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 .
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 3 and 10 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.
Claims 3 and 10 teach limitations that include at least one selected from a group. It is unclear if applicant is suggesting that the beads and waste plastic are meant to only consist of the elements claimed or if they may have other elements as long as the elements in the groups are present.
The claims have been interpreted as being open to comprising other elements beyond the groups.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fareid et al., KR Publication No. KR20210057722A (hereinafter referred to as Fareid) in view of Frediani et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0083835 (hereinafter referred to as Frediani).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Fareid discloses (see Claims 1, 8 and 16 and Para. [0062] and [0111]-[0118]) a process and apparatus whereby plastic waste, such as, polystyrene is pretreated, pyrolyzed, filtered and cooled, hydrogenated and fractionated into several oil fractions, and delayed coking (Para. [0043] and [0047]).
Fareid discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose recycling of condensed liquid in the filter as recited in claim 1.
Frediani discloses production of hydrocarbons from pyrolysis of tyres. Frediani further teaches in paragraph 1 that the field comprises plastic. Frediani teaches in paragraphs 87-88 fragmenting tyres to pieces and drying those pieces in an oven (pretreating waste plastics with a pretreatment device).
The pieces that are dried in paragraph 89 are taught to be subjected to pyrolysis to form pyrolysis vapors in a reaction vessel (pyrolyzing the pretreated waste plastic in a pyrolysis reactor to form pyrolysis vapors).
Frediani teaches in paragraph 89 a reaction vessel wherein pyrolysis vapors pass through a fractionation system that comprises 4 mm glass beads. Frediani teaches in paragraphs 89-90 that the pyrolysis vapors are sent to a condenser to be formed into pyrolysis oil.
Frediani further teaches in paragraph 72 that the fractionation system results in a pyrolysis oil with a transparent or straw yellow color when compared to a dark colored and turbid oil without a fractionation system. (producing in a lightening process a pyrolysis oil by introducing the pyrolysis into a hot filter).
The glass beads are taught to allow separation of that component which had a boiling temperature higher than that of the vapors. The higher boiling compounds drop back into the reaction vessel through a pyrex glass joint (liquid condensed in the hot filter is reintroduced in to the pyrolysis reactor through a connection pipe).
The pyrolysis oils are taught in paragraph 17 to be used as fuel or suppled to an oil refinery (reforming the pyrolysis oil with a reforming device). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a mixture with the pyrolysis oil as the primary component or less such as 90 wt% or less would be possible given that the pyrolysis oil may be used on its own or blended.
Regarding claim 2, Frediani teaches in paragraph 89 a reaction vessel wherein pyrolysis vapors pass through a fractionation system that comprises 4 mm glass beads.
Regarding claim 3, Frediani teaches glass beads and SiO2 is a common component that is known to be present in glass.
Regarding claim 4, Frediani teaches a fractionation column on top of where pyrolysis occurs in a reaction vessel. The fractionation column would be expected to comprise a temperature gradient cooling the further away from the pyrolysis in the reaction vessel.
Regarding claim 5, Frediani teaches in paragraph 89 a heater that comprises a MW oven chamber. Frediani teaches in paragraph 81 that the MW oven chamber may comprise 4 microwave generators (at least two heaters).
Regarding claim 8, Frediani teaches in paragraph 50 that the pyrolysis oils produced may be mixed with commercial fuels.
Regarding claim 9, Frediani teaches in paragraph 50 that that the pyrolysis oils may also be used directed as fuel for motor vehicles or blended. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Frediani further teaches in paragraph 100 that the
pyrolysis oils may further be subjected to distillation to identify fractions
comparable to petroleum products.
Regarding claim 12, Frediani teaches in paragraph 76 that the specific
fractions of the pyrolysis oils may be mixed for a variety of purposes.
Regarding claims 13-15, see discussion above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fareid in view of Frediani as applied to claims 1-5 and 8-15 above, and further in view of Aranda Almansa et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0155563 (hereinafter referred to as Aranda Almansa).
Regarding claims 6-7, The above discussion of Frediani is incorporated herein by reference.
Aranda Almansa teach a process with pyrolysis reactors. The process is taught in paragraphs 2-3 to be directed toward treating pyrolysis gases. Aranda Almansa teaches in paragraph 116 a setup with 2 or more reactors such that the first reactor is in use while the second reactor may be regenerated. It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process that Frediani teaches with 2 or more reactors in batch mode such that one reactor may be in use while other reactors may be regenerated.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending application No. 18/637,453. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '453 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application, the disclosures above are incorporated herein by reference and render the instant claims obvious.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of co-pending application No. 18/628,829. although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '829 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application, the disclosures above are incorporated herein by reference and render the instant claims obvious.
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
11. There were unused X references from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771