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 3/20/26 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The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments submitted 3/20/26 (see arguments P5).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the independent claims 1, 10 and 17, as amended to require “pyrolyzing a pyrolysis feed that includes waste plastic comprising at least 90 weight percent polyolefins and not more than 1 weight percent polyester and PVC combined, and less than 5 weight percent of biomass” in the context of a pyrolysis process with recovering pyoil and treating a portion of the pygas stream is not fairly taught or suggested by the closest prior art applied of Schmelzer et al (US 2016/0122190) (see arguments P6-7) this is found persuasive however updated search and consideration is required. However updated search and consideration has found new references, Huber (US 2012/0203042) necessitated by amendment. This action will be made Final.
The ODP rejections have been held in abeyance and are 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) 1-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmelzer et al (US 2016/0122190) in combination with Huber (US 2012/0203042).
Regarding claim 1, Schmelzer teaches process for recovering heat from a pyrolysis effluent stream, the process comprising: pyrolyzing in reactor 100 waste plastic to thereby produce the pyrolysis effluent stream with cooling 110 and at least partially condensing at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent stream via indirect heat exchange with: (i) a heat transfer medium (HTM) BFW (Fig 2), thereby warming the HTM; and/or (ii) a stripper column reboiler 393 (Fig 4); feeding at least a portion of the cooled and at least partially condensed pyrolysis effluent stream to a separator 120 to thereby produce a pyrolysis gas (pygas) stream 12 and a pyrolysis oil (pyoil) stream 16; treating at least a portion of the pygas stream in an absorber-stripper system 190 to thereby produce a purified pygas stream 23, removing in said stripper with solvents such as Selexol or amines or PEG a plurality of components including CO2; and optionally, using at least a portion of the warmed HTM to provide heating to one or more of: a rich solvent stream within the absorber-stripper system; a liquefaction process; and/or a pyrolysis feedstock preheating process (Figs 1-4, [0034-0038]), (Figs 1-4, [0032-0046]).
However Schmelzer 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 Schmelzer 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 Schmelzer, and selecting from known wastes plastics, which includes plastics that are sorted by type, such as sorted PET would be obvious to select to target specific isolated sorted plastics and products from the pyrolysis.
Regarding claim 2-7, Schmelzer has taught the solvent is regenerated after introduction to absorber column 190/390 and is selected as a selexol, etc as claimed, and is able to absorb, release CO2 [0034-0038].
Regarding claim 8-9, Schmelzer teaches all limitations as set forth above, while not explicitly teaching the temperatures ranges as claimed, for the skilled artisan to measure and optimize temperatures, a known results optimizable variable, is considered routine and does not show unexpected results.
Regarding claim 22, in modified Schmelzer, Schmelzer further teaches CO2 and sulfur are removed with absorption [0008] and substantially teaches removal of CO2 (table 1, [0037-0038]), while not teaching the explicit ranges claimed this would be a result optimizable variable without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Schmelzer teaches process for recovering heat from a pyrolysis effluent stream, the process comprising: pyrolyzing in reactor 100 waste plastic to thereby produce the pyrolysis effluent stream with cooling 110 and at least partially condensing at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent stream via indirect heat exchange with: (i) a heat transfer medium (HTM) BFW (Fig 2), thereby warming the HTM; and/or (ii) a stripper column reboiler 393 (Fig 4); feeding at least a portion of the cooled and at least partially condensed pyrolysis effluent stream to a separator 120 to thereby produce a pyrolysis gas (pygas) stream 12 and a pyrolysis oil (pyoil) stream 16; treating at least a portion of the pygas stream in an absorber-stripper system 190 to thereby produce a purified pygas stream 23, removing in said stripper with solvents such as Selexol or amines or PEG a plurality of components including CO2; and optionally, using at least a portion of the warmed HTM to provide heating to one or more of: a rich solvent stream within the absorber-stripper system; a liquefaction process; and/or a pyrolysis feedstock preheating process (Figs 1-4, [0034-0038]), (Figs 1-4, [0032-0046]).
However Schmelzer 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 Schmelzer 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 Schmelzer, and selecting from known wastes plastics, which includes plastics that are sorted by type, such as sorted PET would be obvious to select to target specific isolated sorted plastics and products from the pyrolysis.
Regarding claims 11-12, in modified Schmelzer, Schmelzer further teaches CO2 and sulfur are removed with absorption [0008] and substantially teaches removal of CO2 (table 1, [0037-0038]), while not teaching the explicit ranges claimed this would be a result optimizable variable without unexpected results.
Regarding claims 13-14, Schmelzer is silent to the component breakdown as recited, however to utilize different waste plastic biomass as suggested [[0023]) would be routine and to determine the breakdown of waste plastics would not show unexpected results.
Regarding claims 15-16, in Schmelzer the compounds treated and recovered includes styrenes, xylenes, toluenes, etc ([0020-0027,0049-0050], table 2-3).
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Schmelzer teaches process for recovering heat from a pyrolysis effluent stream, the process comprising: pyrolyzing in reactor 100 waste plastic to thereby produce the pyrolysis effluent stream with cooling 110 and at least partially condensing at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent stream via indirect heat exchange with: (i) a heat transfer medium (HTM) BFW (Fig 2), thereby warming the HTM; and/or (ii) a stripper column reboiler 393 (Fig 4) (as per claim 23); feeding at least a portion of the cooled and at least partially condensed pyrolysis effluent stream to a separator 120 to thereby produce a pyrolysis gas (pygas) stream 12 and a pyrolysis oil (pyoil) stream 16; treating at least a portion of the pygas stream in an absorber-stripper system 190 to thereby produce a purified pygas stream 23, removing in said stripper with solvents such as Selexol or amines or PEG a plurality of components including CO2; and optionally, using at least a portion of the warmed HTM to provide heating to one or more of: a rich solvent stream within the absorber-stripper system; a liquefaction process; and/or a pyrolysis feedstock preheating process (Figs 1-4, [0034-0038]), (Figs 1-4, [0032-0046]).
However Schmelzer 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 Schmelzer 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 Schmelzer, and selecting from known wastes plastics, which includes plastics that are sorted by type, such as sorted PET would be obvious to select to target specific isolated sorted plastics and products from the pyrolysis.
Regarding claim 18, in Schmelzer the product stream is from 500-550 C [0033].
Regarding claim 19, in Schmelzer the HTM is BFW (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 20, Schmelzer has taught that usable heat is recovered with BFW stream (Fig 2), therefore recognizes that PHOSITA knew that heat should be recovered via exchanger was routine and PHOSITA would therefore find obvious to recover heat in other plant streams such as oil as needed without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmelzer et al (US 2016/0122190) in combination with Huber (US 2012/0203042) as applied above and further in combination with Baker (US 2007/0179326).
Regarding claim 21, modified Schmelzer teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Schmelzer does not teach wherein the pygas is introduced to a cracking facility.
Baker teaches a system and method of use for conversion of waste to fuels (title, abstract), Baker teaches the sorted and separated feed is provided to pyrolysis reactors 26, with gases provided to catalyst chamber 29 for thermolytic cracking to ensure product carbons are obtained in the proper range of C8-C25 carbon (Fig 1, [0080-0089]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Schmelzer to introduce the pygas to a cracking facility as taught by Baker motivated to ensure product carbons are obtained in the proper range of carbon chains as taught by Baker.
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 1-23 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/691,472 (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 ‘472 directed to recovery of CO2, whereas the instant claims directed to recovery of the oil product, however both oil and CO2 are recognized products (see instant claim 5, 10) and recovery of them are obvious modifications motivated to recover the different products of pyrolysis, and selection of plastics to be treated amongst well-known types of plastics was routine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-23 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 are substantially overlapping with the claims of the ‘472 directed to recovery of CO2, whereas the instant claims directed to recovery of the oil product, however both oil and CO2 are recognized products (see instant claim 5, 10) and recovery of them are obvious modifications motivated to recover the different products of pyrolysis, and selection of plastics to be treated amongst well-known types of plastics was routine.
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