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 1, 5, 17, and 19 are amended. Claim 21 is new.
The amendment to claim 19 does not overcome the previous objection, see below. The amendments to claims 1, 5, and 17 overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, but the new issues have been created by the amendments, see below.
Claims 1-21 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2026 have been fully considered. Some are persuasive, and some are not, as discussed below.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that Ramamurthy does not teach adding a portion of the pygas into the quench zone of the cracking facility. The Examiner agrees, Ramamurthy alone does not teach this new limitation of adding a portion of the pygas to the quench zone. Thus, the 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-20 over Ramamurthy are withdrawn.
Applicant argues in the section bridging pages 8 and 9 of the Remarks that Ramamurthy does not teach claim 1 and that Uppili, whether taken alone or in combination with Ramamurthy, fails to remedy the deficiencies of Ramamurthy.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees about Uppili. Ramamurthy teaches the method of claim 1, except that Ramamurthy does not teach passing a portion of the pygas to the quench zone of the cracker. Uppili was used for claims 3 and 4 to teach adding a portion of the pygas to the quench zone of the cracker facility. Applicant has not specifically pointed out any issues with this combination. Thus, Uppili is continued to be used to render obvious the concept of passing a portion of the pygas to the quench zone of the cracker facility, and the combination of Ramamurthy and Uppili renders obvious newly amended claim 1 and continues to render obvious claims 3 and 4.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 19, the claim as amended recites “the introducing of step (b)”. This is a typographical error of “step (d)”, as the introducing is in step (d).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-21 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.
With regard to claims 1 and 17, the claims each recite in step (c) “wherein the cracker facility comprises a cracker furnace and a quench zone and wherein a portion of the r-pygas is introduced into the cracker furnace and the quench zone…” It is not clear from this phrasing if a single portion is passed to both the furnace and the quench zone, since they are present in the same facility and could be connected, or if a portion is passed to the furnace and a different portion is passed to the quench zone. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification envisions passing a portion upstream of the cracker or to the furnace, and a portion downstream of the furnace, which specifically includes the quench zone (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]). Thus, the claim will be interpreted as requiring two portions, a first portion to the furnace and a second portion to the quench zone. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the r-pygas is introduced into the cracker facility at a location downstream of a cracker furnace.” However, claim 1 as amended already recites introducing “a portion” of the r-pygas into the furnace and the quench zone. The term “the r-pygas” thus lacks antecedent basis. It is further unclear whether the r-pygas in claim 3 is the portion already passed to the quench zone, if the quench zone is downstream of the cracker furnace, or whether it is a third portion separate from the two in claim 1. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites passing portions of the r-pygas downstream of the cracker furnace to at least one of the quench zone, the compression section, and separation section (paragraphs [0023]-[0024]). Thus, the Examiner will give the broadest reasonable interpretation, which is that there is at least one portion passed downstream, where the portion can be the portion already recited as passed to the quench zone, or could be an additional portion passed to another downstream location. Appropriate amendment is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the r-pygas is introduced into at least one of a quench section, a compression section, and a separation section of the cracker facility.” However, claim 1 as amended already recites introducing “a portion” of the r-pygas into the furnace and the quench zone. It is unclear if the “quench zone” in claim 1 and “quench section” in claim 4 are the same units, or different units, within the cracker facility. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the terms “section” and “zone” appear to be interchangeable in the instant specification, as they are each used to describe the same concepts of quench, compression, and separation (paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0071]). As such, the Examiner will consider that there is one quench zone which is referred to in both claim 1 and claim 4. If this is the case, claim 4 would then not further limit claim 1, because claim 1 already requires the quench zone, and thus claim 4 should be amended to remove quench zone as an option.
