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 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13 are amended. Claims 14-20 are new.
The amendments to claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 overcome the corresponding previous claim objections and 112(b) rejections. The amendment to claim 6 does not overcome the 112(b) rejection, as explained below.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that Tadauchi does not teach or suggest separating the PVC solids from the plastic material after the dechlorination, because Tadauchi is more concerned about maximizing the yield and quality of pyrolysis products. Thus, one of ordinary skill would not interrupt the process of Tadauchi to remove the PVC residue as claimed, and for the same reason it is not obvious to add the filtering of Cartolano since Tadauchi is directed to pyrolysis of the entire effluent from the dechlorination.
In response, the Examiner agrees that Tadauchi does not specifically teach this step of separating PVC solids. However, the rejection is not solely over Tadauchi but also includes Cartolano, which provides motivation to filter the plastics after the dechlorination step (paragraph [0062]). A lack of teaching is not a teaching away, and thus the fact that Tadauchi does not contemplate the filtering step does not teach away from one of ordinary skill in the art being motivated to add in the filtering step, as taught by Cartolano. Therefore, it remains obvious to filter the effluent of Tadauchi to remove solids, which include the PVC solids as claimed, as taught by Cartolano.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, the claim recites “wherein the molten waste plastics stream is mixed with a medium (E), wherein the medium (E) is a depolymerized oligomeric product (M), a hydrocarbon compound or composition that is suitable as feed for use in a subsequent refinery or chemical operation”. This phrasing is unclear as to whether the claim is stating the options include: i) “a hydrocarbon compound that is suitable as feed…” and “a composition that is suitable as feed…”; ii) “a hydrocarbon compound that is suitable as feed..” and “a hydrocarbon composition that is suitable as feed…”; iii) “a hydrocarbon compound” and “a composition that is suitable…”; or iv) “a hydrocarbon compound” and “a hydrocarbon composition that is suitable as feed…” Thus, it is unclear what is mixed with the molten waste plastics stream, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification as filed does not recite “a hydrocarbon compound or composition”, this phrasing is only present in the original claims as filed. The specification does recite the options for the medium, which include “a depolymerized oligomeric product”, “a hydrocarbon oil”, and “a vacuum gas oil” (page 4, lines 28-30). The Examiner will use the interpretation of option ii) “a hydrocarbon compound that is suitable as feed..” and “a hydrocarbon composition that is suitable as feed…” based on the specification only mentioning hydrocarbon containing options. If this interpretation is correct, the Examiner suggests rephrasing claim 6 to recite “wherein the molten waste plastics stream is mixed with a medium (E), wherein the medium (E) is a depolymerized oligomeric product (M), a hydrocarbon compound that is suitable as feed…, or a hydrocarbon composition that is suitable as feed…”
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, 3, 4, 7-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248).
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 13, Tadauchi teaches a process for pyrolytically decomposing waste plastic (column 1, lines 16-17) comprising the following steps:
(i)-(iii) heating a plastic material to 300-350°C in a heating unit (reactor vessel) to produce a molten plastic (waste plastics stream (C)) and hydrogen chloride (stream (B)), and removing the hydrogen chloride gas (stream (B)) from the plastic material (column 36, lines 58-66). The temperature of Tadauchi overlaps the range of ≥ 250 to < 350°C of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Tadauchi also teaches that the plastic comprises polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (column 3, lines 10-12) and that the hydrogen chloride (stream (B)) is removed from the vessel by using a non-oxidizing carrier gas (inert gas sweep instant claims 1 and 13) (column 3, lines 22-25).
(iv) removing the molten plastic from the heating unit (reactor vessel) (column 37, line 38).
Tadauchi does not explicitly teach i) that the PVC is partially dechlorinated in the heating unit (reactor vessel) such that the molten plastics (waste plastics stream (C)) comprises partially unsaturated PVC or ii) separating the partially unsaturated PVC from the dechlorinated plastics stream by filtering the solid PVC from the plastics (instant claims 1 and 7).
With regard to i), Tadauchi teaches a similar plastic material comprising PVC and heating to a similar temperature of 300-350°C, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find it obvious that the process would produce a similar result of partially dechlorinating the PVC to produce the waste plastics stream (C) comprising partially unsaturated PVC as claimed.
With regard to ii), Cartolano teaches a method for conversion of waste plastics (paragraph [0002]) comprising PVC (paragraph [0015]). Cartolano teaches the process comprises feeding the plastics as a molten material (pargraph [0061]) where the molten mixture may be filtered to remove solids that do not readily melt at the chosen process conditions using hot filtration (paragraph [0062]). Cartolano does not specifically teach filtering partially unsaturated PVC from the molten plastics. However, Tadauchi teaches a similar process of melting and dechlorinating at similar temperatures of less than 200°C and 300-350°C, respectively, of a similar polymer comprising PVC. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the partially unsaturated PVC produced by the process of Tadauchi is also solid, as claimed, and would be removed in the filtering, as taught by Cartolano.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of filtering to the process of Tadauchi, because Tadauchi and Cartolano each teaches a process for conversion of plastics comprising PVC by melting before conversion, and Cartolano teaches that filtering after melting is known and useful to remove solids that do not readily melt at the process conditions (paragraph [0062]).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Tadauchi teaches that the process further comprises melting the plastic (forming molten plastic instant claims 3 and 4) before passing to the vessel for the dechlorination step (column 16, lines 13-16) where the melting is performed at a temperature of 150-250°C (column 15, lines 65-67), which is within the range of ≤250°C of instant claim 4. Tadauchi further teaches that the melting is performed in an extruder (instant claim 4) (column 16, lines 9-10).
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano does not specifically teach the temperature or filter pore size for the filtration step. However, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano teaches filtering to remove solids which are not melted at the chosen process conditions (paragraph [0062]). It is well known that the pore size of the filter is chosen based on the particle size that is desired to be removed, and the temperature of the filtration would determine what is solid, as taught by Cartolano. Thus, the filter pore size and temperature of the filtration are process conditions which are result-effective variables, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the pore size of the filter to ≤ 25 micron and the temperature of the filtration to ≥ 200°C, as claimed, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With regard to claim 10, Tadauchi teaches when the gaseous product comprises hydrogen chloride, it is washed by a shower of alkali liquid (caustic treatment) to convert hydrogen chloride to harmless salt (column 19, lines 2-6) where the alkaline material can be sodium hydroxide and the salt produced is NaCl (column 12, lines 41-45 and Formula 2).
With regard to claim 11, Tadauchi teaches condensing the washed gas product comprising hydrogen chloride to produce an oil (medium) (column 19, lines 6-7), which can be recycled back to the dechlorination (reactor) vessel (column 7, lines 18-19).
With regard to claim 12, Tadauchi teaches the process is continuously operated (column 28, lines 33-34).
With regard to claim 14, Tadauchi does not specifically teach the chlorine content of the dechlorinated plastics. However, Tadauchi teaches the same dechlorination step of similar mixed plastics waste comprising PVC at a temperature within the claimed range of 250-350°C and with the same inert sweep gas to remove the chloride. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the dechlorinated plastics stream of Tadauchi to have a similar chlorine content of less than 25 ppm, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Tadauchi teaches the process above. Tadauchi further teaches that the process comprises decomposition (depolymerization) of the dechlorinated product to produce a product comprising a wax component having a relatively large molecular weight (column 38, lines 18-20 and column 39, lines 1-6). Tadauchi additionally teaches that the decomposition process takes place at a temperature of 300-600°C (column 8, lines 6-7) and that the process takes place in a stirred reactor (column 37, lines 38-39).
Tadauchi does not specifically teach that the depolymerization produces a depolymerized oligomeric product comprising oligomers having an average molecular weight of 5000-25000 g/mol. However, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano teaches the similar process of decomposition (depolymerization) of the same dechlorinated plastics at a similar temperature range and in a similar stirred reactor as recited in the instant specification for the depolymerization (paragraph [0022]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the heavier molecular weight wax product includes oligomers having a molecular weight in a similar range of 5000-25000 g/mol, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeBruin et al. (US 2023/0139587).
With regard to claim 2, Tadauchi teaches the process above, where the plastic comprises PVC and is a mixed plastic (column 10, lines 22-27).
Tadauchi fails to teach the amount of PVC in the plastic. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related processes to find an amount of PVC that is present in mixed plastics used in similar dechlorination and pyrolysis processes.
DeBruin teaches a method for liquefying and pyrolyzing waste plastic (paragraph [0004]) comprising a step of melting the plastic to remove halogens (paragraph [0010]). DeBruin further teaches the waste plastics are mixed waste plastics comprising at least two types of plastic including PVC (paragraph [0061]) and that the PVC is included in the mixed waste plastics in an amount of 0.25 to 10 wt% (paragraph [0091]), which overlaps the range of 0.5 to 10 wt% of instant claim 2, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use mixed waste plastics comprising PVC in an amount of 0.25 to 10 wt% as taught by DeBruin in the process of Tadauchi, because each of Tadauchi and DeBruin teaches a process for pyrolysis of waste plastics comprising PVC which are subjected to a heating (melting) step to remove chlorine before pyrolysis, and DeBruin teaches that mixed waste plastics suitable for this kind of process contain 0.25 to 10 wt% PVC (paragraph [0091]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chakraborty et al. (US 2022/0228070).
With regard to claim 5, Tadauchi teaches the process above, comprising extruding the plastics to melt them (column 16, lines 9-10).
Tadauchi fails to teach preheating the molten waste plastics after the extruder and before entering the heat unit (reactor vessel).
Chakraborty teaches a method for conversion of plastics (Abstract) comprising melting the plastics at a temperature low enough to avoid conversion (paragraph [0014]) followed by heating the molten plastics in a heat exchanger before passing to the reactor (paragraph [0023]). Chakraborty further teaches that the further heating may be required to maintain flowability (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat the molten plastics before passing them to the heat unit (reactor vessel) of Tadauchi, because each of Tadauchi and Chakraborty teach melting plastics followed by conversion, and Chakraborty further teaches the further heating may be required to maintain flowability (paragraph [0023]).
Chakraborty does not explicitly the temperature of the heating step. However, Chakraborty teaches the heating may be required to maintain flowability (paragraph [0023]), and thus the temperature is a result-effective variable that will maintain the flowability of the plastics, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the temperature of the heating to 250-300°C, as claimed, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Maduskar et al. (US 2023/0159834).
With regard to claim 6, Tadauchi teaches the process above, where the plastics are melted before dechlorination (column 16, lines 13-16).
Tadauchi fails to teach adding a medium (E) comprising a hydrocarbon composition to the molten plastics before the dechlorination.
Maduskar teaches a method for conversion of plastic waste (Abstract). Maduskar further teaches the process comprises melting the plastics comprising PVC (paragraph [0022]) in a melt extruder (paragraph [0026]) and then adding an additional hydrocarbon stream to the melted plastic to reduce the viscosity (paragraph [0028]) which allows the plastics to flow better in the feeding mechanism (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add an additional hydrocarbon stream to the melted plastics of Tadauchi, because Tadauchi and Maduskar each teaches a method of conversion of waste plastics, comprising melting the PVC-containing plastics in an extruder, and Maduskar teaches that adding an additional hydrocarbon stream to the melted plastics reduces the viscosity of the melted plastics (paragraph [0028])
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maezawa et al. (US 5,608,136).
With regard to claim 15, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano teaches the process above.
Tadauchi in view of Cartolano fails to teach forming the dechlorinated plastics into pellets.
Maezawa teaches a process for decomposition of plastics including PVC (Abstract). Maezawa teaches that the process comprises dechlorinating the plastics by mixing with an alkaline material at a temperature of 200-400°C in an extruder (column 19, lines 54-56) followed by pelletizing the dechlorinated plastics before the decomposition step (column 17, lines 53-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of pelletizing to the process of Tadauchi in view of Cartolano, because Tadauchi and Maezawa each teach dechlorination of plastics before decomposition, and Maezawa teaches that it is known and useful to pelletize the dechlorinated plastics before decomposition (column 17, lines 53-56).
With regard to claim 19, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano teaches the method above, where the product includes waxes (oligomers) (column 39, lines 1-6).
Tadauchi in view of Cartolano fails to teach recycling the waxes to the dechlorination.
Maezawa teaches a process for decomposition of plastics including PVC (Abstract). Maezawa teaches that the process comprises dechlorinating the plastics in a first decomposition step, separating heavy components, and recycling the heavy components to the decomposition reactor for a second decomposition step (column 18, line 58-column 19, line 10 and column 46, claim 1). Maezawa additionally teaches that this allows further decomposition of the heavy constituents without producing organic chlorides (column 18, lines 58-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recycling the waxes of Tadauchi to the dechlorination step, because Tadauchi and Maezawa each teach dechlorination and decomposition of plastics comprising PVC, and Maezawa teaches that recycling the heavy products to the dechlorination allows further decomposition without producing organic chlorides (column 18, lines 58-65).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Di Mondo (WO 2019/195915).
With regard to claim 18, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano teaches the depolymerized waxes (oligomers) above.
Tadauchi fails to teach forming the waxes into pellets.
Di Mondo teaches a process for conversion of polymers to waxes by depolymerization (paragraph [0012]) comprising cooling and pelletizing the waxes after depolymerization (paragraph [0077]) before providing them to be used in adhesives and other products (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the waxes of Tadauchi into pellets by cooling, as claimed, because each of Tadauchi and Di Mondo teach forming wax products from depolymerization of plastics, and Di Mondo teaches the waxes can be formed into pellets before being used in adhesives and other products.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) in view of Cartolano et al. (US 2020/0362248) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995)
With regard to claim 20, Tadauchi in view of Cartolano teaches the depolymerized waxes (oligomers) above.
Tadauchi fails to teach passing the wax product to a refinery conversion unit.
Kirkwood teaches a method for conversion of polymers to waxes (Abstract), which are then converted to useful olefins by steam cracking (Abstract). Kirkwood teaches separating the wax product from the polymer decomposition effluent and passing it to a steam cracker as a refinery feedstock (column 4, lines 50-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the wax (oligomer) product of Tadauchi as a feed to a steam cracker (refinery unit), as claimed, because each of Tadauchi and Kirkwood teaches conversion of polymers to waxes and separation of the waxes, and Kirkwood teaches that useful olefins can be produced by using the waxes as feed to a refinery unit such as a steam cracker (column 4, lines 50-55 and Abstract).
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 1-7, 10, 11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/720,045 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/720,045 encompass the instant claims.
Instant claims 1 and 13 recite a process comprising (i) providing a waste stream comprising PVC, (ii) supplying the plastics to a vessel, (iii) reacting at a temperature of 250-350°C using inert gas (instant claim 13) to evacuate hydrogen chloride gas and partially dechlorinate the PVC, (iv) removing the waste plastics from the vessel, and (v) removing the PVC from the waste plastics stream.
The dependent claims 2-7, 10, and 11 recite 0.5 to 10 wt% PVC, molten plastics from an extruder at a temperature of ≤250°C, preheating the extruded stream to 250-300°C, mixing the molten plastics with a hydrocarbon medium, filtering the removed plastics to remove the PVC, treating the hydrogen chloride gas with caustic, and condensing a hydrocarbon medium from the treated gas and recycling it.
Claim 1 of Application 18/720,045 recites a process comprising (i) providing a waste stream comprising PVC, (ii) supplying the plastics and a solvent (medium) to a vessel, (iii) reacting at a temperature of 250-350°C using inert gas to evacuate hydrogen chloride gas and partially dechlorinate the PVC, and (iv) removing the waste plastics from the vessel. The dependent claims 2-9 recite up to 10 wt% PVC, molten plastics from an extruder at a temperature of ≤250°C, preheating the extruded stream to 250-300°C, filtering the removed plastics to remove the PVC, treating the hydrogen chloride gas with caustic, and condensing a hydrocarbon medium from the treated gas and recycling it.
The differences are i) Claim 1 of Application 18/270,045 recites additional steps not required by the instant claims and ii) the amount of PVC in claim 2 of Application 18/270,045 is not the exact range of 0.5 to 10 wt% recited in instant claim 2.
With regard to i), the claims are not identical due to the extra steps, but Application 18/270,045 encompasses the steps of the instant claims and renders them unpatentable.
With regard to ii), the range of up to 10 wt% of Application 18/270,045 overlaps the range of 0.5 to 10 wt% of the instant claims, rendering the range of the instant claims obvious and unpatentable.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/720,458 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/720,458 encompass the instant claims.
Instant claims 1 and 13 recite a process comprising (i) providing a waste stream comprising PVC, (ii) supplying the plastics to a vessel, (iii) reacting at a temperature of 250-350°C using inert gas (instant claim 13) to evacuate hydrogen chloride gas and partially dechlorinate the PVC, and (iv) removing the waste plastics from the vessel. The dependent claims 2-6, 10, and 11 recite 0.5 to 10 wt% PVC, molten plastics from an extruder at a temperature of ≤250°C, preheating the extruded stream to 250-300°C, mixing the molten plastics with a hydrocarbon medium, filtering the removed plastics to remove the PVC, treating the hydrogen chloride gas with caustic, and condensing a hydrocarbon medium from the treated gas and recycling it.
Claim 1 of Application 18/720,458 recites a process comprising (i) providing a waste stream comprising PVC, (ii) supplying the plastics and a solvent (medium) to a vessel, (iii) reacting at a temperature of 250-350°C using inert gas to evacuate hydrogen chloride gas and partially dechlorinate the PVC, and (iv) removing the waste plastics from the vessel. The dependent claims 2-8 recite up to 10 wt% PVC, molten plastics from an extruder at a temperature of ≤250°C, preheating the extruded stream to 250-300°C, filtering the removed plastics to remove the PVC, treating the hydrogen chloride gas with caustic, and condensing a hydrocarbon medium from the treated gas and recycling it.
The differences are i) Claim 1 of Application 18/270,458 recites additional steps not required by the instant claims and ii) the amount of PVC in claim 2 of Application 18/270,458 is not the exact range of 0.5 to 10 wt% recited in instant claim 2.
With regard to i), the claims are not identical due to the extra steps, but Application 18/270,458 encompasses the steps of the instant claims and renders them unpatentable.
With regard to ii), the range of up to 10 wt% of Application 18/270,458 overlaps the range of 0.5 to 10 wt% of the instant claims, rendering the range of the instant claims obvious and unpatentable.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights