), Liu et al., Regeneration of Potassium Poisoned Catalysts for the Selective Catalytic Reduction of NO with NH3 (Liu), and Zhou et al. (US 20150004093 A1) (Zhou).
14. Regarding claim 1, Mazanec teaches a method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass (i.e. providing a catalyst that has been used to catalyze catalytic pyrolysis) (Mazanec, [0002]) resulting in a coke-contaminated catalyst (Mazanec, Claim 27)
wherein the catalyst is regenerated by oxidation (i.e. oxidatively regenerating the catalyst) (Mazanec, Abstract) and by washing at least a portion of the coke-contaminated catalyst is washed with a liquid (i.e. a liquid wash solution) (Mazanec, Claim 27).
Mazanec does not further teach (a) a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics, (b) rinsing the washed catalyst with an aqueous liquid solution; (c) separating the catalyst from the rinse solution; and (d) returning at least a portion of the separated catalyst to the process for the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics.
With respect to the difference (a), Dorado teaches H-ZSM5 catalyzed co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastics (Dorado, Title)
wherein the catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) of biomass and various other plastics are performed by subjecting their mixtures to in the presence of H-ZSM5 CFP (i.e. a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics) (Dorado, p. 302, left column, first paragraph).
Dorado expressly teaches H-ZSM-5 is plagued by short catalysts lifetimes and low carbon efficiencies (Dorado, p. 301, left column, first paragraph);
wherein incorporation of carbon- and hydrogen-rich co reactants into the catalytic pyrolysis helps mitigate these problems (Dorado, p. 301, left column, first paragraph);
wherein one source of C and H are agricultural plastics (Dorado, p. 301, left column, first paragraph);
wherein utilization of plastics in this manner has the added benefit of alleviating a major waste disposal problem for farmers (Dorado, p. 301, left column, first paragraph).
Mazanec and Dorado are analogous art as they are all drawn to processes of pyrolysis with a H-ZSM-5 catalyst.
In light of the motivation for H-ZSM-5 is plagued by short catalysts lifetimes and low carbon efficiencies as disclosed by Dorado, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastics (i.e. a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics) in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec, in order to mitigate short catalyst lifetimes and low carbon efficiencies, and alleviate a major waste disposal problem for farmers, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With Respect to difference (b) Liu teaches a regeneration of regeneration of potassium-poisoned selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts (Liu, Abstract)
wherein firing of biomass (i.e. heating of biomass) is a significant way to reduce net CO2 emissions (Liu, p. 649, left column, paragraph 2)
wherein high levels of alkali and alkaline earth metals, such as potassium, are present in the fly ash of the biomass fired systems that poisons SCR catalysts (Liu, p. 649, left column, paragraph 2)
wherein to regenerate the poisoned catalyst sulfuric acid was used as detergent (i.e. washing at least a portion of the catalyst with a liquid wash solution) combined with fresh water rinsing after the process (i.e. rinsing the washed catalyst with an aqueous liquid solution) (Liu, p. 651, left column, Effect of Acid Washing).
Liu expressly teaches deionized water treatment (i.e. rinsing the washed catalyst with an aqueous liquid solution) removes potassium species that interacted with the active sites (Liu, p. 652, left column, first paragraph)
wherein potassium preferentially coordinates to the Brønsted acid sites, decreasing
the number and strength of the Brønsted acid sites (Liu, p. 649, right column, first paragraph)
wherein the potassium species were almost completely removed (Liu, p. 654, left column, paragraph 2).
Mazanec, Dorado, and Liu are analogous art as they are all drawn to processes of treating biomass with a catalyst.
