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 13, 14, 18, and 21-26 are preliminarily amended. Claims 3, 4, 7-12, 15-17, 19, 20, and 27-43 are preliminarily cancelled. Claim 46 is new.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, 21-26, and 44-46 are pending for examination below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in line 12 “feeding pyrogas from the third pyrolysis chamber…” This should recite “the pyrogas” for proper antecedent basis.
Also with regard to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 16-17 “each of the least first…condensers” which should be “each the at least first”.
With regard to claim 26, the claim recites “a temperature range of about 360°C to about 400°C, about 250°C to about 360°C, about 100°C to about 250°C respectively,” For grammatical clarity this should recite “a temperature range of about 360°C to about 400°C, about 250°C to about 360°C, and about 100°C to about 250°C, respectively,”
Appropriate corrections are 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, 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, 21-26, and 44-46 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 claim 1, the claim contains the following issues:
-in line 2, the claim recites “volatizing light organics”. The term “light organics” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light organics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the term “light organics” is not explicitly defined in the specification and has no typical meaning in the art. The instant specification does recite “inks, mold release lubricants, and the like”, however these terms are also not well defined in the art, it is unclear what is meant by “and the like”, and thus the metes and bounds of the term remain unclear. Thus, the Examiner will give the term “light organics” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “any compound which volatizes at the claimed temperatures”. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
-in lines 2-3, the claim recites “volatizing light organics from plastic waste…to form a mixed plastic liquid”. It is unclear whether the term “mixed” is referring to the presence of a means of mixing, or the term mixed refers to the plastics, which are often termed “mixed plastics” when used in similar processes. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 44 and the instant specification each recite that the plastics are mixed plastics (paragraph [0026] for example) and do not mention the idea of mixing the liquid in the unit. Thus, the term will be interpreted as referring only to the plastic waste. Appropriate correction to either recite “mixed plastic waste” in line 2 or to delete the term “mixed” from line 3 is respectfully requested.
-in lines 12-14, the claim recites “feeding pyrogas…into at least one of three catalytic reactors to produce a hydrocarbon stream from each catalytic reactor, wherein each reactor comprises a different catalyst…” This phrasing is contradictory because it states that the feed only goes into “at least one” but also states producing a product from “each catalytic reactor”. Thus, it is unclear how many reactors must be present and used in the process.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites “the three catalytic reactors (13,14,15) are provided with specific catalysts to drive the cracking process to the desired chain length of the hydrocarbon fuel product. By controlling temperatures and specific catalysts in each catalytic reactor, the desired final product may be produced in three "cuts" or fractions” (paragraph [0056]). Thus, it appears that the reactors are all needed in order to get the three different products desired. As such, the claim will be interpreted as reciting passing a portion of the pyrogas to three different reactors, and appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
-in line 15, the claim recites “directing hydrocarbons from the at least three reactors to a first…fractional condenser…” The term “hydrocarbons” lacks antecedent basis. The previous step recites producing “hydrocarbon stream” from each reactor. It is not clear if the “hydrocarbons” in line 15 are the hydrocarbon streams from the reactors, or if the hydrocarbon streams undergo additional processing and/or separation before passing to the condensers. Additionally, the recitation of “the at least three reactors” also lacks antecedent basis. There are only three reactors recited in line 14, not “at least three”.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the “hydrocarbons” and “hydrocarbon stream” are the same, based on the Figure 1 which only shows a single product stream from each reactor which is passed to the condenser in each case. The Examiner will also consider that there are only three reactors, as there is ample evidence in the specification that only three reactors at most are contemplated (paragraphs [0023], [0041], [0048], and [0056]).
-in lines 16 and 18, the claim recites “light hydrocarbon vapor”. The term “light hydrocarbon” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light hydrocarbon” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, there is no commonly accepted definition of “light hydrocarbon” as there are multiple ranges of hydrocarbons which are present. The instant specification recites that C5 and C6 hydrocarbons are condensed from the light hydrocarbon fraction in the chilled water condenser (paragraph [0047]). Thus, the Examiner will consider that light hydrocarbons are C6- hydrocarbons. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
-in lines 18-19, the claim recites “feeding the light hydrocarbon vapor…to produce a pyrogas.” It is unclear what is meant by the term “pyrogas” in this instance, as this is not a well-defined term in the art and there is no indication in the claim what is meant. Further, there is a previously recited pyrogas in line 11 which contains C12-C26 alkanes, but this pyrogas goes through conversion and condensation steps, and thus would not be expected to be produced from the chilled water condenser. As such, it is unclear what is present in the “pyrogas”, and the term is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites that the pyrogas produced in the chilled water condenser is essentially composed of non-condensable gases (paragraph [0048]), and thus any non-condensable gas stream will be considered equivalent to the claimed pyrogas stream. Appropriate amendment to change the name of the stream and clarify the composition, so that there is no confusion between the pyrogas stream in line 11 and the pyrogas stream in line 19, is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 6, the claim recites “waste vapors”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “waste vapors” as this is not defined in the specification and has no well understood meaning in the art. Thus, the term is unclear and indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites “waste vapors, including volatized light organic and acid gas mixtures”. Thus the waste vapors will be considered as including light organics and acid gases. Appropriate amendment is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 44, the claim comprises the following issues:
-in line 3, the claim recites “volatizing light organics”. The term “light organics” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light organics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the term “light organics” is not explicitly defined in the specification and has no typical meaning in the art. The instant specification does recite “inks, mold release lubricants, and the like”, however these terms are also not well defined in the art, it is unclear what is meant by “and the like”, and thus the metes and bounds of the term remain unclear. Thus, the Examiner will give the term “light organics” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “any compound which volatizes at the claimed temperatures”. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
-in line 13, the claim recites “directing hydrocarbons from the third pyrolysis chamber to a first…fractional condenser…” The term “hydrocarbons” lacks antecedent basis. The previous step recites producing “a pyrogas comprising C12-C26 alkanes”. It is unclear if the pyrogas is equivalent to the “hydrocarbons”, or if the pyrogas undergoes additional processing and/or separation before passing to the condensers.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the “hydrocarbons” include the pyrogas and possibly additional hydrocarbons, based on the Figure 2 which shows a single product stream comprised of the effluents from all three pyrolysis reactors being sent to the condenser without further separation.
-in lines 15 and 17, the claim recites “light hydrocarbon vapor”. The term “light hydrocarbon” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light hydrocarbon” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, there is no commonly accepted definition of “light hydrocarbon” as there are multiple ranges of hydrocarbons which are present. The instant specification recites that C5 and C6 hydrocarbons are condensed from the light hydrocarbon fraction in the chilled water condenser (paragraph [0047]). Thus, the Examiner will consider that light hydrocarbons are C6- hydrocarbons. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
-in lines 17-18, the claim recites “feeding the light hydrocarbon vapor…to produce a pyrogas.” It is unclear what is meant by the term “pyrogas” in this instance, as this is not a well-defined term in the art and there is no indication in the claim what is meant. Further, there is a previously recited pyrogas in line 11 which contains C12-C26 alkanes, but this pyrogas goes through conversion and condensation steps, and thus would not be expected to be produced from the chilled water condenser. As such, it is unclear what is present in the “pyrogas”, and the term is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites that the pyrogas produced in the chilled water condenser is essentially composed of non-condensable gases (paragraph [0048]), and thus any non-condensable gas stream will be considered equivalent to the claimed pyrogas stream. Appropriate amendment to change the name of the stream and clarify the composition, so that there is no confusion between the pyrogas stream in line 11 and the pyrogas stream in line 19, is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2, 5, 13, 14, 18, 21-26, 45, and 46, 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, 2, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0195315) and Scheirs et al. (Feedstock Recycling and Pyrolysis of Waste Plastics: Converting Waste Plastics into Diesel and Other Fuels).
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 18, Ullom teaches a method for conversion of polymer waste to hydrocarbon products (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following:
a) providing raw material which is shredded plastic waste (paragraph [0034]) to a Zone 3 which is a raw material melt zone (pre-conditioning chamber PCC) (paragraph [0073]). Zone 3 produces a melted plastics feed and is operated at a temperature 220°F-575°F (104.4 to 301.7°C) (paragraph [0073]) which overlaps the range of about 150°C to about 225°C of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Ullom does not specifically teach that the step is for volatizing light organics. However, Ullom teaches a similar mixed waste plastics feed and reacting at similar temperatures, and thus would be expected to also have the function of volatizing organics, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
b) passing the melted plastics from Zone 3 into Zone 4 (first pyrolysis chamber) which operates at a temperature of 572-690°F (300-365.6°C) (paragraph [0075]), which is within the range of about 250 to about 400°C of instant claim 1. Zone 4 of Ullom is a zone which thoroughly mixes the melt (paragraph [0076]). Thus, while Ullom does not specifically recite that the product of Zone 4 is a homogenized mixture, because Ullom teaches the same melted plastics in the same zone where mixing takes place at the same claimed temperature, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the product is a homogenized mixture, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
c) passing the product from Zone 4 to Zone 5 (second pyrolysis chamber) which is operated at a temperature of 365-488°C (paragraph [0082]), which is within the range of 300-500°C of instant claim 1 and overlaps the range of about 350 to about 450°C of instant claim 14, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Ullom further teaches that the purpose of Zone 5 is to perform pyrolysis including breaking down the plastic (cracking) (paragraph [0082]). Thus, while Ullom does not explicitly teach producing a partially cracked plastic mixture, because Ullom teaches the same thoroughly mixed melted plastics stream in the same zone at the same temperature, and further teaches a residence time of 30-90 minutes, which overlaps the total residence time in the 3 reactors of the instant specification of 90 minutes, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the product of Ullom is a similar partially cracked product as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
d) passing the product from Zone 5 into Zone 6 (third pyrolysis chamber) maintained at a temperature of 454-982°C to form a vapor pyrolysis product (pyrogas) (paragraph [0087]). This range overlaps the ranges of about 400 to about 600°C of instant claim 1 and about 450°C to about 550°C of instant claim 18, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious. Ullom further teaches that the vapor fractions comprise products having 4-30 carbon atoms (paragraph [0026]), which overlaps the range of C12-C26 of instant claim 1. While Ullom does not specifically teach the C4-C30 product includes alkanes, Ullom teaches a similar process comprising 4 similar zones operated at similar temperatures and comprising a similar plastics feed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a similar product, including alkanes, absent any evidence to the contrary.
e) passing the vapor product from Zone 6 into one or more catalytic reactors for further processing to optimize the product as may be desired (paragraph [0089]). Ullom does not specifically teach 3 catalytic reactors, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “one or more” encompasses the three reactors claimed, rendering the amount prima facie obvious.
Ullom further does not specifically teach that the reactors comprise different catalysts.
However, Ullom teaches that the purpose is to optimize molecular size and molecular species distribution in the product (pargraph [0089]). Scheirs teaches that when using a catalyst for upgrading plastic pyrolysis products, the catalyst has a large effect on the products by increasing production of middle distillates and light hydrocarbons. In order to obtain specific desired fuel products, the catalyst must be tailored (pages 78-79, section 1.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to put a different catalyst in each reactor where each catalyst is tailored to provide a desired product including light hydrocarbons and different fuels, because Ullom teaches multiple catalytic reactors and that the purpose of the reactors is to optimize molecular size and species distribution, and Scheirs teaches that to obtain desired products having particular carbon ranges, the catalyst should be tailored to the desired product, thus implying a different catalyst for each desired product, absent any evidence to the contrary.
f) passing product from the catalytic reactors to a series of step-down condensers 80 (paragraph [0089]) which comprises at least a first, second, and third fractional condenser (paragraph [0092] and Figure 4) to produce a vapor product including C4-C8 (light hydrocarbons) (paragraph [0093]).
g) separating non-condensable gases from the C4-C8 (paragraph [0095]). The pyrogas from the water chilled condenser is defined in the instant specification as primarily non-condensable gases (paragraph [0011]), thus the non-condensable gases of Ullom are considered to be equivalent to the claimed pyrogas.
Ullom does not specifically teach using a water child condenser for separating the non-condensable gases.
Zhang teaches a process for pyrolysis (paragraph [0001]). Zhang further teaches that a water condenser is used to separate non-condensable gas from pyrolysis products (paragraph [0393]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a water chilled condenser in the process of Ullom to separate the non-condensable gases from the light hydrocarbons, because Ullom teaches separating non-condensable gases from light hydrocarbons, but does not specifically teach how, and Zhang teaches that a water chilled condenser is suitable for separating non-condensable gases from pyrolysis products (paragraph [0393]).
With regard to claim 2, Ullom teaches that in Zone 3 (PCC) the Zone evolves hydrochloric acid gas (paragraph [0073]).
With regard to claim 13, Ullom teaches that Zone 5 (second pyrolysis zone) takes place in reactor 301 (paragraph [0084]) which comprises counter-rotating shaft (auger) to mix and move the plastic material from Zone 4 (homogenized plastic) within Zone 5 (paragraph [0050]).
With regard to claim 21, Ullom teaches that there is hydrocarbon vapor produced in Zone 4 (first pyrolysis chamber) (paragraph [0077]) and also teaches hydrocarbon vapor resulting from the reactions in Zones 5 (second pyrolysis chamber) and 6 (third pyrolysis chamber) (paragraph [0086]). Ullom teaches that the hydrocarbon product vapor from Zones 5 and 6 is discharged through a plurality of outlets 323 (paragraph [0087]) and condensed to form the products (paragraph [0092]).
Ullom does not specifically teach an outlet from Zone 4. However, Ullom teaches that the vapor produced in Zone 4 (first pyrolysis chamber) is a significant portion of the final condensed hydrocarbon product (paragraph [0077]) and further teaches that the plurality of outlets 323 are used to discharge the product vapor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pass the vapor product from Zone 4 (first pyrolysis chamber) through one of the plurality of outlets 323 in order to recover the hydrocarbon vapor as product as recited in paragraph [0077]).
Ullom further does not specifically recite that the gas outlets (vents) 323 are fluidly connected to a common manifold. However, Ullom teaches that the products from outlets 323 are all routed to the optional catalytic reactors (paragraph [0092]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a manifold is a common piece of equipment used to combine gas lines into a single line for further use in a plant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the gas manifold to the products of the plurality of outlets 323, as claimed, because Ullom teaches that the products all are passed to the same catalytic reactor equipment and a manifold is a known piece of equipment used to combine gas lines into a single line for further use in a plant.
With regard to claim 23, Ullom teaches at least one catalytic reactor for upgrading the product after Zone 6 (paragraph [0089]).
Ullom is silent regarding the catalyst in the at least one reactor.
Zhang teaches that after pyrolysis, the product is upgraded by passing to a catalytic reactor for upgrading (paragraph [0301]). Zhang further teaches the catalyst can include iron oxide (FeO) as a sulphur removal catalyst (paragraph [0323]). Zhang further teaches that upgrading the pyrolysis oil with the catalyst provides lower heteroatom content such that the pyrolysis oil is suitable as transportation fuel (paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the iron oxide catalyst of Zhang in the process of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Zhang teach catalytic upgrading of pyrolysis oils, Ullom is silent regarding the catalyst, and Zhang teaches that iron oxide is used to remove sulphur and lower the heteroatom content such that the pyrolysis oil is suitable as transportation fuel (paragraphs [0026], [0323]).
With regard to claim 44, Ullom teaches a method for conversion of polymer waste to hydrocarbon products (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following:
a) adding an alkaline earth metal oxide (inorganic material) to raw material (paragraph [0068]) where the raw material is shredded plastic waste (paragraph [0034]).
b) passing the alkaline earth metal oxide and raw material to a Zone 3 which is a raw material melt zone (pre-conditioning chamber PCC) (paragraph [0073]). Zone 3 produces a melted plastics feed and is operated at a temperature 220°F-575°F (104.4 to 301.7°C) (paragraph [0073]) which overlaps the range of about 150°C to about 225°C of instant claim 44, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Ullom does not specifically teach that the step is for volatizing light organics. However, Ullom teaches a similar mixed waste plastics feed in the presence of a similar inorganic material and reacting at similar temperatures, and thus would be expected to also have the function of volatizing organics, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
c) passing the melted plastics from Zone 3 into Zone 4 (first pyrolysis chamber) which operates at a temperature of 572-690°F (300-365.6°C) (paragraph [0075]), which is within the range of about 250 to about 400°C of instant claim 44. Zone 4 of Ullom is a zone which thoroughly mixes the melt (paragraph [0076]). Thus, while Ullom does not specifically recite that the product of Zone 4 is a homogenized mixture, because Ullom teaches the same melted plastics in the same zone where mixing takes place at the same claimed temperature, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the product is a homogenized mixture, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
d) passing the product from Zone 4 to Zone 5 (second pyrolysis chamber) which is operated at a temperature of 365-488°C (paragraph [0082]), which is within the range of 300-500°C of instant claim 44. Ullom further teaches that the purpose of Zone 5 is to perform pyrolysis including breaking down the plastic (cracking) (paragraph [0082]). Thus, while Ullom does not explicitly teach producing a partially cracked plastic mixture, because Ullom teaches the same thoroughly mixed melted plastics stream in the same zone at the same temperature, and further teaches a residence time of 30-90 minutes, which overlaps the total residence time in the 3 reactors of the instant specification of 90 minutes, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the product of Ullom is a similar partially cracked product as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
e) passing the product from Zone 5 into Zone 6 (third pyrolysis chamber) maintained at a temperature of 454-982°C to form a vapor pyrolysis product (pyrogas) (paragraph [0087]). This range overlaps the ranges of about 400 to about 600°C of instant claim 44, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Ullom further teaches that the vapor fractions comprise products having 4-30 carbon atoms (paragraph [0026]), which overlaps the range of C12-C26 of instant claim 44. While Ullom does not specifically teach the C4-C30 product includes alkanes, Ullom teaches a similar process comprising 4 similar zones operated at similar temperatures and comprising a similar plastics feed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a similar product, including alkanes, absent any evidence to the contrary.