With regard to claim 5, the claim recites “further comprising at least a portion of the r-pygas in the cracker furnace to form a recycled content furnace effluent (r-furnace effluent).” It is unclear whether the portion in claim 1 introduced into the cracker furnace and the “at least a portion” in claim 5 are the same portion. Also, “at least a portion” in claim 5 is indefinite, as claim 1 already requires two portions as interpreted above, one to the furnace and one to the quench zone, thus the entirety of the r-pygas cannot be sent to the furnace which is understood from the phrase “at least a portion”.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that claim 5 is referring to the same portion as claim 1, as there is no indication in the instant specification that two portions are each sent to the cracker furnace. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that introducing the r-pygas into the cracker furnace will cause a cracking reaction which will produce a cracker effluent. As the r-pygas is already defined as “recycled content” pygas, it is understood that the effluent will be a “recycled content” effluent. Thus, when the portions are interpreted as being the same portion, claim 5 does not further limit claim 1.
With regard to claims 2, 6-16, and 18-21, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-9 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2019/0177626) in view of Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, and 14, Ramamurthy teaches a method for producing high-value chemicals from mixed plastics (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps (see Figure 1):
a) pyrolyzing waste plastic in a pyrolysis unit 10 (pyrolysis facility) to produce a pyrolysis effluent 12;
b) separating the pyrolysis effluent 12 into a pyrolysis gas 22 (r-pygas) and a pyrolysis liquid (r-pyoil) 21;
c) introducing pyrolysis gas 22 (r-pygas) into gas steam cracker 35 (furnace of a cracker facility); and
d) separating the liquid (r-pyoil) 21 into a first fraction 26 and a second fraction 27 (instant claim 6), and introducing the first fraction 26 into a downstream liquid steam cracker 45 (downstream location which is another cracker facility instant claims 1 and 13). The liquid steam cracker 45 is not integrated with the gas stream cracker 35 in Figure 1 in any manner, and thus the liquid steam cracker 45 (downstream location) is not within the gas steam cracker 35 (cracker facility), as claimed in instant claim 1.
Ramamurthy fails to teach introducing a portion of the gas 22 (pygas) into a quench zone in the cracker facility.
Uppili teaches a process for recovering olefins from plastic waste (paragraph [0002]) where the process comprises a pyrolysis reactor integrated with a steam cracker and steam cracker processing train (paragraph [0014], first 5 lines) and the steam cracking processing train includes a quench tower (paragraph [0046]). Uppili additionally teaches that the process comprises producing a pyrolysis gas 195 from pyrolysis of plastics and introducing pyrolysis gas 195 to the quench tower 211 in the steam cracking process train (cracker facility) (paragraph [0067], Figures 1 and 2) where the pyrolysis gas passed to the quench tower can be a portion of the pyrolysis gas and another portion can be introduced at another location (paragraph [0040] last sentence). Uppili further teaches that integrating pyrolysis and steam cracking by passing the pyrolysis gas to the steam cracker train minimizes costs and/or equipment footprint for separating, thus giving monomers in high yield while lowering capital and energy usage (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas of Ramamurthy to a quench zone downstream of the cracker in the cracker facility, as claimed in instant claims 1, 3, and 4, because Ramamurthy and Uppili each teach integration of pyrolysis and steam cracking by cracking the pyrolysis gas, and Uppili teaches that integration including passing at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas to the quench tower in the steam cracker train minimizes costs and/or equipment footprint, thus giving monomers in high yield while lowering capital and energy usage (paragraph [0014]).
With regard to claim 2, Ramamurthy teaches passing the gas product from the pyrolysis unit (pyrolysis facility) to the gas cracker (cracker facility). Ramamurthy does not teach any transportation or any steps in between. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to have the pyrolysis facility and cracker facility be co-located, as claimed.
With regard to claim 5, Ramamurthy teaches cracking the gas 22 (pygas) in the cracker 35 to form a product (recycled content furnace effluent) 36 (Figure 1). Introducing the gas into the cracker as shown in Figure 1 is equivalent to introducing the stream upstream of the cracker furnace as claimed.
With regard to claim 7, Ramamurthy teaches that the liquid stream 21 (pyoil) comprises 50 wt% or more aromatics having carbon numbers of 6 to 30 (paragraph [0049]). This is within the range of at least 50 wt% C4-C30 hydrocarbons of instant claim 7.
With regard to claim 8, Ramamurthy teaches that the amount of chloride (heteroatom) compounds in the liquid stream 21 (pyoil) is less than 100 ppmw (paragraph [0044]). This is within the range of less than 20 wt% heteroatom-containing compounds of instant claim 8. Ramamurthy is silent regarding the presence of any other heteroatom compounds, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that there is no additional heteroatom content, and the total remains within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 9, Ramamurthy is silent regarding the specific amounts of C2, C3, C4 and C5 compounds in the gas 22 (pygas). However, Ramamurthy teaches pyrolysis of mixed waste plastics at a temperature of 450-750°C and a step of separating the gas (pygas) (paragraphs [0037-0039]). The instant specification teaches similar pyrolysis at temperatures of 350-700°C (paragraph [0014]) followed by a similar step to recover pyrolysis gas (paragraph [0018]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the pygas of Ramamurthy would have similar components, including 5-60 wt% C2, 5 to 60 wt% C3, 1-60 wt% C4, and 1-25 wt% C5 of instant claim 9.
With regard to claim 12, Ramamurthy teaches producing gasoline and diesel from the pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0105]). The instant specification recites that the burner of a furnace is used to generate energy in a motor or engine when the pyoil is used as a fuel source (paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the diesel and/or gasoline of Ramamurthy as a fuel source, as it is well known to use diesel and gasoline in motors or engine, and thus Ramamurthy teaches the burner in a furnace as claimed.
With regard to claim 14, Ramamurthy teaches the product of the cracking is light olefins and aromatics (Figure 1), which are high-value chemicals (paragraph [0001]) and also known as fine chemicals (instant claim 14).
With regard to claim 15, Ramamurthy teaches cracking the gas stream 22 as above (Figure 1). The gas stream 22 comprises hydrocarbons (paragraph [0041]), and thus is a hydrocarbon feedstock. Therefore, the gas stream 22 being cracker in cracker 35 meets the limitation of cracking a hydrocarbon feedstock in a cracker furnace of the cracker facility, as claimed. The cracker effluent of Ramamurthy is produced by cracking the gas stream from the pyrolysis (recycled content pyrolysis gas as claimed), and thus the effluent also comprises recycled content and is a recycled content furnace effluent as claimed (Figure 1).
Alternatively, Ramamurthy teaches passing a portion of hydroprocessing unit gas product stream comprising hydrocarbons (hydrocarbon feedstock) as additional feed to the gas steam cracker (paragraph [0005]), the cracker feed also comprises pyrolysis gas (r-pygas), and thus the effluent stream from the cracker comprises a recycled content furnace effluent stream, as claimed.
With regard to claim 16, Ramamurthy does not specifically teach that the pyrolysis and cracker are commercial scale facilities. However, the assignee of the Ramamurthy application is SABIC, which is a well-known company which performs pyrolysis at commercial scale. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the facilities of Ramamurthy can be used as commercial scale facilities, as claimed.
With regard to claims 17 and 19, Ramamurthy teaches a method for producing high-value chemicals from mixed plastics (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps (see Figure 1):
a) pyrolyzing waste plastic in a pyrolysis unit 10 (pyrolysis facility) to produce a pyrolysis effluent 12;
b) separating the pyrolysis effluent 12 into a pyrolysis gas 22 and a pyrolysis liquid (pyoil) 21;
c) introducing pyrolysis gas 22 into gas steam cracker 35 (cracker facility); and
d) separating the liquid (pyoil) 21 in a distillation column 20 (location (v)) into a first fraction 26, and introducing the first fraction 26 into a liquid steam cracker 45 (location (ix) a different cracker). Thus, Ramamurthy teaches introducing at least a portion of the pyrolysis oil into at least two locations (v) and (ix) of instant claim 19.
Ramamurthy fails to teach introducing a portion of the gas 22 (pygas) into a quench zone in the cracker facility.
Uppili teaches a process for recovering olefins from plastic waste (paragraph [0002]) where the process comprises a pyrolysis reactor integrated with a steam cracker and steam cracker processing train (paragraph [0014], first 5 lines) and the steam cracking processing train includes a quench tower (paragraph [0046]). Uppili additionally teaches that the process comprises producing a pyrolysis gas 195 from pyrolysis of plastics and introducing pyrolysis gas 195 to the quench tower 211 in the steam cracking process train (cracker facility) (paragraph [0067], Figures 1 and 2) where the pyrolysis gas passed to the quench tower can be a portion of the pyrolysis gas and another portion can be introduced at another location (paragraph [0040] last sentence). Uppili further teaches that integrating pyrolysis and steam cracking by passing the pyrolysis gas to the steam cracker train minimizes costs and/or equipment footprint for separating, thus giving monomers in high yield while lowering capital and energy usage (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas of Ramamurthy to a quench zone in the cracker facility, as claimed, because Ramamurthy and Uppili each teach integration of pyrolysis and steam cracking by cracking the pyrolysis gas, and Uppili teaches that integration including passing at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas to the quench tower in the steam cracker train minimizes costs and/or equipment footprint, thus giving monomers in high yield while lowering capital and energy usage (paragraph [0014]).
With regard to instant claim 18, Ramamurthy teaches that the amount of chloride (heteroatom) compounds in the liquid stream 21 (pyoil) is less than 100 ppmw (paragraph [0044]). This is within the range of less than 20 wt% heteroatom-containing compounds of instant claim 18. Ramamurthy is silent regarding the presence of any other heteroatom compounds, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that there is no additional heteroatom content, and the total remains within the claimed range. Ramamurthy is silent regarding the specific amounts of C2, C3, C4 and C5 compounds in the gas 22 (pygas). However, Ramamurthy teaches pyrolysis of mixed waste plastics at a temperature of 450-750°C and a step of separating the gas (pygas) (paragraphs [0037-0039]). The instant specification teaches similar pyrolysis at temperatures of 350-700°C (paragraph [0014]) followed by a similar step to recover pyrolysis gas (paragraph [0018]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the pygas of Ramamurthy would have similar components, including 5-60 wt% C2, 5 to 60 wt% C3, 1-60 wt% C4, and 1-25 wt% C5 of instant claim 18.
With regard to claim 20, Ramamurthy teaches passing the gas product from the pyrolysis unit (pyrolysis facility) to the gas cracker (cracker facility). Ramamurthy does not teach any transportation or any steps in between. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious to have the pyrolysis facility and cracker facility be co-located, as claimed. Ramamurthy does not specifically teach that the pyrolysis and cracker are commercial scale facilities. However, the assignee of the Ramamurthy application is SABIC, which is a well-known company which performs pyrolysis at commercial scale. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the facilities of Ramamurthy can be used as commercial scale facilities, as claimed.
With regard to claim 21, Ramamurthy teaches the pyrolysis unit is an extruder (paragraph [0031]), as claimed.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2019/0177626) in view of Uppili et al. (US 2022/0195309) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abbott et al. (US 2022/0098491).
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Ramamurthy teaches the process above, which produces liquid effluent 21 (pyrolysis oil).
Ramamurthy is silent regarding passing a portion of the pyrolysis oil to a carbon reformer (instant claim 10) or oil refinery to produce fuel (instant claim 11).
Abbott teaches circular chemicals from pyrolysis of plastics (paragraph [0002]). Abbott further teaches that the pyrolysis oil is passed to a reforming unit (carbon reformer) (paragraph [0267]) or a refinery crude unit which produces gasoline or diesel (fuel) (paragraph [0260]). Abbott additionally teaches that the circular product content enhances the economics of using pyrolysis oil and provides advantages under regulatory provisions (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass a portion of the pyrolysis oil of Ramamurthy to a refinery or reformer, as taught by Abbott, because each of Ramamurthy and Abbott teach pyrolysis of plastics to produce pyrolysis oil, and Abbott teaches that passing a portion of the oil to a reformer or refinery unit to make circular chemicals enhances the economics of using pyrolysis oil and provides advantages under regulatory provisions (paragraph [0005]).
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