In light of the motivation for deionized water treatment (i.e. rinsing the washed catalyst with an aqueous liquid solution) removes potassium species as disclosed by Liu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include regenerating with fresh water rinsing after the process (i.e. rinsing the washed catalyst with an aqueous liquid solution) in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado and Liu, in order to achieve complete removal of potassium species, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (c) Zhou teaches a method of rejuvenating a spent catalyst from a biomass conversion unit (Zhou, Abstract);
wherein biomass is subjected to a pyrolysis is the presence of a catalyst (Zhou, [0010]);
wherein spent or regenerated catalyst is treated with an acid wash (i.e. washing at least a portion of the catalyst with a liquid wash solution) (Zhou, [0008]);
wherein the spent or regenerated catalyst is then removed, dispersed or disassociated to render a rejuvenated catalyst (i.e. separating the catalyst from the rinse solution) (Zhou, [0010]).
Zhou expressly teaches during the conversion reaction, the surface area and the micropore volume of the catalyst decrease and lead to a decrease in catalytic activity (Zhou, [0003])
wherein the acid enriched water is effective in unplugging micropores (i.e. (increasing micropore volume) and restoring the surface area of a regenerated catalyst (i.e. increasing surface area and increased catalytic activity) (Zhou, [0022]).
Mazanec, Dorado, Zhou, and Liu are analogous art as they are all drawn to processes of treating biomass with a catalyst.
In light of the motivation that during a conversion reaction, the surface area and the micropore volume of the catalyst decrease and lead to a decrease in catalytic activity as disclosed by Zhou, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the spent catalyst or the regenerated catalyst may then be treated (i.e. rinsed) with the acid enriched water (i.e. an aqueous liquid solution) in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu, and Zhou in order to achieve unplugging micropores (i.e. (increasing micropore volume) and restoring the surface area of a regenerated catalyst (i.e. increasing surface area and increased catalytic activity) and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to difference (d), Mazanec further teaches using at least a portion of the separated catalyst (i.e. returning at least a portion of the separated catalyst) in a reactor for the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass (i.e. to the process for catalytic pyrolysis) (Mazanec, [0007]).
Dorado further teaches H-ZSM5 catalyzed co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastics (Dorado, Title) in a pyrolysis reactor (i.e. process for the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics) (Dorado, p. 309, right column, last paragraph).
Dorado expressly teaches an increase in the production of total aromatic compounds with mixtures (Dorado, p. 309, left column, Conclusion) of biomass and plastic are subjected to catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) in the presence of H-ZSM5 as compared to that of the biomass or plastic alone under the same conditions (Dorado, p. 309, right column, first paragraph);
wherein enhanced aromatic product formation is explained by a Diels−Alder type of
reaction mechanism where oxygenated products, such as furans derived from biomass, react with olefins derived from plastics increasing the production of aromatics (Dorado, p. 309, right column, first paragraph).
In light of the motivation for an increase in the production of total aromatic compounds with mixtures of biomass and plastic of biomass and plastic are subjected to catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) in the presence of H-ZSM5 as disclosed by Dorado, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastics in a pyrolysis reactor (i.e. process for the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics) in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado, and Liu, in order to mitigate short catalyst lifetimes and low carbon efficiencies, and alleviate a major waste disposal problem for farmers, and to achieve enhanced aromatic product formation by Diels−Alder type reaction mechanism and increase the production of aromatics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
15. Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Mazanec further teaches the catalyst is a zeolite (Mazanec, [0003]).
Mazanec in view of Zhou further teaches the separated catalyst (i.e. washed and rinsed catalyst) will have a lower percentage of one or more of Ca, Mg, and K (Mazanac, [0009]);
wherein these comparisons do not include the weight of the liquid (i.e. based on the weight of liquid-free catalyst) (Mazanac, [0009]);
wherein the separated catalyst will have at least 50% or 80% less Ca, at least 10%, 20%, 50%, or 80% less Mg, and at least 50% or 80% less K (Mazanec, [0009]), which fall within the claimed ranges.
Mazanec further teaches the liquid used to wash the catalyst (i.e. the wash solution used to wash the catalyst) is acidic water with oxalic acid (Mazanec, [0008]).
