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 .
This action is a response to the amendments and remarks filed on 15 July 2026.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-17 have been canceled. Claims 6 and 9 have been amended. Claims 18-27 are new. Claims 6-10, 12, and 18-27 are pending. In the previous action (Non-Final Rejection filed on 18 May 2026), claims 11 and 12 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
In response to the amendments to the claims and the filing of a replacement drawing sheet, the objections to the claims and the drawings are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that the cited prior art is silent regarding limitations including “wherein the metal-arsenide comprises zinc-arsenide (Zn3AS2), iron(II)-arsenide (Fe3AS2), and/or copper(II)-arsenide (Cu3AS2).” See Remarks, p. 9, middle.
In response, although Applicant’s argument is well-taken, this limitation alone does not establish the patentability of claim6 because these limitations are one set among four sets of limitations which may be treated as alternatives (“and/or”). In other words, the claim does not require that these limitations must be met by the prior art to establish obviousness. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 18 and 23 are in condition for allowance because they include limitations of claims 11 and 12, which were previously indicated as allowable (Remarks, p. 10, middle).
In response, for similar reasons as discussed above regarding claim 6, these independent claims are not written to require the limitations in question. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Because of Applicant’s amendments, after further consideration and search, said new grounds of rejection are presented herein as a final rejection. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: Applicant is respectfully advised of the following apparent typographical errors: In “wherein the metal-arsenide comprises zinc-arsenide (Zn3AS2), iron(II)-arsenide (Fe3AS2), and/or copper(II)-arsenide (Cu3AS2),” each instance of “AS” appears to be a typographical error for “As,” the elemental symbol of arsenic.
Claim 23 is objected to upon the same basis as claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2022/0017830 A1) in view of Hesbol et al. (US 2004/0202597 A1), and as evidenced by Denton et al. (US 10,414,649 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta discloses a process for removal of reduced sulfur species in a gas stream (Abstract) from a pyrolysis process based on a carbonaceous waste feed stock ([0003]) (i.e., a process for purifying pyrolysis gas (pygas)) comprising: pyrolyzing a waste to produce a pygas stream) comprising the reduced sulfur species at a concentration in a range of about 5 to about 5000 ppmv, wherein the reduced sulfur species is a mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) ([0047]) (i.e., a pygas stream comprising at least 1 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or at least 1 ppm carbonyl sulfide (COS), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I));
flowing a process gas through an adsorbent bed with a regenerable metal oxide sorbent ([0131]) such as zinc oxide ([0156]) to convert the metal oxide into a metal sulfide through the reaction of COS and H2S with the sorbent ([0158]), wherein the reaction of a metal oxide with H2S and COS was known in the art to produce byproducts of water and carbon dioxide, respectively, along with the metal sulfide, as evidenced by Denton (col. 7, lines 41-49) (i.e., contacting the pygas stream with a second reactant material comprising a metal-oxide compound to thereby convert at least a portion of the H2S into water and a metal-sulfide; convert at least a portion of the COS into carbon dioxide (CO2) and a metal-sulfide), the adsorption producing a sulfur reduced gas stream and a sorbent to be regenerated in an offstream regeneration operation ([0048]) (i.e., removing at least a portion of the metal-sulfide from the pygas stream to thereby form a purified pygas stream).
It is noted that the presence of the metal sulfide-containing adsorbent in the adsorbent bed is interpreted as constituting the removing of the portion of the metal sulfide from the pygas. See [0062]) of the instant application.
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose (i) pyrolyzing a waste plastic; or (ii) contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
Regarding (i), Hesbol teaches a method for desulfurizing a gas produced by pyrolysis (claim 2). Hesbol teaches that plastic waste can be pyrolyzed (claim 2) for energy production ([0002]), and that the gas would be expected to contain sulfur in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or carbonyl sulfide (COS) (claim 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta by (i) pyrolyzing a waste plastic as taught by Hesbol because (1) Gupta teaches the pyrolysis of a waste but does not specify the waste (Gupta, [0003]); (2) the skilled practitioner would have recognized that a pyrolysis gas from pyrolyzing waste which contains hydrogen sulfide and/or carbonyl sulfide (Gupta, [0047]) may refer to a pyrolysis gas from the pyrolysis of plastic waste (Hesbol, claims 2, 3); and (3) plastic waste can be pyrolyzed for energy production (Hesbol, [0002]).
Regarding (ii), these limitations are optional, so the teachings of Gupta in view of Hesbol are within the scope of the claim.
It is noted that the limitations of steps (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), and (c)(ii) and (c)(iii), are interpreted as alternatives and not required in view of the conjunctions “and/or” in each step.
Regarding claim 9, Gupta teaches a metal oxide sorbent with a metal that may be zinc oxide ([0106]), or oxides of iron or copper ([0131]) (i.e., wherein the second reactant material comprises zinc-oxide (ZnO), iron(II)-oxide (FeO), and/or copper(II)-oxide (CuO)).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta teaches a metal oxide sorbent with a metal that may be zinc oxide ([0106]), or oxides of iron or copper, wherein the metal oxide is converted to a metal sulfide ([0131]), such as zinc sulfide ([0019]) (i.e., wherein the metal-sulfide comprises zinc-sulfide (ZnS), iron(II)-sulfide (FeS), and/or copper(II)-sulfide (CuS)). It is noted that the designations of “iron(II)” and “copper(II)” would have been obvious in view of the charge of the sulfide ion.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Hesbol, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN113145103A).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta in view of Hesbol does not explicitly disclose contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the catalyst material comprises nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) and/or palladium (Pd).
Wang discloses a hydrodesulfurization catalyst used to purify and remove sulfur-containing gaseous organic compounds ([n0001]). Wang teaches that hydrodesulfurization is currently the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal, with COS reacting with H2 (i.e., a first reactant material) to produce CO and H2S through a catalyst (i.e., a catalyst material) before removing the H2S using a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent ([n0003]). Wang teaches that the catalyst is prepared from a precursor ([n0011], [n0015]) that includes salts of nickel and molybdenum ([n0014], [n0016]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta in view of Hesbol by contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the catalyst material comprises nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) as taught by Wang because (1) Gupta teaches a desulfurization process using a zinc oxide catalyst (Gupta, [0039], [0077]); and (2) it was known that, in a desulfurization process upstream of the use of a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent, COS can be reacted with hydrogen in the presence of a hydrodesulfurization catalyst comprising nickel and molybdenum to provide the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal (Wang, [n0003], [n0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta in view of Hesbol does not explicitly disclose contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the first reactant material comprises water and/or hydrogen.
Wang discloses a hydrodesulfurization catalyst used to purify and remove sulfur-containing gaseous organic compounds ([n0001]). Wang teaches that hydrodesulfurization is currently the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal, with COS reacting with H2 (i.e., a first reactant material) to produce CO and H2S through a catalyst (i.e., a catalyst material) before removing the H2S using a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent ([n0003]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta in view of Hesbol by contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the first reactant material comprises hydrogen as taught by Wang because (1) Gupta teaches a desulfurization process using a zinc oxide catalyst (Gupta, [0039], [0077]); and (2) it was known that, in a desulfurization process upstream of the use of a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent, COS can be reacted with hydrogen in the presence of a hydrodesulfurization catalyst to provide the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal (Wang, [n0003], [n0016]).
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Hesbol, and as evidenced by Denton.
Regarding claim 18, Gupta discloses a process for removal of reduced sulfur species in a gas stream (Abstract) from a pyrolysis process based on a carbonaceous waste feed stock ([0003]) (i.e., a process for purifying pyrolysis gas (pygas)) comprising: pyrolyzing a waste to produce a pygas stream) comprising the reduced sulfur species at a concentration in a range of about 5 to about 5000 ppmv, wherein the reduced sulfur species is a mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) ([0047]) (i.e., a pygas stream comprising at least 1 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or at least 1 ppm carbonyl sulfide (COS), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I));
flowing a process gas through an adsorbent bed with a regenerable metal oxide sorbent ([0131]) such as zinc oxide ([0156]) to convert the metal oxide into a metal sulfide through the reaction of COS and H2S with the sorbent ([0158]), wherein the reaction of a metal oxide with H2S and COS was known in the art to produce byproducts of water and carbon dioxide, respectively, along with the metal sulfide, as evidenced by Denton (col. 7, lines 41-49) (i.e., contacting the pygas stream with a second reactant material comprising a metal-oxide compound to thereby convert at least a portion of the H2S into water and a metal-sulfide; convert at least a portion of the COS into carbon dioxide (CO2) and a metal-sulfide), wherein the adsorbent may include ZnO ([0132]), copper oxide, or iron oxide ([0131]) (i.e., wherein the second reactant material comprises zinc-oxide (ZnO), iron(II)-oxide (FeO), and/or copper(II)-oxide (CuO));
the adsorption producing a sulfur reduced gas stream and a sorbent to be regenerated in an offstream regeneration operation ([0048]) (i.e., removing at least a portion of the metal-sulfide from the pygas stream to thereby form a purified pygas stream).
It is noted that the presence of the metal sulfide-containing adsorbent in the adsorbent bed is interpreted as constituting the removing of the portion of the metal sulfide from the pygas. See [0062]) of the instant application.
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose (i) pyrolyzing a waste plastic; or (ii) contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
Regarding (i), Hesbol teaches a method for desulfurizing a gas produced by pyrolysis (claim 2). Hesbol teaches that plastic waste can be pyrolyzed (claim 2) for energy production ([0002]), and that the gas would be expected to contain sulfur in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or carbonyl sulfide (COS) (claim 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta by (i) pyrolyzing a waste plastic as taught by Hesbol because (1) Gupta teaches the pyrolysis of a waste but does not specify the waste (Gupta, [0003]); (2) the skilled practitioner would have recognized that a pyrolysis gas from pyrolyzing waste which contains hydrogen sulfide and/or carbonyl sulfide (Gupta, [0047]) may refer to a pyrolysis gas from the pyrolysis of plastic waste (Hesbol, claims 2, 3); and (3) plastic waste can be pyrolyzed for energy production (Hesbol, [0002]).
Regarding (ii), these limitations are optional, so the teachings of Gupta in view of Hesbol are within the scope of the claim.
It is noted that the limitations of steps (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), and (c)(ii) and (c)(iii), are interpreted as alternatives and not required in view of the conjunctions “and/or” in each step.
Regarding claim 21, Gupta teaches a metal oxide sorbent with a metal that may be zinc oxide ([0106]), or oxides of iron or copper, wherein the metal oxide is converted to a metal sulfide ([0131]), such as zinc sulfide ([0019]) (i.e., wherein the metal-sulfide comprises zinc-sulfide (ZnS), iron(II)-sulfide (FeS), and/or copper(II)-sulfide (CuS)). It is noted that the designations of “iron(II)” and “copper(II)” would have been obvious in view of the charge of the sulfide ion.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Hesbol, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN113145103A).
Regarding claim 19, Gupta in view of Hesbol does not explicitly disclose contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the catalyst material comprises nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) and/or palladium (Pd).
Wang discloses a hydrodesulfurization catalyst used to purify and remove sulfur-containing gaseous organic compounds ([n0001]). Wang teaches that hydrodesulfurization is currently the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal, with COS reacting with H2 (i.e., a first reactant material) to produce CO and H2S through a catalyst (i.e., a catalyst material) before removing the H2S using a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent ([n0003]). Wang teaches that the catalyst is prepared from a precursor ([n0011], [n0015]) that includes salts of nickel and molybdenum ([n0014], [n0016]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta in view of Hesbol by contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the catalyst material comprises nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) as taught by Wang because (1) Gupta teaches a desulfurization process using a zinc oxide catalyst (Gupta, [0039], [0077]); and (2) it was known that, in a desulfurization process upstream of the use of a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent, COS can be reacted with hydrogen in the presence of a hydrodesulfurization catalyst comprising nickel and molybdenum to provide the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal (Wang, [n0003], [n0016]).