f) passing product from Zone 6 to a series of step-down condensers 80 (paragraph [0089]) which comprises at least a first, second, and third fractional condenser (paragraph [0092] and Figure 4) to produce a vapor product including C4-C8 (light hydrocarbons) (paragraph [0093]).
g) separating non-condensable gases from the C4-C8 (paragraph [0095]). The pyrogas from the water chilled condenser is defined in the instant specification as primarily non-condensable gases (paragraph [0011]), thus the non-condensable gases of Ullom are considered to be equivalent to the claimed pyrogas.
Ullom does not specifically teach using a water child condenser for separating the non-condensable gases.
Zhang teaches a process for pyrolysis (paragraph [0001]). Zhang further teaches that a water condenser is used to separate non-condensable gas from pyrolysis products (paragraph [0393]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a water chilled condenser in the process of Ullom to separate the non-condensable gases from the light hydrocarbons, because Ullom teaches separating non-condensable gases from light hydrocarbons, but does not specifically teach how, and Zhang teaches that a water chilled condenser is suitable for separating non-condensable gases from pyrolysis products (paragraph [0393]).
With regard to claim 45, Ullom teaches an alkaline earth metal oxide for the inorganic material (paragraph [0068]). Ullom does not specifically teach calcium oxide. However, the selection of calcium would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the list of alkaline earth metal oxides is a finite list which would require no undue experimentation, and the selection of any alkaline earth metal would be expected to have the same reasonable expectation of success due to the general teaching of Ullom that alkaline earth metal oxides are useful for the material (paragraph [0068]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0195315) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mleczko et al. (US 2022/0184855) and Stankevitch (US 2003/0047437).
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Ullom teaches the process above, where Zone 3 (PCC) evolves hydrochloric acid gas which is trapped in the presence of a scavenger (adsorbent) (paragraph [0073]).
Ullom is silent regarding extracting the hydrochloric acid gas through a vent and contacting in a separate adsorption zone with the adsorbent.
Mleczko teaches a method for conversion of waste plastics (paragraph [0002]). Mleczko further teaches that during stepwise pyrolysis having a low temperature step, the HCl evolves as a gas and adsorbents are added to remove chloride during the pyrolysis (paragraph [0017]), as in Ullom Zone 3 (paragraph [0073]). However, Mleczko teaches that there are issues with the addition of chloride scavengers due to reactor clogging and because the salts cannot be completely removed (paragraph [0017]). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would look for alternatives to adding the adsorbent directly to the plastic as in Ullom.
Stankevitch teaches a process for conversion of waste plastics into products (Abstract). Stankevitch teaches a preliminary melting step when processing PVC (equivalent to Zone 3 of Ullom and claimed PCC), where the HCl evolves from the melting and passes out a gas vent in line 51 to an adsorbing guard 52 packed with adsorbent (instant claims 5 and 6) (paragraph [0055]). Stankevitch teaches that this allows the PVC to be processed more effectively (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a gas vent to Zone 3 (PCC) of Ullom and pass the evolved hydrochloric acid to a separate adsorbent, as claimed, because each of Ullom, Mleczko, and Stankevitch teach conversion of waste plastics comprising PVC, Mleczko teaches that adding the adsorbent directly to the plastics causes issues with reactor clogging and not being able to fully remove the formed salts (paragraph [0017]), and Stankevitch teaches that a separate adsorbent zone is used to remove the HCl and allows for effective processing of waste plastics comprising PVC (paragraph [0055]).
Claims 22 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0195315) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gephart et al. (US 2015/0080624, cited on IDS of 01/19/2024).
With regard to claims 22 and 46, Ullom teaches the vapor product from Zone 6 (third pyrolysis chamber) is passed to zone for removing halogens before being passed to the catalytic reactors (paragraphs [0087]-[0089])
Ullom does not specifically teach using a heated ceramic filter for removing the halogens as in instant claims 22 and 46
Gephart teaches a process for producing hydrocarbons from waste plastics (Abstract). Gephart teaches that the process comprises purifying the gas stream from the pyrolysis by passing through a gas purifier unit including a heated ceramic filtration section for removing acid gas (halogens) (paragraph [0018]). Gephart additionally teaches that the gas purifier removes greater than 99% of the acid gas components from the hydrocarbon gas (paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the gas purifier section of Gephart as the zone for removing halogens of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Gephart teach pyrolysis of waste plastics and removing halogens from the gas vapor product, and Gephart teaches that the gas purifier section including the heated ceramic filter removes greater than 99% of the acid gas components from the hydrocarbon product gas (paragraph [0018]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0195315) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Portela et al. (US 2022/0204870).
With regard to claim 24, Ullom teaches at least one catalytic reactor for upgrading the product after Zone 6 (paragraph [0089]).
Ullom is silent regarding the catalyst in the at least one reactor.
Portela teaches a process for treating waste plastic pyrolysis oil with a catalyst (Abstract) where the catalyst comprises a cracking catalyst with a MgO additive (paragraph [0013]). Portela further teaches that treating the pyrolysis oil with the MgO catalyst allows for trapping any contaminants which would poison the cracking catalyst, preventing the desired products from being produced (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the cracking and MgO catalyst of Portela in the reactor of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Portela teaches catalytic reaction of pyrolysis oil from plastics for cracking (changing molecular weight Ullom [0089]), Ullom is silent regarding the catalyst, and Portela teaches that adding the MgO and cracking catalyst together allows for trapping any contaminants which would poison the cracking catalyst, preventing the desired products from being produced (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0195315) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badiola et al. (US 2023/0002681).
With regard to claim 25, Ullom teaches at least one catalytic reactor for upgrading the product after Zone 6 (paragraph [0089]).
Ullom is silent regarding the catalyst in the at least one reactor.
Badiola teaches a method for pyrolysis of plastics (paragraph [0001]). Badiola further teaches reacting the pyrolysis product with a catalyst and co-injection particle which traps halogens and metals (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]), where the co-injection particle includes a 5A zeolite (paragraph [0036]). Badiola further teaches the product after using the catalyst and co-injection particle produces high yields of desired products (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalyst and co-injection particle of Badiola in the catalytic reactor of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Badiola teaches catalytic conversion of pyrolysis products, Ullom is silent regarding the catalyst, and Badiola teaches that a catalyst in combination with a 5A zeolite produces high yields of desired products (paragraph [0006]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0195315) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MacDonald et al. (US 2009/0223862).
With regard to claim 26, Ullom teaches the step-down condensers above (Figure 4).
Ullom fails to teach i) the specific temperature ranges of instant claim 26 of a range of about 360 to about 400°C, about 250 to about 360°C, and about 100 to about 250°C or ii) the recirculating fluid and operation of the condensers.
With regard to i), Ullom teaches the operation temperature of the condenser determines what is recovered in the condenser (paragraphs [0092]-[0093]). Thus, the temperature ranges of each condenser is a result-effective variable, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust temperature of the first, second, and third condensers to a range of about 360 to about 400°C, about 250 to about 360°C, and about 100 to about 250°C, respectively, as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to ii), MacDonald teaches a system to separate components from a product stream (paragraph [0002]). MacDonald teaches the system comprises a series of vessels which contain a fluid maintained at temperature such that the components of the stream having boiling point less than the liquid leave as gas and the components which a boiling point the same or greater than the liquid form a distillate (liquid) stream which increases the liquid volume in the vessel (paragraph [0056]). MacDonald further teaches that the fluid in the vessel is recirculated to maintain the desired temperature of the fluid (paragraph [0055]). MacDonald teaches that the system is suitable for recovering various fractions of hydrocarbon oils (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the principle of the vessels of MacDonald in the condensers of Ullom, because Ullom and MacDonald each teach a series of vessels for recovering multiple hydrocarbon fractions, Ullom teaches the condensers are maintained at desired temperatures to recover particular fractions, and MacDonald teaches that it is known to use vessels having a recirculating fluid which maintains the vessels at the desired temperature for the desired hydrocarbon fractions (paragraph [0055]).
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