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 .
Claim Status
Claims 7, 9-11, and 16-20 are amended. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
The amendments to the specification overcome the previous Drawing Objections and Specification Objections.
The amendments to claims 7, 9-11, and 16-20 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections.
Claims 7-20 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that the combined teachings fail to teach the claimed process, including a first depolymerization reaction and a second depolymerization reaction, because none of the references teach the first and second depolymerization reactions.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection, while Bitting does not call the second reaction step polymerization, Bitting teaches that cracking takes place, like the instant specification paragraph [0093] which states the depolymerization includes cracking. Bitting also incorporates by reference Henry for the conditions, and the conditions of Henry overlap the claimed conditions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the FCC step of Bitting functions as the claimed depolymerization, absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant has not specifically pointed out any differences between the process of Bitting and the claimed process, other than stating that Bitting does not teach the steps, thus the conclusions of the Examiner remain valid and obvious.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that modifying Bitting to arrive at the claimed composition would require substantial reconstruction and redesign of the process in Bitting.
In response, the Examiner has not asserted that Bitting needs to be modified to render obvious the claimed process. The steps of Bitting render obvious the claimed steps without modification, other than using Trapp to assert the presence of char in the first liquid product and Henry to obtain the conditions for the second step, as explained in detail in the rejection. Further, the Examiner is unclear what “composition” is referred to by Applicant, as the claims are to a process. Thus, as Applicant has not specifically pointed out or explained what modifications would be necessary or what the Examiner has done incorrectly, the Examiner’s position remains valid, and Bitting in view of Trapp and evidenced by Henry continues to render obvious the claimed process.
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) passing waste plastic 112 to a reactor 118 (paragraph [0309]) along with a catalyst which is activated carbon (solid base component instant specification paragraph [0085]) (paragraph [0316]) and pyrolyzing to form a pyrolysis effluent comprising pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis vapors 120 (first vapor stream) (paragraph [0319]). Bitting further teaches that the pyrolysis takes place with an atmosphere substantially free of oxygen or has 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 plastic consists essentially of polyethylene and polypropylene (instant claim 8) (paragraph [0305]).
Bitting does not explicitly teach that the pyrolysis process produces a liquid stream which comprises char (first liquid stream).
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 (first vapor stream) and a pyrolysis residue bottoms stream (first liquid stream), where the residue bottoms stream is a pumpable liquid stream comprising char (paragraphs [0004], [0091], [0195], and [0246]). Trapp further teaches that the feed to the pyrolysis process is a plastic which includes at least 99 wt% (consists essentially of) polyethylene, polypropylene, and other polyolefins (paragraph [0067]), that the temperature is at least 325 to no more than 1100°C (paragraph [0079]), that the pyrolysis comprises a catalyst which is activated carbon (paragraph [0082]), and that the atmosphere is substantially free of oxygen or has less than 0.5 wt% oxygen (paragraph [0072]). The conditions, feed, and catalyst of Trapp above are very similar or identical to the conditions of an atmosphere substantially free of or less than 0.5 wt% oxygen, 325-110°C, feed consisting essentially of polyolefins, and activated carbon catalyst of Bitting (paragraphs [0305],[0311], [0313], and [0316]).
Therefore, while Bitting does not explicitly teach producing a liquid stream comprising char (first liquid stream) from the pyrolysis process along with the vapor stream 120 (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 activate carbon catalyst, and Trapp teaches that performing this pyrolysis produces a liquid stream comprising char along with the pyrolysis vapor stream (paragraph [0004]).
b) passing the gas and vapor products 120 (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 (second liquid stream) and pyrolysis gas 136 (second vapor) (paragraph [0326]), where the fractionator includes a condenser (paragraphs [0326], [0319]).
c) passing the pyrolysis oil 140 (second liquid stream) as r-pyoil feed (paragraph [0352]) to an FCC unit comprising a zeolite catalyst (paragraphs [0563]-[0564]) to produce a vapor FCC product (third vapor stream) and liquid FCC product (third liquid stream) (Fig. 27). Bitting is silent regarding the presence of oxygen in the FCC reactor, and thus the reaction is expected to take place in the absence of oxygen, as claimed.
While Bitting does not explicitly teach that the FCC is equivalent to the claimed depolymerization or that the liquid FCC product (third liquid stream) comprises char, Bitting teaches a similar cracking reaction in the presence of a zeolite catalyst (instant specification paragraph [0093] states depolymerization includes cracking) and also Bitting incorporates by reference Henry et al. (US 7,261,807) (paragraph [0566]) which 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 is equivalent to the claimed depolymerization and that the liquid FCC product (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 the same product.
d) For separating, Bitting teaches combining the vapor FCC product (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 vapor FCC product (third vapor stream) includes vapor-liquid separation (condensing) (paragraph [0548]), where vapor liquid separating is understood as producing a vapor stream (fourth vapor stream) and liquid stream (fourth liquid stream).
Bitting does not specifically teach the contents of the fourth liquid stream produced from the vapor liquid (condensing) separation. However, Bitting teaches the similar process comprising the first depolymerization step with the same catalyst and 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 and third liquid products, where the third vapor product is vapor-liquid separated (condensed) to produce the fourth vapor and fourth liquid product as claimed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the products including the fourth liquid product stream to comprise the same 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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