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
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 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinz et al., NPL document entitled Dehalogenation of pyrolysis products (hereinafter referred to as Hinz) in view of Jiang et al., Chinese Publication No. CN103484155A (hereinafter referred to as Jiang).
Regarding claims 16-31, Hinz discloses a method for producing a hydrocarbon
product with reduced chlorine content from an educt stream containing organochlorine compounds, comprising the steps of; feeding 100 kg of an educt containing 5 kg of chlorine (5 wt% chlorine) into a pyrolysis reactor, heating the educt under pyrolysis conditions to form hydrocarbons and hydrogen chloride (HCI), adding 2.394 kg of ammonia to the pyrolysis products for dechlorination, in order to capture the formed HCI and prevent re-formation of organochlorine compounds during pyrolysis, and as separating the resulting ammonium chloride, NH4Cl, by dissolving the pyrolysis products in gasoline, followed by water extraction, or by extracting the residue with boiling water (see Abstract, section 2 and 2.2, see Figure 3 and see Table 1).
Claim 16 differs from Hinz in delimiting the temperature of the gaseous hydrocarbon stream and the temperature of the obtained gaseous mixture. However, the different features can be readily optimized by a person skilled in the art through repeated experiments, considering that when ammonia is added to the fluidizing gas during pyrolysis, NH3-HCI is formed and passes through the cyclone at a temperature above 450°C, the vapor mixture reaches the reactor with a temperature of 200-250°C, while the reactor is heated up to 500°C, and the fluidized bed has a temperature of about 750°C in Hinz (see Abstract, Page 42/L. 2-3 and section 2.1).
Furthermore, considering that plastic waste containing 300 ppm of PVC was used as the educt, and the resulting products contained less than 10 ppm of chlorine in Hinz (see Page 41/L. 2-3) and considering the dehalogenation process of waste oils in Hinz (see Page 40/L. 7-8). Also, the type of halogen-containing material in the hydrocarbon mixture can be easily selected by a person skilled in the art without technical difficulties and can be readily optimized by a person skilled in the art through repeated experiments, considering dechlorination during pyrolysis with ammonia (see section 2.2).
Finally, Hinz discloses separating ammonium chloride by dissolving the products in gasoline, followed by water extraction, or by extracting the residue with boiling water (see section 2.2). Hinz further differs from claim 16 in that the composition containing at least one nucleophilic nitrogen compound, the concentration thereof, and the type of nucleophilic nitrogen compound, respectively. However, the different features can be selected and added by a person skilled in the art as needed, considering the use of chlorinating agents such as ammonia water, amines, etc. to reduce the organic chlorine content in hydrocarbon fuel oil in Jiang (see Abstract and Para. [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the process steps of Jiang in the method of Hinz as it is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771