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 Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line of amended claim 26, “DO” should be “DO” in order to be consistent with the formatting in line 2 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (U.S. Pat. No. 9,447,332) in view of Elordi (Elordi, G., Olazar, M., Lopez, G., Amutio, M., Artetxe, M., Aguado, R., Bilbao, J., “Catalytic pyrolysis of HDPE in continuous mode over zeolite catalysts in a conical spouted bed reactor”, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2009, 85, 345-351).
In column 1 lines 7-9 Narayanaswamy discloses the conversion of plastics and other hydrocarbons to olefins and aromatics through pyrolysis. In column 5 lines 6-9 Narayanaswamy discloses that the process utilizes a catalyst, and in column 5 lines 17-27 Narayanaswamy discloses that the catalyst can be a combination of FCC catalysts and ZSM-5. In column 9 lines 38-41 Narayanaswamy discloses that the ZSM-5 is present in an amount of at least 10% by weight of the catalyst composition, encompassing the range recited in newly added claim 34. In column 10 lines 49-58 Narayanaswamy discloses that the reactor in which the conversion is performed is operated at temperature ranges overlapping the range recited in claim 34, such as 550° C or higher, or 550° C to 730° C.
The differences between Narayanaswamy and the currently presented claims are:
i) Narayanaswamy does not specifically disclose performing the pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed reactor. Narayanaswamy discloses broadly in column 10 line 39 that “various reactors” can be used, and in column 10 lines 40-41 and 48-49 mentions a fluidized bed reactor as a specific suitable reactor.
ii) Some of the ranges of Narayanaswamy overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling within them.
With respect to i), Elordi discloses that catalytic pyrolysis of a plastic (HDPE) in a conical spouted bed reactor, as recited in claim 34. In the abstract Elordi discloses that the products include olefins and aromatics. In the second to last paragraph in the left column of page 350, Elordi discloses that the results are similar to those achieved with fluidized beds. In the right column of the first page of the reference (page 345) and the left column of page 346, Elordi teaches various advantages of conical spouted bed reactors over fluidized bed reactors. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the conical spouted bed reactor of Elordi as the reactor of Narayanaswamy, since Elordi teaches that it produces similar results in the conversion of plastics by pyrolysis, while possessing several advantages over fluidized bed reactors.
With respect to ii), see MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In light of the above, claim 34 is rendered obvious by Narayanaswamy in view of Elordi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 16-17, 21-23, 25, 30, and 33 are allowed. Claim 26 would be allowable if the objection set forth in paragraph 2 above were overcome.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims have been amended to incorporate the limitations of previous claim 22 (including intervening previous claim 20), which was indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the office action mailed 12/22/25. Table 12 of Narayanaswamy discloses products having a maximum of 16.62% propylene (C3) product, outside the range recited in amended claim 1. While Narayanaswamy uses a fluidized bed reactor, Elordi teaches that the conical spouted bed reactor produces similar results as a fluidized bed reactor. There is therefore no indication that the method of Narayanaswamy and Elordi can produce a product comprising greater than about 20% by weight of propylene, as required in amended claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Newly added claim 33 incorporates the limitations of claim 12, also indicates as containing allowable subject matter in the office action mailed 12/22/25. Narayanaswamy discloses in column 8 lines 46-55 that the ZSM-5 is typically embedded in an active matrix. There is no motivation in the reference or elsewhere in the prior art to modify the catalyst composition to use the ZSM-5 and active matrix as separate particles, as required in newly added claim 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding newly added claim 34. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach a catalyst composition comprising greater than 50% by weight of ZSM-5. However, as discussed in the above rejection, Narayanaswamy teaches in column 9 lines 38-41 that a ZSM-5 concentration of at least 10% by weight of the catalyst, encompassing the range recited in claim 34, provides increased yields or olefins and aromatics. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The claimed concentration of ZSM-5 therefore does not distinguish claim 34 over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771