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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 10, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in step (c) “to form a combined cracker stream a second location”. This should be “at a second location” for clarity.
With regard to claim 2, the claim recites that the difference between T2 and T1 is not “more than 225”. This should be “225°C” for clarity and consistency.
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites in line 2 “effluent steam”. This is a typographical error of “effluent stream”.
With regard to claim 14, the claim recites in line 4 “(r-pyrolysis vapor)”. This should be “r-pyrolysis vapor” without the parentheses for clarity.
With regard to claim 15, the claim has the following issues:
-step (b) recites first “in a cracking furnace”, but then later “the cracker furnace” and steps (d) and (e) also recite “the cracker furnace”. Thus, for consistency and antecedent basis purposes, the first recitation of “in a cracking furnace” should be changed to “in a cracker furnace”.
-step (c) recites “the flow rate”. This should be “a flow rate” for antecedent basis purposes.
-step (d) recites “initiating the introduction of at least a portion of the r-pyrolysis vapor…” This should be “introducing at least a portion of the r-pyrolysis vapor…” for antecedent basis and clarity purposes.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 claims 1, 11, and 15, the claims each recite “A process for making a recycled content hydrocarbon product (r-product)…” However, there is no further recitation of the hydrocarbon product within the method of each of claims 1, 11, and 15. Thus, it is unclear whether the product is produced, and if so, during what step(s) of the process, and the claim is indefinite.
For purpose of examination, the instant specification recites that the cracker facility is what produces the r-product stream (paragraph [0014]). Thus, for claim 1, the r-olefin effluent of claim 1 will be considered to be the r-product of the preamble. While claims 11 and 15 do not recite producing a product from the cracking, they do recite the cracking step, and thus the cracking step in each case will be considered to produce the r-product stream. Appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-20, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995, cited on IDS 07/17/2024).
With regard to claim 1, Kirkwood teaches a method for conversion of waste polymers (Abstract) comprising the following steps (see Figure 4):
a) pyrolysis of the waste plastics in a fluidized bed reactor (pyrolysis facility having a first location) to produce a mixed vapor of hydrocarbons (r-pyrolysis vapor) (column 1, lines 60-68).
b) withdrawing the vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) from the reactor at a temperature of 490°C (withdrawing from first location at temperature T1) (Figure 4 and column 10, lines 38-39).
c) combining the vapor stream with a cracker stream and passing the combined stream to a steam cracker (second location at a co-located cracker facility) (Figure 4 and column 10, lines 46-47) where the cracking takes place at a temperature of 600°C or higher (temperature T2 at the second location) (column 5, lines 35-36).
d) cracking the combined stream to produce a cracking effluent comprising olefins (r-olefin effluent) (column 10, Table V).
The absolute value of the difference between T1 and T2 is at least 110°C (“at least 600°C” (T2) minus “490°C” (T1)), which overlaps the range of not more than 250°C of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 2, as recited above, T1 is 490°C, T2 is 600°C or higher, and the absolute value of the difference between T1 and T2 is 110°C or higher. This is within the range of T1 of at least 350°C and overlaps the ranges of a T2 of 500-850°C and the absolute value of the difference of T1 and T2 of not more than 225°C, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Kirkwood shows no cooling or condensing of the vapor stream (r-pyrolysis vapor) (instant claim 4), teaches that it is a vapor stream as it passes from the pyrolysis reactor to the cracker (column 5, lines 28-29), and teaches the steam cracking at a temperature higher than the temperature of the vapor stream (column 5, lines 35-36). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect minimal condensing of the pyrolysis vapor stream of less than 50%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Kirkwood does not specifically teach the locations of the pyrolysis facility and cracker facility are not more than 5 miles apart. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, planning an integrated cracker and pyrolysis facility, would be motivated to keep the facilities close together in order to prevent unwanted cooling of the vapor stream between the facilities and in order to save capital costs on the construction. Thus, the distance can be selected by one of ordinary skill in the art to be less than 5 miles without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claim 5, T1 is 490°C and the average temperature of the pyrolysis in the Figure is 550°C (Figure 4). Thus, T1 is within 60°C of the average temperature, which is within the range of within 250°C of instant claim 5.
With regard to claim 6, Kirkwood teaches the pyrolysis vapor is 15 wt% of the combined feed (column 10, line 26). This is within the range of less than 35 wt% of instant claim 6.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchanan et al. (US 2007/0090020, cited on IDS 07/17/2024).
With regard to claim 7, Kirkwood teaches the method above, where steam is added for cracking (column 2, line 24).
Kirkwood does not specifically teach the steam is added by mixing with the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) prior to combining with the cracker feed.
Buchanan teaches that typically in steam cracking, steam can be mixed with the feedstock before introducing the feed into the radiant section (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to mix the steam with the r-pyrolysis vapor prior to combining, because Buchanan teaches the steam is mixed with the feed prior to cracking in the radiant section, and the selection of mixing with the pyrolysis vapor prior to combining or with the combined feed is merely a selection from a finite list of options, with a reasonable expectation of success of the combining to produce the feed comprising pyrolysis vapor, cracker feed, and steam, as claimed.
With regard to claim 8, Kirkwood teaches heating the steam in the convection section before adding it to the cracker feed (column 5, line 23 and Figure 4).
With regard to claim 10, Kirkwood teaches the first location is the outlet of the pyrolysis reactor which provides the vapor stream separated from the solids in the reactor (outlet of a separator that separates the pyrolysis vapor from the residue) (column 4, lines 18-20), and the second location is within the cracker furnace (Figure 4).
Kirkwood does not specifically teach the steam cracker includes a crossover pipe or that the second location is at the crossover pipe.
Buchanan teaches that typically in steam cracking, the steam cracker contains a convection section, a radiant section, and a crossover section, where the vaporized feedstock and steam is introduced through the crossover piping into the radiant section (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the pyrolysis vapor (cracker feed) to the crossover pipe as the second location, as claimed, because Kirkwood teaches introducing the feed before the radiant section (Figure 4) but is silent regarding the presence of the crossover pipe, and Buchanan teaches that cracker furnaces typically comprise a crossover piping section between the convection and radiant section, and that the feed along with steam can be introduced to the crossover section (paragraph [0005]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Timken et al. (US 2021/0189248).
With regard to claim 9, Kirkwood teaches the method above, where the cracker feedstock is naphtha (Figure 4).
Kirkwood fails to specifically teach the naphtha is recycled content derived from plastic.
Timken teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons comprising pyrolysis of plastics to produce a naphtha fraction which is sent to a steam cracker for ethylene production (Abstract). Timken further teaches that the use of plastics to make the naphtha feed allows the ethylene produced from the steam cracking to be clean ethylene and improve the environmental issues regarding plastics (paragraphs [0016], [0023]-[0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use naphtha from plastics in the process of Kirkwood, because Kirkwood teaches naphtha but is silent regarding the source and Timken teaches that using plastics to make naphtha for steam cracking allows the ethylene produced from the steam cracking to be clean ethylene and improve the environmental issues regarding plastics (paragraphs [0016], [0023]-[0024]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995) in view of Buchanan et al. (US 2007/0090020).
With regard to claim 11, Kirkwood teaches a method for conversion of waste polymers (Abstract) comprising the following steps (see Figure 4):
a) pyrolysis of the waste plastics in a fluidized bed reactor (pyrolysis facility) to produce a mixed vapor of hydrocarbons (r-pyrolysis vapor) (column 1, lines 60-68).
b) passing the vapor stream (r-pyrolysis vapor) to a steam cracker furnace (Figure 4).
Kirkwood shows no cooling or condensing of the vapor stream (r-pyrolysis vapor), teaches that it is a vapor stream as it passes from the pyrolysis reactor to the cracker (column 5, lines 28-29), and teaches the steam cracking at a temperature higher than the temperature of the vapor stream (column 5, lines 35-36). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect minimal condensing of the pyrolysis vapor stream of less than 50%, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Kirkwood is silent regarding the introduction of the pyrolysis oil vapor into a crossover pipe of the cracker.
Buchanan teaches that typically in steam cracking, the steam cracker contains a convection section, a radiant section, and a crossover section, where the vaporized feedstock and steam is introduced through the crossover piping into the radiant section (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the furnace comprises a crossover pipe and to add the pyrolysis vapor to the crossover pipe, as claimed, because Kirkwood teaches introducing the feed before the radiant section (Figure 4) but is silent regarding the presence of the crossover pipe, and Buchanan teaches that cracker furnaces typically comprise a crossover piping section between the convection and radiant section, and that the feed along with steam can be introduced to the crossover section (paragraph [0005]).
With regard to claim 12, Kirkwood does not teach any condensing, cooling, or separating of the vapor stream between the pyrolysis reactor and the cracking reactor. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that approximately all the vapor stream is introduced into the cracker furnace, which is within the range of at least 85 wt% of instant claim 12.
With regard to claim 13, Kirkwood teaches heating steam in the convection section before using steam in the steam cracker (Figure 4 and column 23-24).
Kirkwood does not specifically teach combining the dilution steam with the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) prior to introducing it into the cracker.
Buchanan teaches that typically in steam cracking, steam can be mixed with the feedstock before introducing the feed into the cracker (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to mix the preheated steam with the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor as feed) before introducing it into the crossover section, as claimed, because Buchanan teaches that typically the steam is mixed with the feed prior to cracking in the reactor (paragraph [0005])
With regard to claim 14, Kirkwood teaches the mixed vapor comprises olefins, paraffins, naphthenes, olefin oligomers, and waxes which have molecular weight lower than the polyolefins being converted (column 2, lines 1-6) and teaches that the fines are removed (column 10, lines 39-41). Thus, Kirkwood teaches that the vapor comprises approximately 0 wt% solids, which is within the range of less than 15 wt% of instant claim 14.
Kirkwood does not specifically teach that the vapor comprises 5 to 75 wt% pyrolysis gas and 5-65 wt% pyoil. However, Kirkwood teaches pyrolysis of a waste plastic feed (column 1, lines 60-62) at a temperature of 300-690°C, a pressure of preferably near atmospheric pressure, a residence time of 1 second to 8 minutes, and in a fluidized bed reactor (column 3, line 66-column 4, line 15). The instant specification recites a feed of generally waste plastics, a temperature of 325-650°C, a pressure of 1 second to 1 hour, a pressure of 0.1 to 1.1 barg, and a fluidized bed reactor as options for the pyrolysis reactor (paragraphs [0016]-[0020]).
Therefore, because Kirkwood teaches the same pyrolysis of the same waste plastics at similar temperatures, pressures, and residence time in a similar fluidized bed reactor, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the vapor of Kirkwood to contain similar amounts of 5-75 wt% pyrolysis gas and 5-65 wt% pyoil, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995) in view of Buchanan et al. (US 2007/0090020) and Stewart (US 4,231,753).
With regard to claims 15 and 19, Kirkwood teaches a method for conversion of waste polymers (Abstract) comprising the following steps (see Figure 4):
a) pyrolysis of the waste plastics in a fluidized bed reactor (pyrolysis facility) to produce a mixed vapor of hydrocarbons (r-pyrolysis vapor) (column 1, lines 60-68).
b) cracking a cracker feedstock which is naphtha in a cracking furnace to provide a cracked effluent (column 10, lines 7-9 and Figure 4). Kirkwood teaches that a first mode comprises cracking just naphtha feed by using the by-pass valves (column 10, lines 6-9). In this mode, no mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) is introduced to the cracker at all, and thus meets the limitations of step b) that no r-pyrolysis vapor is added to the crossover pipe.
c) and d) adding in the pyrolysis vapor with the naphtha, instead of the bypass, at a ratio of 15 wt% vapor to 85 wt% naphtha (column 10, lines 26-28). As there is less than 100% naphtha in this mode, this is understood as lowering the flow rate of the cracker feed (naphtha) to the convection section, as claimed.
Kirkwood does not specifically teach i) the presence of a crossover pipe and in step d) introducing of the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) into the crossover pipe, or ii) modifying the operation of the furnace in response to the reducing in flow rate.
With regard to the crossover pipe i), Buchanan teaches that typically in steam cracking, cracker furnaces comprise a crossover piping section between the convection and radiant section, and that the feed along with steam can be introduced to the crossover section (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the furnace comprises a crossover pipe and to introduce the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor feed) into the crossover pipe in step d), as claimed, because Kirkwood teaches introducing the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) before the radiant section (Figure 4 and column 10, lines 46-47) but is silent regarding the presence of the crossover pipe, and Buchanan teaches that cracker furnaces typically comprise a crossover piping section between the convection and radiant section and that the feed can be introduced into the crossover section (paragraph [0005]).
With regard to the modifying ii), Stewart teaches control of a cracking furnace (Title). Stewart teaches that when the flow of the feed is reduced, the flow of steam is increased (Abstract) (instant claim 19). Stewart further teaches changing the flow rate changes the heat balance (column 7, lines 39-59 and column 8, line 30). Stewart additionally teaches that adjusting the steam flow allows the cracker to continue functioning and prevent damage from decreased feed flow (column 1, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the heat balance by adding additional steam to compensate for the decreased feed flow in the convection section, as claimed, because Kirkwood and Stewart each teach cracking in a cracking furnace where the feed flow is decreased, and Stewart teaches increasing the steam flow in response to the decreased feed flow contributes to the correct heat balance (column 7, lines 39-41) and allows the cracker to continue functioning and prevent damage from decreased feed flow (column 1, lines 8-12).
With regard to claim 20, Kirkwood teaches the cracker stream in the convection section comprises only naphtha and has an amount of 6.82 te steam to 11.05 te naphtha (0.62 ratio) column 10, lines 1-2), which is within the range of steam-to-hydrocarbon ratio of 0.45 to 0.75 of instant claim 20. Kirkwood further teaches the amount of pyrolysis vapor added to the naphtha and passed to the radiant section is 15 wt% pyrolysis oil to 85 wt% naphtha (column 10, line 26), which is within the range of 1-50 wt% r-pyrolysis vapor of instant claim 20. Kirkwood additionally teaches that the ratio of steam to hydrocarbon in the radiant section is 0.2 to 1 (column 5, lines 23-25), which overlaps the range of 0.5-0.4 of instant claim 20, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood et al. (US 5,364,995) in view of Buchanan et al. (US 2007/0090020) and Stewart (US 4,231,753) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Strack et al. (US 2012/0024749).
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Kirkwood in view of Buchanan and Stewart teaches the method above.
Kirkwood in view of Buchanan and Stewart fails to teach modifying by adding a heat recovery system which includes a heat exchanger for generating or superheating steam.
Strack teaches a method for processing a cracker effluent (paragraph [0002]). Strack further teaches that control of the heat removal and heat recovery is used (paragraph [0052]) and that the heat recovery includes adding additional heat exchangers which are used to generate steam (instant claims 16 and 17) (paragraph [0055]) and using certain exchangers at certain times to adjust the heat recovery (paragraph [0053]). Thus, Strack teaches the concept of adjusting the heat recovery and as such the heat balance of the cracker by adding heat exchangers which generate steam to the heat recovery process, as claimed. Strack additionally teaches that effective heat recovery enhances the operation of the system (paragraph [0005]) and the addition and adjusting of the heat exchangers provides an enhanced method for cooling (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the heat recovery section of Strack comprising heat exchangers to the process of Kirkwood in view of Buchanan and Stewart, because Kirkwood and Strack each teach steam cracking a feed, and Strack teaches that it is known and useful to adjust the heat recovery and as such the heat balance of the reactor by adding certain heat exchangers which produce steam to the process (paragraph [0005]) which provides an enhanced method for cooling (paragraph [0013]).
With regard to claim 18, Kirkwood in view of Buchanan teaches the method above. Kirkwood further teaches heating steam in the convection section before using steam in the steam cracker (Figure 4 and column 23-24).
Kirkwood does not specifically teach combining the dilution steam with the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor) prior to introducing it into the cracker.
Buchanan teaches that typically in steam cracking, steam can be mixed with the feedstock before introducing the feed into the cracker (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to mix the preheated steam with the mixed vapor (r-pyrolysis vapor as feed) before introducing it into the crossover section, as claimed, because Buchanan teaches that typically the heated steam is mixed with the feed prior to cracking in the reactor (paragraph [0005])
Conclusion
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