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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/847,310 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a pyrolytic process utilizing a waste plastic and a hydrocarbon fraction comprising C2-C4 hydrocarbons as a combined feedstock. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 8-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/845,916 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a pyrolytic process utilizing a waste plastic and a hydrocarbon fraction comprising C2-C4 hydrocarbons as a combined feedstock. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 8-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No.12,018,220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims drawn to a pyrolytic process utilizing a waste plastic and a hydrocarbon fraction comprising C2-C4 hydrocarbons as a combined feedstock. There are minor differences between the two sets of claims and such differences would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.
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 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2019/0177626 A1) in view of Stanislaus et al. (WO 2018/025104 A1) and Paisley (EP 0544840 B1) and further in view of either Sundaram et al. (US 2019/0023999 A1) or Karimzadeh (US 2017/0240822 A1).
Ramamurthy discloses converting hydrocarbon streams derived from waste materials into useful petrochemical feedstocks.
Ramamurthy teaches:
• pyrolyzing hydrocarbon feedstreams derived from waste materials in a pyrolysis unit to produce a pyrolysis product stream (see Ramamurthy [0013]–[0014], [0037], [0039]–[0042], [0046]), and
• generating hydrocarbon products from the pyrolysis stream that may be further processed to produce olefins.
Ramamurthy does not teach the pyrolysis stream is not hydroprocessed prior to the cracking. However, Ramamurthy discloses hydroprocessing as one possible treatment of certain hydrocarbon streams, but does not require hydroprocessing in all embodiments prior to steam cracking. The obviousness inquiry does not require that the references be combined exactly as disclosed, but rather what their teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pyrolysis stream produced by Ramamurthy may be fed directly to the steam cracking furnace in without hydroprocessing depending on feed composition. Moreover, omission of an unnecessary processing step would have been an obvious design choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965)).
Stanislaus discloses integration of hydrocarbon streams derived from pyrolysis processes into steam cracking systems. Specifically, Stanislaus teaches a steam cracking process wherein a hydrocarbon liquid stream (41) is blended with naphtha (41a) and/or stream (31a) to form a blended feed stream that is fed to a steam cracker (50) (see Stanislaus Fig. 1 and ¶[0074]).
Stanislaus does not explicitly teach that stream 41a comprises predominate C2-C4 or C5-C22 hydrocarbons.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of utilizing a stream comprising C5-C25 hydrocarbons because Stanislaus teaches that stream 41a can be naphtha which typical comprises hydrocarbons having carbon numbers from C5-C12.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Ramamurthy by blending the pyrolysis-derived hydrocarbon stream with a hydrocarbon fraction, such as naphtha, as suggested by Stanislaus, and feeding the blended stream to a steam cracking furnace in order to convert the pyrolysis products into light olefins.
Paisley discloses pyrolysis of waste plastic materials at elevated temperatures. Paisley teaches heating polymeric materials to temperatures of about 650 °C to about 1000 °C (see Paisley [0014], [0016], [0040]), producing gaseous products including ethylene, propylene, and butylenes (see Paisley [0023]–[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the pyrolysis step of Ramamurthy at temperatures within the range taught by Paisley in order to increase cracking severity and improve olefin yield from waste polymer feedstocks.
Sundaram discloses a steam cracking furnace architecture including a convection heating zone and a radiant heating zone. Sundaram teaches that hydrocarbon streams may be:
• heated and partially vaporized in the convection heating zone, and
• subsequently fed to radiant coils in the radiant heating zone where thermal cracking occurs to produce olefins (see Sundaram [0007]–[0010], [0028]–[0030]).
Similarly, Karimzadeh discloses a pyrolysis furnace including multiple thermal zones, where hydrocarbon feed first enters a convection zone for preheating and subsequently flows through zones operating as radiant zones where upgrading reactions occur (see Karimzadeh [0007]–[0010], [0020]–[0022]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the heating and cracking steps of the combined Ramamurthy/Stanislaus process within a steam cracking furnace having convection and radiant sections as taught by Sundaram or Karimzadeh, thereby providing the claimed furnace configuration.
Ramamurthy does not teach that the pyrolysis stream comprises about 1–15 wt.% aromatics. However, Ramamurthy teaches pyrolyzing hydrocarbon materials derived from waste streams to produce hydrocarbon products useful for further conversion to olefins (Ramamurthy, e.g., ¶¶[0013]–[0014], [0037], [0039]–[0042], [0046]). The products of hydrocarbon pyrolysis are known to include mixtures of olefins, paraffins, and aromatic hydrocarbons, and the relative proportions of these components depend on process parameters such as temperature, residence time, and feed composition. Accordingly, the aromatics content of the pyrolysis stream represents a result-effective variable of the pyrolysis process. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the operating conditions of the pyrolysis process of Ramamurthy (as modified by the other cited references) to obtain a desired aromatics concentration in the resulting pyrolysis stream, including within the claimed range of about 1–15 wt.% aromatics, since optimizing such variables is routine in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art).
Claims 8-17 depend from claim 1 and recite additional furnace and process features including furnace coil arrangements, residence times, and carrier fluids.
Sundaram and Karimzadeh disclose steam cracking furnaces including multiple coils disposed within the furnace and carrier gases such as steam, hydrogen, or other gases used in hydrocarbon cracking systems. Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 8-17 are taught or suggested by the cited references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Stanislaus does not teach or suggest "a feed stream comprising (i) recycled waste plastic material and (ii) a carrier fluid stream comprising at least one of (A) a predominantly C2-C4 hydrocarbon stream and (B) a predominantly C5-C22 hydrocarbon stream" because Stanislaus blends naphtha with a hydrocarbon stream immediately upstream of the steam cracker rather than during pyrolysis. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Stanislaus alone to teach the claimed pyrolysis process. Rather, Ramamurthy teaches pyrolysis of recycled waste plastic materials to produce pyrolysis-derived hydrocarbon streams for downstream olefin production, while Stanislaus teaches that pyrolysis-derived hydrocarbon streams may be blended with conventional hydrocarbon fractions, such as naphtha, before introduction into a steam cracker (Fig. 1; ¶[0074]). Sundaram (or Karimzadeh) further teaches performing thermal treatment of hydrocarbon feeds in the convection section of a steam cracking furnace followed by cracking in the radiant section of the same furnace. The proposed modification is therefore based on the combined teachings of the references and not on Stanislaus individually. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the hydrocarbon fraction taught by Stanislaus as the hydrocarbon carrier/feed in the integrated pyrolysis/steam cracking process because naphtha is a conventional steam-cracker feedstock predominantly comprising hydrocarbons within the claimed C5-C22 range and would facilitate transport, vaporization, and subsequent thermal cracking of the recycled waste plastic feed in the integrated furnace configuration. Obviousness cannot be established or rebutted by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on their combined teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The argument that Ramamurthy teaches high-severity pyrolysis producing pyrolysis oils rich in aromatics and that Example 3 reports approximately 49.3 wt.% C6-C8 aromatics, which allegedly teaches away from the claimed recycle-content pyrolysis stream comprising about 1 wt.% to about 15 wt.% aromatics. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Ramamurthy's Example 3 as representing the only product composition obtainable by plastic pyrolysis. Rather, Paisley teaches high-temperature pyrolysis of polymeric waste materials over a broad temperature range of about 650°C to about 1000°C, preferably about 800°C to about 900°C, while producing ethylene, propylene, and butylene-rich products. Paisley further discusses plastic pyrolysis results demonstrating aromatic concentrations as low as about 8.4 wt.%, which falls within the presently claimed range of about 1 wt.% to about 15 wt.% aromatics. Thus, Paisley demonstrates that aromatic concentration is dependent upon pyrolysis operating conditions and that aromatic concentrations within the presently claimed range were known in the art. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the aromatics concentration of the pyrolysis stream is a result-effective variable, the value of which may be adjusted through routine selection of known operating parameters, including pyrolysis temperature, residence time, and feed composition. Optimization of such a recognized result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Applicant's reliance on a single embodiment of Ramamurthy therefore does not outweigh the combined teachings of Ramamurthy and Paisley.
The argument that Ramamurthy requires hydroprocessing prior to steam cracking and that hydroprocessing necessarily changes the composition of the recycle-content pyrolysis stream. This argument is also not persuasive. Ramamurthy discloses hydroprocessing of selected liquid hydrocarbon streams in certain embodiments. However, the rejection does not rely on retaining Ramamurthy's hydroprocessing stage. Instead, Sundaram (or Karimzadeh) teaches direct thermal upgrading of hydrocarbon feeds through the convection section and radiant section of the same steam cracking furnace, thereby eliminating the need for an intermediate hydroprocessing reactor prior to cracking. In view of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ramamurthy's hydroprocessing stage could be omitted when implementing the integrated furnace configuration of Sundaram (or Karimzadeh), thereby reducing process complexity, eliminating unnecessary equipment and hydrogen consumption, and directly subjecting the recycle-content pyrolysis stream to thermal cracking for olefin production. Accordingly, the rejection is based on modifying Ramamurthy in view of Sundaram (or Karimzadeh), not on reproducing Ramamurthy's preferred embodiment in its entirety. The obviousness inquiry is directed to what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, rather than requiring bodily incorporation of one reference into another. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights