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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
This is the response to the response to restriction/election filed 10/06/2025
Claims 1-3, 9, 14, 17-18, 35-36, 40, 51, 59, 62, 66, 68, 76-79, and 87 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 87 has been withdrawn from consideration for being directed toward a nonelected claim.
Claims 4-8, 10-13, 15-16, 19-34, 37-39, 41-50, 52-58, 60-61, 63-65, 67, 69-75, and 80-86 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 14, 17-18, 35-36, 40, 51, 59, 62, 66, 68, and 76-78, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER (USPGPUB 2012/0203042) in view of MADUSKAR (WO 2021216285).
HUBER teach a system and process for catalytic pyrolysis of biomass and hydrocarbonaceous materials for production of aromatics with olefin recycle.
HUBER teach in paragraphs 9 and 42 the method may comprise feeding a solid hydrocarbonaceous material to a reactor, pyrolyzing the solid hydrocarbonacoues material with a heterogeneous pyrolytic catalyst to undergo catalytic pyrolysis (a) feeding solid hydrocarbonaceous materials into a fluidized bed catalytic pyrolysis reactor containing a solid conversion catalyst and generate gas hydrocarbon products such as aromatic compounds and olefins. (b) reacting the hydrocarbonaceous materials to form vapor products)
Hydrocarbonaceous material is taught in paragraph 103 to include plastic waste.
An example of a fluidized bed reactor is taught in paragraph 65 of a circulating fluidized bed reactor in which the granular solid material is passed out of the reactor, circulated through a line in fluid communication with the reactor, and recycled back into the reactor.
One example is taught in paragraphs 177-179 to in which product gases exit the top of the reactor and sent to a cyclone in which entrained solids are removed. (c) withdrawing and recovering the vapor products) The vapor is then sent to a condenser train to separate products.
HUBER teaches in paragraph 181 that the selectivity for olefins and aromatics can be adjusted by modifying the space velocity of the feed material of the reactor. (d) recovering olefins, aromatics, or both, from the vapor products)
Catalyst and fluidization fluid is taught in paragraph 77 to be recycled back into the reactor.
MADUSKAR teaches fluidized bed plastic waste pyrolysis.
MADUSKAR teaches supplying the plastic waste with pneumatic feeder or a a series of pneumatic feeders.
MADUSKAR is relied on to teach a particle distribution device for the feed particles that spread the particles over the surface of the fluidized bed.
MADUSKAR teach in the abstract that the method allows for the conversion of polymers to olefins. Plastic feedstock is delivered to a pyrolysis reactor by one or more pneumatic feeders. The one or more pneumatic feeders may be cooled to maintain the plastic feedstock in a solid state during delivery. MADUSKAR teach in paragraphs 34 and 35 that the pneumatic feeders may be placed vertically above the reactor with the plastic feedstock introduced above the bed.
The pneumatic feeder is taught in paragraph 30 to propel plastic feedstock vertically. The pneumatic feeders are further taught in paragraph 31 to assist with evenly distributing the delivery of the plastic feedstock into the pyrolysis reactor to generate a pyrolysis reactor. (a) by means of a feed system that includes a particle distribution device that spreads feed particles over the surface of the bed)
MADUSKAR teach in paragraphs 27-28 that the pneumatic feeders allow for a controlled manner in introducing the plastic particles. The pneumatic feeders further facilitate mixing of the feed in the reactor.
Regarding claim 2, HUBER teaches that the hydrocarbonaceous material is taught in paragraph 103 to include plastic waste.
Regarding claim 3, MADUSKAR teach in paragraph 20 that the plastic feedstock may comprise polyethylene and polypropylene.
It would be obvious to use polyethylene and polypropylene as the waste plastic in HUBER.
Regarding claim 9, MADUSKAR teach in paragraph 40 that plastic waste represents difficulties when pyrolyzing plastic waste with chlorine as it generates chlorine.
An obvious approach to dealing with chlorine in plastic waste would be removing plastic waste that comprises chlorine.
Regarding claim 14, MADUSKAR teaches in paragraph 13 a feed system that comprises a lock hopper, one or more valves for metering and the pneumatic feeders for evenly distributing the delivery of the plastic feed.
Regarding claim 17, MADUSKAR teach in paragraphs 34 and 35 that the pneumatic feeders may be placed vertically above the reactor with the plastic feedstock introduced above the bed. A fluidized bed reactor would be expected to have the plastic feedstock at least across the cross-section of the bed.
Regarding claim 18, MADUSKAR teach in paragraph 15 that the plastic particles are delivered to the pyrolysis reactor with enough velocity to reduce or minimize the melting of the plastic.
The pneumatic feeders would also be expected to impart some amount of spin and radial velocity to the particles.
Regarding claims 35-36, HUBER teach in paragraphs 85 and 92 that the product from the pyrolysis reactor may be sent to a solid separator. The solid catalyst may be sent to be regenerated in a regenerator.
Regarding claim 40, HUBER teaches in paragraphs 177-179 to in which product gases exit the top of the reactor and sent to a cyclone in which entrained solids are removed. (c) withdrawing and recovering the vapor products) The vapor is then sent to a condenser train to separate products.
Regarding claim 51, HUBER teaches in the abstract and paragraph 11 that the catalyst used may be a zeolite.
Regarding claim 59, HUBER teaches in paragraphs 90, 137, and 139 that different conditions may be applied to produce a relatively larger amount of either olefins or aromatics. More than 20 wt% of olefins may be produced.
HUBER further teaches in paragraph 201 that condensation may be used to separate aromatics from olefins.
Regarding claim 62, HUBER teaches in paragraph 42 that one goal is in producing aromatic compounds such as benzene, toluene, and xylenes.
HUBER further teaches in paragraph 201 that condensation may be used to separate aromatics from olefins.
Regarding claim 66, HUBER teaches in paragraph 192 that it is further possible to adjust for the selectivity of certain aromatics such as 40% toluene.
Regarding claim 68, HUBER teaches in paragraphs 83 and 98 that other gaseous products are produced from the pyrolytic catalysis that include CO2 and CO. Excess gas is further taught to be sent back into the reactor as a fluidization gas.
Regarding claims 76 and 77, HUBER teaches in paragraphs 44 and 49, that the method may comprise a single-stage pyrolysis apparatus but may also comprise a series of fluidized bed reactors.
HUBER further teach in paragraph 50 that there is no order of steps bound and that some amount of thermal pyrolysis may be involved with catalytic pyrolysis. The products from the thermal pyrolysis are then reacted catalytically to form fluid hydrocarbons.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to perform thermal pyrolysis in a reactor to melt some of the feed to produce a portion of liquid feed followed by reacted catalytically to form fluid hydrocarbons.
Regarding claim 78, HUBER teaches in paragraph 78 that in some embodiments that the feed composition comprises both solid hydrocarbonaceous material and solid catalyst.
Claim(s) 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER (USPGPUB 20120203042) in view of MADUSKAR (WO 2021216285) in view of as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 14, 17-18, 35-36, 40, 51, 59, 62, 66, 68, and 76-78 above, and further in view of YOSHIKAWA (JP 2001191051A) and the machine translation of YOSHIKAWA.
The above discussion of HUBER in view of MADUSKAR is incorporated herein by reference.
YOSHIKAWA is hereafter be referring to the machine translation of YOSHIKAWA.
HUBER teaches that solid catalyst may be added as part of the feed composition.
MADUSKAR recognizes in paragraph 40 that chlorine from plastic waste pose difficulties and that the inclusion of a calcium source in the heat transfer particles of the allows for the generation of calcium chloride compounds that are easily removed.
YOSHIKAWA teaches in the abstract how to fix hydrogen chloride that is generated by pyrolysis of chlorine containing plastics with the addition of a metal oxide or metal carbonate such as calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add calcium carbonate to the fluidized bed in HUBER in the treatment of plastic waste that comprises chlorine to enable easy removal of chlorine from the process.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STANKEVITCH (USPGPUB 20030047437) teaches process for the conversion of waste plastics to hydrocarbon oils.
KAWAKAMI (USPGPUB 20160236164) teaches a catalyst loader that rotationally spread the catalyst.
CARTOLANO (USPGPUB 20200362248) teaches catalytic pyrolysis of polymers can produce olefins and aromatics.
SOUERS (GB 2168330A) teaches method and apparatus for uniformly loading particulate material to cylindrical beds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771