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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the response to application 18/636273 filed 04/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADAM (WO 2021204821A1) in view of REISNER (EP3805340A1) in view of the machine translation of REISNER.
REISNER is hereafter be referring to the machine translation of REISNER.
ADAM teaches purification of waste plastic oil.
ADAM teaches on page 2 a step that includes contacting an effluent with silica gel, clays, alkaline or alkaline earth metal oxide, iron oxide, ion exchange resins, active carbon, active aluminum oxide, molecular sieves, alkaline oxide and/or porous supports containing lamellar double hydroxide modified or not and silica gel, or any mixture thereof to trap silicon and/or metals and/or phosphorous and/or halogenates.
REISNER teaches a method and system for producing a hydrocarbon and hydrogen-containing gas mixture from plastic.
REISNER teaches in paragraph 17 a process that comprises the following steps: pyrolysis of plastics to form a pyrolysis gas mixture, followed by hot gas filtration to separate solid particles.
REISNER taches in paragraph 80 and 83 that the hot gas filter comprises aluminum silicate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the pyrolysis gases with a hot gas filter such as the one taught in REISNER to remove impurities.
ADAM further teaches on page 2 another step that comprises performing a hydrotreating step.
ADAM also teaches on pages 7 and 19 that a desalting step may be performed because of the negative effect of salts in the downstream processes due to scale formation, corrosion, and catalyst deactivation.
Desalting comprises mixing water with the pyrolysis plastic oil and then separating the aqueous and hydrocarbon phases. ADAM further teaches that am emulsion may be formed and demulsifiers may be added to break the emulsion.
Furthermore, an electrical field is also taught to be applied to coalesce the polar salty water droplets.
ADAM teaches on page 20 that an electrostatic field may be produced between two electrodes.
ADAM teaches on page 11 that a sulfur component may be added along with treated pyrolysis oil and then subjected to a second hydrotreating step.
Regarding claims 2-3, ADAM teaches on page 19 that the desalting process comprises adding water and intense mixing followed by extracting of the salts through the aqueous phase.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a sufficient amount of water to extract the salts such as a larger volume of pyrolysis oil to water or a volume ratio of 1:0.001 to 1:0.5.
"[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 4, ADAM teaches on page 20 a low concentration of demulsifiers may be added to break the emulsion in the desalting step.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sufficient amount of demulsifiers to help break the emulsion that would be present in the desalting step such as a ratio of the waste plastic pyrolysis oil to demulsifier at a vol ratio of 1:0.000001 to 1:0.001. "[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 5, ADAM teaches on page 20 that an electrostatic field may be produced between two electrodes. Applying an alternating current and a direct current would be an obvious way to generating an electrostatic field and would be one of few options for generating an electrostatic field.
Regarding claim 6, ADAM teaches on page 20 that an electrostatic field may be produced between two electrodes.
A vertical orientation would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art for the placement of two electrodes and the orientation appear to be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, ADAM teaches the addition of a demulsifier and applying an electrostatic field to deal with the formation of an emulsion during the desalting step.
However, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art that an emulsion, however small, may still form.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the emulsion by removing the emulsion layer (rag layer) given that ADAM explicitly teach that an emulsion layer is detrimental.
ADAM teaches the issues with emulsion on page 19 that emulsions carry the risk of water carryover into the hydrocarbon phase.
Regarding claim 8, ADAM appears to be silent to what temperature at which the desalting step is performed.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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).
Furthermore, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the desalting step may be performed at room temperature of about 20-22°C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, ADAM teaches on page 37 a pyrolysis oil with an amount of water that is below 100 ppm by weight. ADAM teaches on page 31 a dewatering unit to remove water to under 0.05 vol%.
Based on the initial moisture that may be present in the pyrolysis oil, decreasing the water to under 0.05 vol% would be within the ratio of 1:0.0001 to 1:0.9.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 10, ADAM teaches on page 19 that a dewatering step may be performed after desalting. Any known method to remove water is taught to be usable such as a flash drum. Condensing to remove water is a known method and would be an obvious choice to remove water.
Regarding claim 11, the ratio of nitrogen to chlorine is taught on pages 37- 38 to include 12% chlorine to 30% of nitrogen.
An example in which the ratio falls within the presently claimed ratio is taught to be produced and may then be further subjected to hydrotreating.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a treated stream after desalting with a ratio of nitrogen to chlorine of 1:1 to 1:10 to further hydrotreating with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, ADAM teaches on page 31 an optional addition of a sulfur component and the stream may be diluted any stream comprising paraffins. Adding the sulfur component in a sulfur containing oil would be well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, ADAM teaches on page 31 the addition of the sulfur component is such that the sulfur content is at least 0.005wt% of sulfur to 0.5 wt.% of sulfur.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, ADAM teaches on page 10 that a sulfur compound being added to a hydrotreating step includes hydrogen sulfide.
Regarding claims 15-16, ADAM teaches on page 7 that the hydrotreating catalyst may comprise a Group VI metal such as molybdenum.
Regorging claim 17, ADAM teaches on page 8 that the pressure applied in hydrotreating is from 10 to 90 barg.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, ADAM teaches on page 11 that after hydrotreating, a flash or distillation may be used to separate a diluent. Distillation would separation gas with liquid. ADAM also teaches on page 12 that after the second hydrotreating step, a water washing step may also be applied.
Regarding claim 19, ADAM teaches on page 11 that a portion of the effluent of the second hydrotreating step may be sent to a coker.
Regarding claim 20, ADAM further teaches on page 11 that a portion of the effluent of the second hydrotreating step may be blended in crude oil or base oil to be further refined and may be sent to a coker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771