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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 3/5/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted 3/5/26 (see arguments P5).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the independent claims 1 and 11, as amended to require “feeding a pyrolyzing reactor with a pyrolysis feed, wherein the pyrolysis feed comprises a waste plastic with less than 5 weight percent biomass based on the weight of the entire pyrolysis feed” in the context of a pyrolysis process with recovering CO2 is not fairly taught or suggested by the closest prior art applied of Sundaram (US 2021/0130698) (see arguments P5-7) this is found persuasive however updated search and consideration is required. The same arguments presented further references relied upon in the 103 rejections are similarly persuasive, however updated search and consideration has found new references, Huber (US 2012/0203042) necessitated by amendment. This action will be made Final.
The ODP rejection is held in abeyance and is therefore maintained.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2021/0130698) in combination with Huber (US 2012/0203042).
Regarding claim 1, Sundaram teaches chemical recycling process, the process comprising: feeding a biomass 112 and waste plastic 114 to a pyrolyzer 120 to pyrolyze it to thereby form a pyrolysis effluent 125 (not shown) / 131 comprising a pyrolysis gas (“gas phase effluent 125” and 131, Fig, [0064], claim 1, 8); and (b) recovering CO2 (in PSA 140) from at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas 131 to thereby form a recovered CO2 stream 148 (Fig, [0040-0055,0064], claim 1, 8).
However Sundaram does not teach wherein the pyrolysis feed comprises a waste plastic with less than 5 weight percent biomass based on the weight of the entire pyrolysis feed.
Huber teaches a method for catalytic pyrolysis of biomass and hydrocarbonaceous materials for production of products (title, abstract), Huber teaches the process comprises feeding the hydrocarbonaceous materials to pyrolysis reactor 20, recovering gas products in 50/70 including CO2 (Fig 1, 7, [0064,0096-0097]) Huber teaches hydrocarbonaceous materials may be selected as any or all of biomass plant materials, and also selected waste plastic and recycled plastics [0103], Huber suggests this influences the products recovered in liquid and gaseous phases from the pyrolysis reactor [0102-0104].
Therefore the skilled artisan in view of Huber recognizes that the feed material to the pyrolysis reactor influences the products recovered, including gases and liquids, therefore in view of Huber the skilled artisan would be expected to select from the known materials, including biomass and/or waste/recycled plastics and modify the process of Sundaram to be a process wherein the pyrolysis feed comprises a waste plastic with less than 5 weight percent biomass based on the weight of the entire pyrolysis feed with the expected result of influencing the products recovered from the pyrolysis process of Sundaram.
Regarding claim 2, Sundaram teaches wherein the recovered CO2 stream is enriched in CO2 concentration relative to the pyrolysis gas [0040-0055].
Regarding claim 3, Sundaram teaches the recovered CO2 stream comprises at least 75 percent of the CO2 originally present in the pyrolysis gas [0040-0055].
Regarding claim 4, Sundaram teaches wherein the recovered CO2 stream comprises at least 90 mole percent of 002, based on the total molar content of the recovered CO2 stream [0040-0055].
Regarding claim 5, Sundaram teaches wherein the CO2 comprises recycle content CO2 [0040-0055].
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2021/0130698) taken in combination with Huber (US 2012/0203042) as applied above and further in combination with Foody et al (US 2017/0158503).
Regarding claim 6-9, Sundaram discloses all the limitations discussed above including that the absorber is a PSA but does not explicitly disclose the absorber system comprises an absorber column and stripper column, with solvents and HTM claimed.
Foody discloses the recovery of CO2 from plastic pyrolysis processes in order to reuse and recycle it, said recovery taking place using an absorber column with a solvent, such as, amine, monoethanolamine or selexol, i.e. DME/PEG ([0097-0098], [0107-0109] and [0135-0137]) Foody further recognizes solid absorbent steps, i.e. PSA, and liquid absorbent steps, i.e. absorption/scrubber paired columns, are known for CO2 separations ([0130]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to swap the solid, or PSA, absorption step of Sundaram with the liquid absorption step utilizing an amine or selexol (DME/PEG) in absorption scrubber columns with heat transfer mediums as taught by Foody because Foody recognizes both as art recognized equivalents to achieve the expected result of separating CO2 without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2021/0130698) taken in combination with Huber (US 2012/0203042) as applied above and further in combination with of Ban et al (US 4,220,454).
Regarding claim 10, Sundaram discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the disposition of the recovered CO2 as introduced to a gasification facility.
Ban teaches a process and system of use of the process for gasifying carbonaceous materials in a gasification facility to produce a low BTU gas in an oxidizing reaction zone with a controlled amount of air and steam and/or carbon dioxide gas (title, abstract, Fig 1-2, C6:L8-28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the resulting CO2 stream in known processes that utilizes CO2, such as the gasification facility of Ban motivated to utilize the recovered CO2 in applicable system and methods in order to obtain a BTU gas product as taught by Ban that can be used for the BTU energy content.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2021/0130698) taken in combination with of Ban et al (US 4,220,454) and Huber (US 2012/0203042).
Regarding claim 11, Sundaram teaches chemical recycling process, the process comprising: (a) feeding a biomass 112 and waste plastic 114 to a pyrolyzer 120 to pyrolyze it to thereby form a pyrolysis effluent 125 (not shown) / 131 comprising a pyrolysis gas (“gas phase effluent 125” and 131, Fig, [0064], claim 1, 8); (b) separating at least a portion of the effluent to form pyrolysis gas and pyrolysis oil ([0013,0031-0033], in pyrolysis hydrocarbon products are created, and the selectivity of the temperature can product more products, which are cooled in a conventional heat exchanger); and (c) recovering CO2 (in PSA 140) from at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas 131 to thereby form a recovered CO2 stream 148 (Fig, [0040-0055,0064], claim 1, 8).
However, Sundaram does not explicitly disclose the disposition of the recovered CO2 as introduced to a gasification facility.
Ban teaches a process and system of use of the process for gasifying carbonaceous materials in a gasification facility to produce a low BTU gas in an oxidizing reaction zone with a controlled amount of air and steam and/or carbon dioxide gas (title, abstract, Fig 1-2, C6:L8-28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the resulting CO2 stream in known processes that utilizes CO2, such as the gasification facility of Ban motivated to utilize the recovered CO2 in applicable system and methods in order to obtain a BTU gas product as taught by Ban that can be used for the BTU energy content.
However Sundaram does not teach wherein the pyrolysis feed comprises a waste plastic with less than 5 weight percent biomass based on the weight of the entire pyrolysis feed.
Huber teaches a method for catalytic pyrolysis of biomass and hydrocarbonaceous materials for production of products (title, abstract), Huber teaches the process comprises feeding the hydrocarbonaceous materials to pyrolysis reactor 20, recovering gas products in 50/70 including CO2 (Fig 1, 7, [0064,0096-0097]) Huber teaches hydrocarbonaceous materials may be selected as any or all of biomass plant materials, and also selected waste plastic and recycled plastics [0103], Huber suggests this influences the products recovered in liquid and gaseous phases from the pyrolysis reactor [0102-0104].
Therefore the skilled artisan in view of Huber recognizes that the feed material to the pyrolysis reactor influences the products recovered, including gases and liquids, therefore in view of Huber the skilled artisan would be expected to select from the known materials, including biomass and/or waste/recycled plastics and modify the process of Sundaram to be a process wherein the pyrolysis feed comprises a waste plastic with less than 5 weight percent biomass based on the weight of the entire pyrolysis feed with the expected result of influencing the products recovered from the pyrolysis process of Sundaram.
Regarding claim 12, Sundaram teaches wherein the recovered CO2 stream is enriched in CO2 concentration relative to the pyrolysis gas [0040-0055].
Regarding claim 13, Sundaram teaches the recovered CO2 stream comprises at least 75 percent of the CO2 originally present in the pyrolysis gas [0040-0055].
Regarding claim 14, Sundaram teaches wherein the recovered CO2 stream comprises at least 90 mole percent of 002, based on the total molar content of the recovered CO2 stream [0040-0055].
Regarding claim 19, in modified Sundaram, Ban teaches the gasification facility comprises gasifier.
Regarding claim 20, Sundaram teaches wherein the CO2 comprises recycle content CO2 [0040-0055].
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram (US 2021/0130698) taken in combination with of Ban et al (US 4,220,454) and Huber (US 2012/0203042), as applied above and further in combination with of Foody et al (US 2017/0158503).
Regarding claim 15-18, Sundaram discloses all the limitations discussed above including that the absorber is a PSA but does not explicitly disclose the absorber system comprises an absorber column and stripper column, with solvents and HTM claimed.
Foody discloses the recovery of CO2 from plastic pyrolysis processes in order to reuse and recycle it, said recovery taking place using an absorber column with a solvent, such as, amine, monoethanolamine or selexol, i.e. DME/PEG ([0097-0098], [0107-0109] and [0135-0137]) Foody further recognizes solid absorbent steps, i.e. PSA, and liquid absorbent steps, i.e. absorption/scrubber paired columns, are known for CO2 separations ([0130]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to swap the solid, or PSA, absorption step of Sundaram with the liquid absorption step utilizing an amine or selexol (DME/PEG) in absorption scrubber columns with heat transfer mediums as taught by Foody because Foody recognizes both as art recognized equivalents to achieve the expected result of separating CO2 without unexpected results.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/691,476 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘476 applicant are the more limited of the two sets of claims however it is obvious to claim the instantly broader invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/691,481 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially overlapping with the claims of the ‘481 directed to recovery of the oil product, whereas the instant claims directed to recovery of CO2, however both oil and CO2 are recognized products (see instant claim 11) and recovery of them are obvious modifications motivated to recover the different products of pyrolysis.
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 JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights