DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending, of which claims 11-19 have been withdrawn.
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
Claims 11-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/12/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the writing inside of the graph in FIG. 5 as well as the key in FIG. 9 is too small to be read. In addition, the writing in FIG.’s 14-19 cannot be read due to the size and font used. Examiner also notes that the drawing pages are incorrectly numbered. Each sheet of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, and the number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking (see 37 CFR 1.84(t) and MPEP § 608.02(V). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tongamp, et al. "Generation of H2 gas from polystyrene and poly (vinyl alcohol) by milling and heating with Ni(OH)2 and Ca(OH)2." Fuel processing technology 91.3 (2010): 272-276 (“Tongamp”).
Regarding claim 1, Tongamp teaches a method of making hydrogen by thermal treatment of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), which is a plastic that contains oxygen (see e.g. Abstract). The reaction is a thermal treatment with hydroxide, namely calcium and nickel hydroxide, and water (see e.g. page 274, second column, first full paragraph, starting “TG-DTA and…”; and page 275, equations 6-7). The reaction generates hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide in an amount that is less than 10 mol% (see e.g. Table 2 on page 274).
Regarding claim 5, Tongamp teaches that the hydroxide is Ca(OH)2 (see e.g. page 274, second column, first full paragraph, starting “TG-DTA and…”).
Regarding claim 6, Tongamp teaches that the reaction is performed at a temperature of 350-500 °C, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2 on page 274).
Regarding claim 7, Tongamp does not teach any specific pressure used during the reaction (see e.g. page 273, first column, first full paragraph, starting “TG/MS analysis…”). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reaction of Tongamp takes place at atmospheric pressure.
Regarding claim 8, Tongamp teaches that the molar ratio of PVA to Ca(OH)2 is 1:2, which corresponds to a mass ratio of 1:3.4 and is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph bridging pages 272-273, starting “Polystyrene…”).
Regarding claim 9, Tongamp teaches that the hydrogen purity generated is greater than 90%, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. Table 2 on page 274).
Regarding claim 10, Tongamp teaches that the total gas generated is up to 31.3 % based on the starting polymer, 98.8% of which is hydrogen (see e.g. Table 2 on page 274). This corresponds to well over 5 mmol per gram of polymer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo, et al. "Production of hydrogen-rich gas from waste rigid polyurethane foam via catalytic steam gasification." Waste Management & Research 38.7 (2020): 802-811 (“Guo”).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a method for steam gasification of polyurethane, which is a plastic containing oxygen (see e.g. Abstract). Guo teaches that the polyurethane is reacted with steam, which includes water vapor, and an additive, which can include sodium or calcium hydroxide (see e.g. page 803 paragraphs bridging the first and second columns, starting “WRPUF, the material…”). Several of the conditions attempted resulted in carbon dioxide of less than 10 mol% of the generated gases (see e.g. FIG. 5(a) on page 807).
Regarding claim 2, Guo teaches that the hydroxide and plastic are provided to a reactor and that steam is flowed through the reactor, and thus the water vapor is introduced into the reactor (see e.g. page 803, second column, third paragraph, starting “The experimental procedure was…”). Guo further teaches that calcium carbonate is ultimately formed by the reaction (see e.g. Eq’s (9)-(10) on page 805).
Regarding claim 3, Guo teaches that the carbonate product is calcium carbonate (see e.g. Eq’s (9)-(10) on page 805).
Regarding claim 5, Guo teaches that the hydroxide can be calcium or sodium hydroxide (see e.g. page 803 paragraphs bridging the first and second columns, starting “WRPUF, the material…”).
Regarding claim 7, Guo does not teach a specific pressure used, and as such, one would understand that the reaction is at atmospheric pressure.
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches that the hydrogen purity is over 70% (see e.g. FIG. 6(b) on page 805).
Regarding claim 10, Guo teaches that greater than 75% of the total product weight is gas, and that greater than 75% of the gas is hydrogen (see e.g. FIG.’s 6(a) and 6(b) on page 805). This corresponds to well over 5 mmol of hydrogen per gram of starting material.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20090321680 (“Rollinger”).
Regarding claim 1, Rollinger teaches thermal treatment of plastic with alkali metal hydroxides (see e.g. paragraph [0014]). The plastic can be PET, which is a plastic containing oxygen (see e.g. paragraph [0070]). In certain embodiments, water can be added, which would be in vapor form at the elevated temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0038]). Rollinger teaches that the carbon dioxide is trapped to form carbonate ions, meaning that the carbon dioxide is not part of the product gas (see e.g. paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Rollinger teaches that the plastic can be PET (see e.g. paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Rollinger teaches that the hydroxide can be sodium hydroxide (see e.g. paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Rollinger teaches that the treatment temperature is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Rollinger does not teach any specific pressure to be used. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the reaction takes place as atmospheric pressure.
Regarding claim 8, Rollinger teaches that the mass ratio of plastic to hydroxide can be 1:4, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0074]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights