DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 May 2026 has been entered.
No amendment and arguments were filed with the RCE. While this Office action could be made first action Final, it will be made Non-final to advance prosecution and in light of the interview conducted on August 5, 2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
Claims 7-20 are pending for examination below.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 7, the claim recites in steps b) and e) “the absence”. This should just be “absence” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the claims each recite “the polyolefin feed stream”. This should be “the polyolefin-based feed stream” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites “one or more members of the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate…or a combination thereof.” The recitation of both “one or more” and “a combination thereof” is redundant, and one recitation should be deleted.
With regard to claim 20, the claim recites the conditions “independently comprise”. For consistency with claims 17-19, the term “independently” should be deleted as unnecessary.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitting et al. (US 2021/0130699) in view of Trapp et al. (US 2023/0070315) and as evidenced by Henry et al. (US 7,261,807).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Bitting teaches a process for making olefins from waste oil by pyrolysis (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps (see Figures 2 and 27 and corresponding paragraphs [0302]-[0353] and [0562]-[0575]):
a) and b) passing waste plastic 112 to a reactor 118 (paragraph [0309]) along with a catalyst which is activated carbon (claimed solid base component as recited in instant specification paragraph [0085]) (paragraph [0316]) and pyrolyzing (claimed first depolymerization) to form a pyrolysis effluent 120 comprising pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis vapors (claimed first vapor stream) (paragraph [0319] and Figure 2). Bitting further teaches that the pyrolysis takes place with an atmosphere substantially free of oxygen or having not more than 0.5 wt% oxygen (paragraph [0311]). This overlaps the amount of an absence of oxygen of claim 1, rendering the amount prima facie obvious. Bitting further teaches that the waste plastic consists essentially of polyethylene and polypropylene (claimed polyolefin-based feed stream comprising polyethylene and polypropylene instant claims 1 and 8) (paragraph [0305]).
c) passing the stream 120 (claimed first vapor stream) from the pyrolysis reactor 118 through a solids separator and then to a fractionator 132 and quencher 138 to produce a liquid pyrolysis oil 140 (claimed second liquid stream) and pyrolysis gas 136 (claimed second vapor stream) (paragraph [0326] and Figure 2), wherein the fractionator includes a condenser (paragraphs [0326], [0319]).
d) and e) passing the pyrolysis oil 140 (claimed second liquid stream) from Figure 2 as the “r-pyoil feed” of Figure 27 (paragraph [0352] teaches that the pyrolysis oil is r-pyoil) to an FCC unit comprising a zeolite catalyst (paragraphs [0563]-[0564]) and reacting to produce a vapor FCC product (claimed third vapor stream) and liquid FCC product (claimed third liquid stream) (Figure 27). Bitting is silent regarding the presence of oxygen in the FCC reactor, and thus the FCC reaction is expected to take place in the absence of oxygen, as claimed.
f) combining the vapor FCC product (claimed third vapor stream) with the product of the cracker unit before separation (paragraph [0570], Figure 27). Bitting further teaches that the separation of the cracker effluent (and thus implicitly the claimed third vapor stream) includes vapor-liquid separation (claimed condensing) (paragraph [0548]),. The concept of vapor-liquid separating is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as producing a vapor stream (claimed fourth vapor stream) and liquid stream (claimed fourth liquid stream).
Bitting is silent regarding i) the pyrolysis process (claimed first depolymerization) also producing a liquid stream which comprises char (claimed first liquid stream); ii) the FCC step being equivalent to the claimed second depolymerization step; iii) the liquid FCC product (claimed third liquid stream) comprising char, and iv) the contents of the claimed fourth liquid stream.
With regard to the claimed first liquid stream i), Trapp teaches a process for pyrolysis of plastics to produce olefins (paragraph [0004]). Trapp teaches that the process for pyrolysis produces a pyrolysis effluent comprising a pyrolysis gas stream and a pyrolysis residue bottoms stream, wherein the residue bottoms stream is a pumpable liquid stream comprising char (claimed first liquid stream) (paragraphs [0004], [0091], [0195], and [0246]). The Table below shows the process of Trapp compared to the process of Bitting.
Bitting
Trapp
Feed
Plastic consisting essentially of polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0305])
Plastic comprising at least 99 wt% polyethylene, polypropylene, and other polyolefins (paragraph [0067])
Catalyst
Activated carbon (paragraph [0316])
Activated carbon (paragraph [0082])
Temperature
325-1100°C (paragraph [0313])
325-1100°C (paragraph [0079])
Atmosphere
substantially free of oxygen or has not more than 0.5 wt% oxygen (paragraph [0311])
substantially free of oxygen or has less than 0.5 wt% oxygen (paragraph [0072])
The Table demonstrates Trapp’s disclosed conditions, feed, and catalyst are similar or identical to that of Bitting.
Therefore, while Bitting does not explicitly teach producing a liquid stream comprising char (claimed first liquid stream) from the pyrolysis process along with the vapor stream 120 (claimed first vapor stream), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recover a liquid stream comprising char from the pyrolysis of Bitting, because Bitting and Trapp each teach pyrolysis of polyolefins in an atmosphere substantially free of oxygen at the same temperature and in the presence of the same activated carbon catalyst, and Trapp teaches that performing the pyrolysis under these conditions produces a liquid stream comprising char along with the pyrolysis vapor stream (paragraph [0004]).
With regard to the FCC and third liquid stream comprising char ii) and iii), the instant specification recites that the depolymerization includes cracking (paragraph [0093]). Thus, Bitting teaches a similar cracking reaction in the presence of a zeolite catalyst. Further, Bitting teaches that examples of suitable FCC systems are disclosed in US 7,261,807 to Henry et al, hereinafter “Henry”, where Henry is “incorporated by reference to the extent not inconsistent with the present disclosure” of Bitting (paragraph [0566]). This phrasing is understood as meaning that the entire reference is incorporated by reference, other than anything inconsistent with Bitting. Because Bitting is silent regarding the conditions, the conditions disclosed by Henry are not inconsistent with Bitting. Henry teaches the temperature of the FCC is 427-648°C (column 7, line 1) and pressure of the FCC is 5 to 60 psig (0.3 to 4.1 barg) (column 7, lines 2-3) which overlaps the ranges of 50-450°C and 1-7 barg of the instant invention.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the FCC step of Bitting is equivalent to the claimed depolymerization and that the liquid FCC product (claimed third liquid stream) of Bitting also includes char, as claimed, because Bitting incorporating Henry and the instant claims each recite overlapping conditions and the same zeolite catalyst and thus would be expected to produce a similar product including a third liquid stream comprising char as claimed.
With regard to the contents of the claimed fourth liquid stream iv), Bitting teaches the similar process comprising the first depolymerization step with the same catalyst and similar conditions and passing the same second liquid stream to a second step which comprises cracking in the presence of a zeolite catalyst at similar temperature and pressure conditions to produce the same third vapor stream and third liquid stream, where the third vapor stream is vapor-liquid separated (condensed) to produce the fourth vapor stream and fourth liquid stream as claimed (Figures 2 and 27). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the fourth liquid stream of Bitting to comprise similar components including one or more olefin monomers, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Bitting teaches that the plastic comprises not more than 20 wt% of PVC and/or PET (impurity) (paragraph [0306]), which is the same as up to 20 wt% of an impurity which is a combination of PVC and PET of instant claims 9 and 10.
With regard to claims 11-15, Bitting teaches the pyrolysis (first depolymerization zone) can comprise a sulfonated clay (activated clay) along with the activated carbon (solid base component) (paragraph [0316]). This is equivalent to the first or second co-catalyst being a solid base and the first or second co-catalyst being an activated clay where the first and second co-catalyst are different of instant claims 11-15.
With regard to claim 16, Bitting does not specifically teach passing the pyrolysis gas (second vapor product) to the second condensation zone. However, Bitting teaches that the pyrolysis gas comprises C1-C4 hydrocarbons (paragraphs [0349]-[0351]) and also teaches that the cracker separation zone, including the vapor-liquid separator (second condenser) produces a gas stream comprising C1-C4 hydrocarbons which is further separated into the constituent components (paragraphs [0552]-[0555]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to also pass the pyrolysis gas stream to the vapor-liquid separator and through the rest of the separation, because the pyrolysis gas comprises C1-C4 hydrocarbons which are also present in the streams passed to the vapor-liquid separator (second condenser) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain additional amounts of the desired constituents including olefins, which are useful products.
With regard to claim 17, Bitting teaches a temperature of 350-550°C (paragraph [0313]) and a pressure of at least 0.3 barg to not more than 8 barg (paragraph [0315]). The overlap the ranges of 400-600°C and 1 to 7 barg of instant claim 17, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 18, Bitting does not explicitly teach the pressure of the FCC reaction. However, Bitting incorporates by reference, to the extent not inconsistent with the disclosure of Bitting, Henry et al. (US 7,261,807) (paragraph [0566]) which teaches the pressure of the FCC is 5 to 60 psig (0.3 to 4.1 barg) (column 7, lines 2-3). This overlaps the range of 1-7 barg of instant claim 18, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 19-20, Bitting is silent regarding the condensing conditions in the first and second condensers. However, the temperature and pressure of the condenser are well known in the art to affect the separation by contributing to the cut point of the separated fractions. Thus, the conditions are result-effective variables, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the first condensing conditions to include a temperature of 20-250°C and/or a pressure of 1 to 7 barg and the second condensing conditions to include a temperature of 20-100°C and a pressure of 0.3 to 2 barg, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