Regarding claim 20, Gupta in view of Hesbol does not explicitly disclose contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the first reactant material comprises water and/or hydrogen.
Wang discloses a hydrodesulfurization catalyst used to purify and remove sulfur-containing gaseous organic compounds ([n0001]). Wang teaches that hydrodesulfurization is currently the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal, with COS reacting with H2 (i.e., a first reactant material) to produce CO and H2S through a catalyst (i.e., a catalyst material) before removing the H2S using a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent ([n0003]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta in view of Hesbol by contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the first reactant material comprises hydrogen as taught by Wang because (1) Gupta teaches a desulfurization process using a zinc oxide catalyst (Gupta, [0039], [0077]); and (2) it was known that, in a desulfurization process upstream of the use of a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent, COS can be reacted with hydrogen in the presence of a hydrodesulfurization catalyst to provide the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal (Wang, [n0003], [n0016]).
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Hesbol, and as evidenced by Denton.
Regarding claim 23, Gupta discloses a process for removal of reduced sulfur species in a gas stream (Abstract) from a pyrolysis process based on a carbonaceous waste feed stock ([0003]) (i.e., a process for purifying pyrolysis gas (pygas)) comprising: pyrolyzing a waste to produce a pygas stream) comprising the reduced sulfur species at a concentration in a range of about 5 to about 5000 ppmv, wherein the reduced sulfur species is a mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) ([0047]) (i.e., a pygas stream comprising at least 1 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or at least 1 ppm carbonyl sulfide (COS), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I));
flowing a process gas through an adsorbent bed with a regenerable metal oxide sorbent ([0131]) such as zinc oxide ([0156]) to convert the metal oxide into a metal sulfide through the reaction of COS and H2S with the sorbent ([0158]), wherein the reaction of a metal oxide with H2S and COS was known in the art to produce byproducts of water and carbon dioxide, respectively, along with the metal sulfide, as evidenced by Denton (col. 7, lines 41-49) (i.e., contacting the pygas stream with a second reactant material comprising a metal-oxide compound to thereby convert at least a portion of the H2S into water and a metal-sulfide; convert at least a portion of the COS into carbon dioxide (CO2) and a metal-sulfide), wherein the adsorbent may include ZnO ([0132]), copper oxide, or iron oxide ([0131]) (i.e., wherein the second reactant material comprises zinc-oxide (ZnO), iron(II)-oxide (FeO), and/or copper(II)-oxide (CuO));
the adsorption producing a sulfur reduced gas stream and a sorbent to be regenerated in an offstream regeneration operation ([0048]) (i.e., removing at least a portion of the metal-sulfide from the pygas stream to thereby form a purified pygas stream).
It is noted that the presence of the metal sulfide-containing adsorbent in the adsorbent bed is interpreted as constituting the removing of the portion of the metal sulfide from the pygas. See [0062]) of the instant application.
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose (i) pyrolyzing a waste plastic; or (ii) contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
Regarding (i), Hesbol teaches a method for desulfurizing a gas produced by pyrolysis (claim 2). Hesbol teaches that plastic waste can be pyrolyzed (claim 2) for energy production ([0002]), and that the gas would be expected to contain sulfur in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and/or carbonyl sulfide (COS) (claim 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta by (i) pyrolyzing a waste plastic as taught by Hesbol because (1) Gupta teaches the pyrolysis of a waste but does not specify the waste (Gupta, [0003]); (2) the skilled practitioner would have recognized that a pyrolysis gas from pyrolyzing waste which contains hydrogen sulfide and/or carbonyl sulfide (Gupta, [0047]) may refer to a pyrolysis gas from the pyrolysis of plastic waste (Hesbol, claims 2, 3); and (3) plastic waste can be pyrolyzed for energy production (Hesbol, [0002]).
Regarding (ii), these limitations are optional, so the teachings of Gupta in view of Hesbol are within the scope of the claim.
It is noted that the limitations of steps (a)(ii) and (a)(iii), and (c)(ii) and (c)(iii), are interpreted as alternatives and not required in view of the conjunctions “and/or” in each step.
Regarding claim 26, Gupta teaches a metal oxide sorbent with a metal that may be zinc oxide ([0106]), or oxides of iron or copper, wherein the metal oxide is converted to a metal sulfide ([0131]), such as zinc sulfide ([0019]) (i.e., wherein the metal-sulfide comprises zinc-sulfide (ZnS), iron(II)-sulfide (FeS), and/or copper(II)-sulfide (CuS)). It is noted that the designations of “iron(II)” and “copper(II)” would have been obvious in view of the charge of the sulfide ion.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Hesbol, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 24, Gupta in view of Hesbol does not explicitly disclose contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the catalyst material comprises nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) and/or palladium (Pd).
Wang discloses a hydrodesulfurization catalyst used to purify and remove sulfur-containing gaseous organic compounds ([n0001]). Wang teaches that hydrodesulfurization is currently the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal, with COS reacting with H2 (i.e., a first reactant material) to produce CO and H2S through a catalyst (i.e., a catalyst material) before removing the H2S using a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent ([n0003]). Wang teaches that the catalyst is prepared from a precursor ([n0011], [n0015]) that includes salts of nickel and molybdenum ([n0014], [n0016]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta in view of Hesbol by contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the catalyst material comprises nickel-molybdenum (NiMo) as taught by Wang because (1) Gupta teaches a desulfurization process using a zinc oxide catalyst (Gupta, [0039], [0077]); and (2) it was known that, in a desulfurization process upstream of the use of a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent, COS can be reacted with hydrogen in the presence of a hydrodesulfurization catalyst comprising nickel and molybdenum to provide the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal (Wang, [n0003], [n0016]).
Regarding claim 25, Gupta in view of Hesbol does not explicitly disclose contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the first reactant material comprises water and/or hydrogen.
Wang discloses a hydrodesulfurization catalyst used to purify and remove sulfur-containing gaseous organic compounds ([n0001]). Wang teaches that hydrodesulfurization is currently the most suitable method in the field of efficient organic sulfur removal, with COS reacting with H2 (i.e., a first reactant material) to produce CO and H2S through a catalyst (i.e., a catalyst material) before removing the H2S using a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent ([n0003]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gupta in view of Hesbol by contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S), wherein the first reactant material comprises hydrogen as taught by Wang because (1) Gupta teaches a desulfurization process using a zinc oxide catalyst (Gupta, [0039], [0077]); and (2) it was known that, in a desulfurization process upstream of the use of a zinc oxide desulfurizing agent, COS can be reacted with hydrogen in the presence of a
Additional Claim Objections
Claims 12, 22, and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 12, 22, and 27.
The concept of a process for purifying pyrolysis gas (pygas), the process comprising:
(a) pyrolyzing a waste plastic to produce a pygas stream comprising:
(i) at least 1 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
(ii) at least 25 ppb of arsine,
(iii) at least 25 ppb of phosphine, and/or
(iv) at least 1 ppm carbonyl sulfide (COS)
(b) optionally, contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S);
(c) contacting the pygas stream with a second reactant material comprising one or more metal-oxide compounds to thereby:
(i) convert at least a portion of the H2S into water and a metal-sulfide;
(ii) convert at least a portion of the arsine into water and a metal-arsenide, wherein the metal-arsenide comprises zinc-arsenide (Zn3AS2), iron(II)-arsenide (Fe3AS2), and/or copper(II)-arsenide (Cu3AS2);
(iii) convert at least a portion of the phosphine into water and a metal-phosphide; and/or
(iv) convert at least a portion of the COS into carbon dioxide (C02) and a metal- sulfide; and
(d) removing at least a portion of the metal-sulfide, the metal-arsenide, and/or the metal- phosphide from the pygas stream to thereby form a purified pygas stream (claim 6);
wherein the second reactant material comprises zinc-oxide (ZnO), iron(II)-oxide (FeO), and/or copper(II)-oxide (CuO) (claim 9); wherein the metal-phosphide comprises zinc-phosphide (Zn3P2), iron(II)-phosphide (Fe3P2), and/or copper(II)-phosphide (Cu3P2) (claim 12)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
In addition, the concept of a process for purifying pyrolysis gas (pygas), the process comprising:(a) pyrolyzing a waste plastic to produce a pygas stream comprising:
(i) at least 1 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
(ii) at least 25 ppb of arsine,
(iii) at least 25 ppb of phosphine, and/or
(iv) at least 1 ppm carbonyl sulfide (COS) (b) optionally, contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S);
(c) contacting the pygas stream with a second reactant material comprising one or more metal-oxide compounds to thereby:
(i) convert at least a portion of the H2S into water and a metal-sulfide;
(ii) convert at least a portion of the arsine into water and a metal-arsenide;
(iii) convert at least a portion of the phosphine into water and a metal-phosphide,
wherein the metal-phosphide comprises zinc-phosphide (Zn3P2), iron(II)-phosphide (Fe3P2), and/or copper(II)-phosphide (Cu3P2); and/or
(iv) convert at least a portion of the COS into carbon dioxide (C02) and a metal-sulfide; wherein the second reactant material comprises zinc-oxide (ZnO), iron(II)-oxide (FeO), and/or copper(II)-oxide (CuO); and
(d) removing at least a portion of the metal-sulfide, the metal-arsenide, and/or the metal- phosphide from the pygas stream to thereby form a purified pygas stream (claim 18);
wherein the metal-arsenide comprises zinc-arsenide (Zn3AS2), iron(II)-arsenide (Fe3AS2), and/or copper(II)-arsenide (Cu3AS2) (claim 22)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
Lastly, the concept of a process for purifying pyrolysis gas (pygas), the process comprising:
(a) pyrolyzing a waste plastic to produce a pygas stream comprising:
(i) at least 1 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
(ii) at least 25 ppb of arsine,
(iii) at least 25 ppb of phosphine, and/or
(iv) at least 1 ppm carbonyl sulfide (COS)
(b) optionally, contacting the pygas stream with a first reactant material in the presence of a catalyst material to convert at least a portion of the COS into hydrogen sulfide (H2S);
(c) contacting the pygas stream with a second reactant material comprising one or more metal-oxide compounds to thereby:
(i) convert at least a portion of the H2S into water and a metal-sulfide;
(ii) convert at least a portion of the arsine into water and a metal-arsenide, wherein the metal-arsenide comprises zinc-arsenide (Zn3AS2), iron(II)-arsenide (Fe3AS2), and/or copper(II)-arsenide (Cu3AS2);
(iii) convert at least a portion of the phosphine into water and a metal-phosphide;and/or
(iv) convert at least a portion of the COS into carbon dioxide (C02) and a metal- sulfide;
wherein the second reactant material comprises zinc-oxide (ZnO), iron(II)-oxide (FeO), and/or copper(II)-oxide (CuO); and
(d) removing at least a portion of the metal-sulfide, the metal-arsenide, and/or the metal- phosphide from the pygas stream to thereby form a purified pygas stream (claim 23);
wherein the metal-phosphide comprises zinc-phosphide (Zn3P2), iron(II)-phosphide (Fe3P2), and/or copper(II)-phosphide (Cu3P2) (claim 27)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Gupta et al. (US 2022/0017830 A1), which discloses a process for removal of reduced sulfur species in a gas stream (Abstract) from a pyrolysis process based on a carbonaceous waste feed stock ([0003]) comprising the reduced sulfur species at a concentration in a range of about 5 to about 5000 ppmv, wherein the reduced sulfur species is a mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS) ([0047]); and a flowing process gas through an adsorbent bed with a regenerable metal oxide sorbent ([0131]) such as zinc oxide ([0156]) to convert the metal oxide into a metal sulfide through the reaction of COS and H2S with the sorbent ([0158]).
However, Gupta does not suggest a conversion of arsine to a metal arsenide, or phosphine to a metal phosphide.
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 GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights