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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemichi et al (WO 2021166854 A1) (Provided in the IDS) and Ramamurthy et al (WO 2018/069794 A1.
With respect to claim 1-13, Uemichi et al disclose a method for producing olefins, in which the yield of olefins having 2-3 carbon atoms is excellent. This method for producing olefins includes a step (1) and a step (2). Step (1): a step for heating a polyolefin-based plastic so as to obtain a decomposition product (a thermal decomposition step). Step (2): a step for bringing the decomposition product obtained in step (1) into contact with a catalyst so as to obtain an olefin-containing catalytically cracked product (a catalytic cracking step) (Abstract).
Uemichi et al also disclose in Example 3, olefin/paraffin ratio (R2) in the catalytically cracked gas of 12.1. Although Uemichi et al do not specifically mention about the olefin/paraffin ratio (R1) of the thermally cracked gas, Uemichi et al disclose that the decomposition product in step (1) (thermal cracking) is usually a hydrocarbon having about 1 to 50 carbon atoms or hydrogen (last 2 lines of Process (1). This indicates that the olefin/paraffin ratio in the thermal cracking step (R1) must be less than R2, thus confirming the relationship R2/R1 >=1, as claimed.
Although Uemichi et al also disclose T2-T1<=200oC, where T1 is the temperature in the thermal cracking step and T2 is the temperature in the catalytic cracking step (End of Process 2, page 5), they do not specify the temperature of the cracked gas after thermal cracking step. It is to be noted that Uemichi et al use a temperature of 350 to 550oC, preferably, 400-500oC in the thermal cracking step (Process 1, page 2), while the claimed invention uses a thermal cracking temperature T1 in the range of 400°C to 800°C, and more preferably 400°C to 550°C (SPECIFICATION: paragraph 0026). Similarly, Uemichi et al use a temperature range of 400-700oC in the catalytic cracking step (Process 2, page 5) while the claimed invention uses catalytic cracking temperature of 400-800oC (SPECIFICATION, paragraph 0037). It is also to be noted that Uemichi et al do not specify the temperature of the cracked gases after thermal cracking, and also the claimed invention does not specify the temperature of the cracked gas after thermal cracking. Thus, it is expected that in Uemichi et al also the claimed relationship T1-T2<=200oC is satisfied.
As mentioned earlier, Uemichi et al further disclose that pyrolysis temperature in the thermal cracking step (T1) is usually 350 -550oC (Process 1, page 2) and the cracked gases going straight to the catalytic cracking step without any cooling in between, indicating that the temperature of the cracked gases (T2) is not lower than the dew point of the thermally cracked gas.
Uemichi et al also disclose the yield of C2-C3 olefins to be 30.1% based on the total mass of the charged polyethylene (Example 1, page 6). This indicates that olefin-rich gas must contain more than 90% by mass of a lower olefin (C2 and C3), as claimed.
Uemichi et al disclose separation/purification and chromatographic analysis of reaction products (Example 1, page 6), but do not specifically disclose reflux ratio.
Ramamurthy et al disclose a process (Abstract, 0029, 0038) similar to Uemichi et al. Ramamurthy et al also disclose recycling (reflux, as claimed) a portion of the cracked product after separation back to the thermal cracking step (Abstract, 0003, 0005, 0055, 0071). Ramamurthy et al further disclose that the composition of the cracked product depends on the composition of the feed to the cracker (0076). This clearly indicates that the reflux ratio must be adjusted to an optimum, including less than 0.1 as claimed, to achieve desired product distribution.
Ramamurthy et al also disclose a method for producing olefin from plastic containing a polyolefin comprising a cracking step of thermally cracking the plastic to obtain a cracked gas (0003). Ramamurthy et al further disclose that the pyrolysis unit 10 may be low severity or high severity. Low severity pyrolysis processes may occur at a temperature of 250 °C to 450 °C and high severity pyrolysis processes may occur at a temperature of 450 °C to 750 °C (0036). Obviously, the temperatures of the cracked gas after thermal cracking are above the dew point of the cracked gas, as discussed earlier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Light Olefins from HDPE cracking in a two-step thermal and catalytic process, Artetxe et al. Chemical Engineering Journal, 207-208 (2012) 27-34.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771