3DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1, 3, 8–12, 20, 24, and 26 in the reply filed on 2/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8–12, 20, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys et al. (US 2020/0071619 A1) in view of Evans (EP 0571163 A1).
Humphreys teaches processing mixed plastic/polymeric material by extruding the material to form a melt stream (¶[0010]–[0017]), wherein chlorine-containing polymers undergo dechlorination/dehalogenation during processing (¶[0141]–[0143]), and further teaches staged extrusion/reactive processing corresponding to sequential treatment of the material (¶[0207]–[0214], ¶[0209]). Humphreys also teaches mixing the extrusion-derived material with a solvent to form a reaction mixture (¶[0010]–[0013]), wherein the solvent includes hydrocarbon oil additives (e.g., gas-oil, aromatic oils) that may act as oil-solvents (¶[0196], ¶[0264]), and performing catalytic depolymerization of the polymeric material followed by downstream separation via fractionation/distillation (¶[0218], ¶[0262]–[0264]).
Humphreys does not teach the use of a multi-tray reactive distillation column as claimed.
Evans teaches a reactive distillation column integrating reaction and separation, including a multi-tray column with reaction and distillation trays and introduction of feed streams onto trays (p. 3, lines. 5–9; p. 1; claims).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the reactive distillation column of Evans in place of, or in combination with, the separation step of Humphreys, because Evans teaches that integrating reaction and distillation within a multi-tray column improves mass and heat transfer, enhances conversion, and reduces equipment count, representing a known process intensification technique.
Claim 3
Humphreys teaches removal of halogens (including chlorine) via conversion to inorganic species during processing (¶[0141]–[0143]).
Claim 8
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inject a stripping gas such as steam or hydrogen into the process, because stripping gases are routinely used in extrusion and devolatilization processes to remove volatile components and enhance separation efficiency.
Claim 9
Humphreys teaches hydrocarbon oil additives (e.g., gas-oil, aromatic oils) acting as solvents (¶[0196]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ hydrocarbon oils capable of hydrogen donation as hydrogen donor solvents in order to stabilize free radical species formed during depolymerization, as hydrogen donation from hydrocarbon media is a well-known mechanism in thermal and catalytic cracking processes and represents a predictable use of known materials for their established function.
Claim 10
Humphreys teaches:
transition metal catalysts (¶[0176])
sulfur-containing catalyst systems (sulfided catalysts) (Table 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ gaseous hydrogen in conjunction with the disclosed transition metal sulfided catalyst systems, because such catalysts are conventionally used under hydrogen atmospheres to promote hydrogen transfer and stabilize reactive intermediates in hydroprocessing reactions, representing a predictable application of known techniques.
Claim 11
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select molybdenum octoate or molybdenum naphthenate as the transition metal catalyst, because such molybdenum-based compounds are well-known catalyst precursors for forming active sulfided molybdenum catalysts used in hydroprocessing reactions, and selection of a specific molybdenum precursor represents a routine choice among known alternatives.
Claim 12
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select butyl sulfide as the sulfur-containing compound, because sulfur-containing organic compounds such as sulfides are well-known for providing sulfur to form or maintain sulfided transition metal catalysts, and selection of a specific sulfide compound represents a routine choice among known sulfur sources used in hydroprocessing systems.
Claim 20
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a reboiler and recycle vaporized bottoms stream within the distillation column system, because such features are standard in distillation column operation to maintain vapor-liquid equilibrium and improve separation efficiency.
Claim 24
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shred the mixed plastic waste prior to extrusion, because size reduction is a routine preprocessing step that improves handling and processing efficiency.
Claim 26
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an upstream plug flow reactor prior to the distillation column, because staged reaction systems are well-known and use of different reactor configurations represents a predictable variation to optimize conversion and residence time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771