However, Mazanec does not teach the wash solution comprises sulfuric acid.
With respect to the difference Zhou teaches the spent catalyst and/or regenerated catalyst is mildly washed with an acid by introducing an acid wash (Zhou, [0061])
wherein the acid is sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or phosphoric acid as a dilute inorganic acid or alternatively oxalic acid as an organic acid in the acid wash (i.e. wash solution used to wash the catalyst) (Zhou, [0061]).
In light of the disclosure of Zhou of the equivalence and interchangeability of using sulfuric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, or oxalic acid in the in liquid used to wash the catalyst (i.e. the wash solution used to wash the catalyst) as disclosed in Mazanec, with oxalic acid as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sulfuric acid, nitric acid, or phosphoric acid in the in liquid used to wash the catalyst (i.e. the wash solution used to wash the catalyst) as in Mazanec, wherein organic acids and inorganic acids are effective in rejuvenating regenerated catalysts by unplugging micropores that have been blocked by the action of mineral metals and reestablish the surface area to values closed to that of the fresh catalyst (Zhou,[0075]), and thereby arrive claimed invention.
16. Regarding claim 4, Mazanec further teaches the liquid used to was the catalyst (i.e. the wash solution used to wash the catalyst) comprises at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 99% water (Mazanec, [0008]), which fall within the claimed ranges.
17. Regarding claim 10, Mazanec further teaches the separated catalyst will have at least 50% or 80% less Ca, at least 10%, 20%, 50%, or 80% less Mg, and at least 50% or 80% less K (Mazanec, [0009]) measured after a step of oxidizing the catalyst (Mazanec, [0009])
wherein the water-treated catalyst M (i.e. catalyst after washing) was calcinated at 600 °C (Mazanec, [0106]) to remove any residual template or moisture (Mazanec, [0084]).
Mazanec does not further teach the mass % is measured for catalysts after calcination. However, given that the comparisons of Ca, Mg, and K do not include the weight of the liquid (Mazanec, [0009]) and calcination is for removal of residual template or moisture (Mazanec, [0084]), therefore the mass % of Ca, Mg, and K after calcination (Mazanec, [0106]) would be the same or substantially similar to the mass % of Ca, Mg, and K measured after a step of oxidizing the catalyst (Mazanec, [0009]), which fall within the claimed ranges.
18. Regarding claim 13, Mazanec further teaches the catalyst is characterized by a concentration of Bronsted acid sites (Mazanec, [0010]);
wherein the number Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) are determined by deconvoluting the IPA-TPD trace (i.e. determined by IPA-TPD analysis) (Mazanec, [0010]);
wherein the washed and separated catalyst can have at least 79% or 174% or less of the number of Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) as compared to a freshly prepared catalyst (Mazanec, [0010]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
19. Regarding claim 14, Mazanec further teaches results in Table 3 further show that restoring the Bronsted acid sites compared to catalyst J used catalyst (i.e. the catalyst before washing) (Mazanec, [0111])
wherein the Bronsted acid sites of catalyst J relative to catalyst I is 39% (Mazanec, p. 13, Table 3)
wherein water treatments of the catalyst J (i.e. catalyst before washing) produce significantly more Bronsted acid sites than were present to produce catalyst M (i.e. catalyst after washing) (Mazanec, [0110]);
wherein the Bronsted acid sites of catalyst M (i.e. catalyst after washing) relative to catalyst I is 174% (Mazanec, p. 13, Table 3);
wherein catalyst M (i.e. catalyst after washing) increases the number of Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) by 446% (i.e. (174% / 39%) *100) as compared to catalyst J (i.e. catalyst before washing), which falls within the claimed range.
20. Regarding claim 17, Mazanec further teaches restoring catalyst activity to aromatics (Mazanec, Abstract);
wherein to simulate CFP of biomass catalytic reactions of furan were carried out in a fixed-bed stainless steel tubular reactor (Mazanec, [0082]) at 550 °C (i.e. at a temperature of at least 500 °C);
wherein aromatics yield of coked catalyst D (i.e. unwashed catalyst) is much lower than the aromatics yield obtained with the fully regenerated catalysts E and F (i.e. catalysts after washing) (Mazanec, [0050]);
wherein the aromatic conversion (i.e. yield of catalyst D (i.e. unwashed catalyst) is ~15% and the aromatic conversion of catalysts E and F are ~30% (Mazanec, Fig. 4), see annotated Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
952
1608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mazanec further teaches the aromatic wt% conversion (i.e. BTX wt% yield) increases by about 100% after washing (Catalyst E and F), which falls within the claimed ranges.
Mazanec does not further teach as tested by reacting plastic.
With respect to the difference, Dorado further teaches H-ZSM5 catalyzed co-pyrolysis of biomass and plastics (Dorado, Title) in a pyrolysis reactor (i.e. process for the catalytic pyrolysis of plastics)
wherein mixtures of biomass and plastic were subjected to CFP (i.e. tested by reacting with plastic) in the presence of H-ZSM-5 (i.e. catalyst) (Dorado, Abstract) in a pyrolysis reactor (Dorado, p. 309, right column, first paragraph).
Dorado expressly teaches a reaction scheme of biomass pyrolysis product and plastic
pyrolysis product participating in a Diels−Alder type reaction (Dorado, p. 304, left column, Figure 4 caption)
wherein reaction of furans, produced from the pyrolysis of biomass with olefins, such as those produced from the thermal degradation of polyethylene (i.e. plastic) react in the Diels−Alder type reaction to produce the corresponding aromatic compounds with increased selectivity (Dorado, p. 307, left column, first paragraph).
In light of the motivation for the biomass pyrolysis product and plastic pyrolysis product participating in a Diels−Alder type reaction as disclosed by Dorado, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mixtures of biomass and plastic were subjected to CFP (i.e. tested by reacting with plastic) in the presence of H-ZSM-5 (i.e. catalyst) in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu, and Zhou, in order to achieve aromatic compounds with increased selectivity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
21. Regarding claim 22, Mazanec further teaches active metals such as Ga, Zn, Fe, P, La, or combinations thereof are re-introduced after the extraction step (i.e. after washing) (Mazanec, [0069])
wherein this could be done by re-impregnation with a dilute aqueous solution (i.e. with a solution that adds one more metals or other elements) (Mazanec, [0069]).
22. Regarding claim 26, Mazanec further teaches the catalyst is a ZSM-5 zeolite catalyst (Mazanec, [0041]).
23. Regarding claim 28, Mazanec further teaches the catalyst comprises metal and/or metal oxides that include nickel, palladium, platinum, titanium, vanadium chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, zinc, copper, gallium, rare earth elements, i.e., elements 57-71, cerium, zirconium or their oxides or combinations of these are included to modify activity or structure of the catalyst as promoters (Mazanec, [0041]).
24. Regarding claim 32, Mazanec further teaches K, Ca, or Mg content of the coke-contaminated catalyst (i.e. the catalyst prior to washing) remains greater than 1.0% or greater than 250 ppm (i.e. by mass) (Mazanec, [0013]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given Mazanec teaches the coke-contaminated catalyst is oxidized (i.e. K, Ca, and Mg would be expressed as oxides) to produce a hot regenerated catalyst before being transported to a catalyst washing zone (i.e. prior to washing) (Mazanec, [0022]), it is the examiner’s position that the K, Ca, or Mg contents are expressed as oxides, which meets the claim limitation.
25. Regarding claim 38, Liu further teaches to regenerate the poisoned catalyst the rinsing was performed with fresh water (i.e. an aqueous liquid solution is water or an aqueous solution with less than 100 ppm of Ca and less than 100 ppm of Mg) (Liu, p. 651, left column, Effect of Acid Washing).
26. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gamliel et al., On the effectiveness of tailored mesoporous MFI zeolites for biomass catalytic fast pyrolysis (Gamliel).
27. Regarding claim 15, Mazanec further teaches the catalyst is characterized by a concentration of Bronsted acid sites (Mazanec, [0010]);
wherein the number Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) are determined by deconvoluting the IPA-TPD trace (i.e. determined by IPA-TPD analysis) (Mazanec, [0010]);
wherein for the IPA-TPD experiments (Mazanec, [0108]), isopropylamine is fed into a TGA chamber to be adsorbed to quantify the number of Bronsted acid sites for a particular sample (Mazanec, [0108]).
However, Mazanec does not further teach the Bronsted acid site density (mmol/kg) of the catalyst after washing is at least 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, or 110 or from 70 to 140, or from 80 to 120 mmol/kg as measured by an IPA-TGA adsorption experiment.
With respect to the difference, Gamliel teaches optimum catalyst for maximizing catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) bio-oil (i.e. from biomass) yield and quality with the use of mordenite framework inverted (MFI) zeolites as catalysts (Gamliel, Abstract);
wherein the acidic properties of each zeolite were measured (Gamliel, p. 113, right column, Table 2);
wherein the total Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) are 0.50 (MFI-100 nm), 0.30 (MFI-Pa), 0.34 (MFI-SA-Mild), 0.31 (MFI-DS-Mild), 0.55 (MFI-Meso), 0.29 (MFI-DS-Strong), and 0.34 (MFI-SA-Strong) mmol/g (Gamliel, p. 113, right column, Table 2);
wherein the total Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) are 500 (MFI-100 nm), 300 (MFI-Pa), 340 (MFI-SA-Mild), 310 (MFI-DS-Mild), 550 (MFI-Meso), 290 (MFI-DS-Strong), or 340 (MFI-SA-Strong) mmol/kg, which fall within the claimed ranges.
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with measured by an IPA-TGA adsorption experiment, given that Gamliel discloses the total Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) as is presently claimed and absent evidence of criticality in how the total Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) is measured, it is the Examiner's position that the total Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) of 500 (MFI-100 nm), 300 (MFI-Pa), 340 (MFI-SA-Mild), 310 (MFI-DS-Mild), 550 (MFI-Meso), 290 (MFI-DS-Strong), or 340 (MFI-SA-Strong) mmol/kg disclosed by Gamliel meets the claim limitation.
Gamliel expressly teaches the ideal CFP catalyst requires optimum acidity (Gamliel, p. 118, left column, 5. Conclusions)
wherein an MFI zeolite has ideal pore size and acidity for production of aromatics from biomass pyrolysis (Gamliel, p. 109, right column, first paragraph).
Mazanec, Dorado, Liu, Zhou, and Gamliel are analogous art as they are all drawn to
processes of treating biomass with a catalyst.
In light of the motivation for the ideal CFP catalyst requires optimum acidity as disclosed by Gamliel, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the total Bronsted acid sites (i.e. Bronsted acid site density) of 500 (MFI-100 nm), 300 (MFI-Pa), 340 (MFI-SA-Mild), 310 (MFI-DS-Mild), 550 (MFI-Meso), 290 (MFI-DS-Strong), or 340 (MFI-SA-Strong) mmol/kg in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu, and Zhou, in order to achieve ideal acidity for production of aromatics from biomass pyrolysis, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
28. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Misimu.com, Surface Finishing Tutorial (Misumi.com).
29. Regarding claim 37, Mazanec further teaches the washing step is a continuous process (Mazanec, [0008]) in a washing chamber (i.e. one vessel) (Mazanec, [0017])
wherein the washing chamber has an inlet for solids (i.e. the used catalyst) and an inlet for the wash solution wherein the solids and wash solution are contacted (Mazanec, [0017]).
However, Mazanec does not further teach countercurrent flow of catalyst and wash solution.
With respect to the difference, Misumi.com teaches a series of post-processing steps involves washing and cleaning by water (i.e. wash solution) s before moving onto the next process (Misumi.com, p. 1, first paragraph);
wherein in this process, product (i.e. catalyst) is supplied from one side while fresh cleaning water (i.e. washing solution) flows from the other side (Misumi. com, p. 1, paragraph 2)
wherein the process is called counter current multistage washing (i.e. catalyst and wash solutions move between vessels in a counter current fashion) (Misumi. com, p. 1, paragraph 2).
Misumi.com expressly teaches the objective is to save water by reducing the amount of water usage for washing and cleaning (Misumi.com, p. 1, first paragraph)
wherein multistage washing is effective in drastically reducing water usage (Misumi.com, p. 1, paragraph 6).
Mazanec, Dorado, Liu, Zhou, and Misumi.com are analogous art as they are all drawn to environmental conservation.
In light of the motivation for saving water by reducing the amount of water usage for washing and cleaning as disclosed by Misumi.com, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include counter current multistage washing (i.e. catalyst and wash solutions move between vessels in a counter current fashion) in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu, and Zhou, in order to achieve a drastic reduction water usage, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
30. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al., Production of bio-based p-xylene via catalytic pyrolysis of biomass over metal oxide-modified HZSM-5 zeolites (Chang).
31. Regarding claim 39, Mazanec further teaches restore catalyst activity and selectivity to aromatics after washing (Mazanec, Abstract);
wherein aromatics includes xylenes (Mazanec, [0025]);
wherein selectivity is calculated by dividing the amount of the particular product by the amount of a number of products produced on a mass basis (Mazanec, [0044]).
Given Mazanec in view of Dorado teaches a product with a composition and structure that are identical or substantially identical with those of the presently claimed catalyst that has been used to catalyze a catalytic pyrolysis of plastics process (Claims 26 and 28), therefore, it is clear that the product of Mazanec in view of Dorado would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed “the catalyst that has been on stream for at least 10 hours”.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
However, Mazanec does not further teach the selectivity for xylenes among BTX products is greater than 5, 8, 10, 11, or 12% by mass.
With respect to the difference, Chang teaches co-catalytic pyrolysis of sawdust with 50wt% methanol over a 20%La2O3/HZSM-5 catalyst (Chang, Abstract);
wherein adding a La, Mg, Ce or Zn element into HZSM-5 promotes the alkylation of benzene and toluene to form xylenes (Chang, Abstract);
wherein the largest selectivity for xylenes among aromatic carbons was observed with the 20%La2O3/HZSM-5 catalyst (16.4%) and the lowest selectivity was observed with HZSM-5 (10.1%) (i.e. selectivity for xylenes among BTX products is greater than 5%) (Chang, p. 3, right column, Table 2).
Chang expressly teaches the biggest challenge for the production of bio-based p-xylene from biomass is how to improve the yield and selectivity of p-xylene (Chang, p. 2, left column, paragraph 3);
wherein p-xylene is an important bulk chemical in petrochemical industry, is used mainly for the production of terephthalic acid (PTA) that is utilized primarily for producing polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and other polyester resins such as ethylene terephthalate and butanediol ester (Chang, p. 1, left column, first paragraph).
Mazanec, Dorado, Liu, Zhou, and Chang are analogous art as they are all drawn to processes of treating biomass with a catalyst.
In light of the motivation for the biggest challenge for the production of bio-based p-xylene from biomass is how to improve the yield and selectivity of p-xylene as disclosed by Chang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an increase of 16.4% from 10.1% xylene selectivity in the method for the regeneration of a catalyst used in the catalytic pyrolysis of biomass of Mazanec in view of Dorado, Liu, and Zhou, in order to achieve the synthesis of p-xylene as an important bulk chemical in petrochemical industry used mainly for the production of terephthalic acid (PTA) that is utilized primarily for producing polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and other polyester resins such as ethylene terephthalate and butanediol ester, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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 Fung can be reached at (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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights