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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/699261 application originally filed January 27, 2026.
Amended claims 1-8, 11-16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27, filed January 27, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-8 and 11-14 in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 27, 2026.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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(s) 1-6, 8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orozco et al. "Conversion of HDPE into Value Products by Fast Pyrolysis Using FCC Spent Catalysts in a Fountain Confined Conical Spouted Bed Reactor" June 2021 hereinafter Orozco in view Imran et al. "An overview of catalysts in biomass pyrolysis for production of biofuels" December 2018 hereinafter Imran and Marchelli et al. "Experimental Study on the Solids Residence Time Distribution in Multiple Square-Based Spouted Beds" September 2020 hereinafter Marchelli.
Regarding Claim 1
Orozco discloses a system (pg. 4293, Figure 2) for converting plastic (pg. 4291, abstract: polyethylene) into lower molecular weight products (pg. 4291, abstract: C5-C11 hydrocarbons), the system comprising: a feeder containing plastic feedstock (pg. 4293, Figure 2: Feeding system); a first conical spouted bed reactor stage (pg. 4291, abstract: conical spouted bed reactor (CSBR)) in fluid communication with the feeder (pg. 4293, Figure 2) and further discloses wherein the reactor is a pyrolysis reactor (pg. 4293, title).
Orozco fails to disclose a catalyst regenerator, wherein the first conical spouted bed reactor is in fluid communication with the catalyst regenerator or a second conical spouted bed reactor stage in fluid communication with the first conical spouted bed reactor stage.
Imran discloses reactors for pyrolysis of biomass (pg. 881, left col, para 4: in-situ catalytic pyrolysis of biomass) comprising a catalyst regenerator in fluid communication with a conical reactor (pg. 881, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the system disclosed by Orozco, comprising a catalyst regenerator in fluid communication with the reactor, as disclosed by Imran, in order to prevent catalyst deactivation (Imran, pg. 881, right col, para 1 ).
Additionally, Marchelli discloses spouted bed reactors to be utilized for pyrolysis of biomass (pg. 1, abstract) comprising a second spouted bed reactor (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2) in fluid communication with the first spouted bed reactor (pg. 5, para 5: particles start to fill the adjacent module by overflow, pg. 10, para 1) in order to reduce residence time and prevent char (pg. 10, para 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize the system disclosed by Orozco in view of Imran, comprising a second spouted bed reactor in fluid communication with the rest of the system, as disclosed by Marchelli, in order to prevent char, wherein the second reactor is the same shape as the first.
Regarding Claim 2
Orozco in view of Imran in further view of Marchelli disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above, and Marchelli further discloses comprising: a first reactor vessel containing the first conical spouted bed reactor stage; and a second reactor vessel containing the second conical spouted bed reactor stage (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2) and further discloses overflow plates between said reactor stages (pg. 4, Figure 2); but does not disclose wherein the first reactor vessel and second reactor vessel are fluidly connected with at least one pipe configured to channel a flow of catalyst and unreacted plastic feedstock from the first reactor vessel to the second reactor vessel.
Based on Imran's and Marchelli disclosure, it would have been obvious to one with skill in the art to utilize similar reactor designs, such as a pipe connecting overflow plates between reactor vessels allowing for flow of various solid materials (such as catalyst/unreacted material).
Regarding Claim 3
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claim 2, as disclosed above, and Marchelli further discloses wherein the second reactor vessel is at a lower elevation than the first reactor vessel (pg. 3, Figure 1 two multi-spouted fluidization units; pg. 4, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claims 1-3, as disclosed above, and Marchelli further discloses wherein the first conical spouted bed reactor stage and the second conical spouted bed reactor stage are contained in a single reactor vessel (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2), and the first conical spouted bed reactor stage and the second conical spouted bed reactor stage are at least partially separated by baffles (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claim 4, as disclosed above, and Marchelli further discloses wherein the baffles define at least one opening between the first conical spouted bed reactor stage and the second conical spouted bed reactor stage at the at least one side of the first conical spouted bed reactor stage (pg. 4, Figure 2: overflow plate).
Regarding Claim 6
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claim 1, Marchelli further discloses the conical spouted bed reactor stage is operated in a pyrolysis regime (pg. 10 para. 2).
Regarding Claim 8
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claim 1, Marchelli discloses spouted bed reactors to be utilized for pyrolysis of biomass (pg. 1, abstract) comprising a multi spouted bed reactor (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2) in fluid communication with the first, second, third and fourth spouted bed reactor(s) (pg. 5, para 5: particles start to fill the adjacent module by overflow, pg. 10, para 1) in order to reduce residence time and prevent char (pg. 10, para 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claim 1, Marchelli discloses in the abstract, the residence time distribution (RTD) of a multiple spouted bed reactor, which will be applied for the pyrolysis and gasification of residual biomass. The unit is composed of square-based spouted beds, placed in series and at descending heights, and communicating with each other through an opening in the lateral wall. The gas is fed evenly in parallel (see abstract and page 6).
Regarding Claim 13
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claims 1 and 12, Marchelli discloses spouted bed reactors to be utilized for pyrolysis of biomass (pg. 1, abstract) comprising a multi spouted bed reactor (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2) in fluid communication with the first, second, third and fourth spouted bed reactor(s) (pg. 5, para 5: particles start to fill the adjacent module by overflow, pg. 10, para 1).
Marchelli does not disclose the gas in the gas feed system in the spouted bed reactor having an oxygen content. Therefore Marchelli has met the limitation of the present invention of having less than 1.0 weight percent of oxygen (less than 1 weight percent encompasses zero).
Regarding Claim 14
Orozco in view of Imran and Marchelli disclose the system of claims 1 and 12, Marchelli discloses spouted bed reactors to be utilized for pyrolysis of biomass (pg. 1, abstract) comprising a multi spouted bed reactor (pg. 3, Figure 1; pg. 4, Figure 2) in fluid communication with the first, second, third and fourth spouted bed reactor(s) (pg. 5, para 5: particles start to fill the adjacent module by overflow, pg. 10, para 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
847
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Particularly, the spouted bed reactors comprise separation cyclones (see Figure 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 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.
The applied prior art fails to teach the presently claimed invention further comprising a flow of catalyst from the catalyst regenerator to the first conical spouted bed reactor stage is adjustable in response to a temperature in the first conical spouted bed reactor stage falling below a predetermined temperature set point, and/or wherein a flow of catalyst from the catalyst regenerator to the second conical spouted bed reactor stage is adjustable in response to a temperature in the second conical spouted bed reactor stage falling below a predetermined temperature set point, as presently claimed in claim 7 of the present invention and in operation, the first conical spouted bed reactor stage has a temperature of about 300℃ to about 650℃ and/or wherein, in operation, the second conical spouted bed reactor stage has a temperature from about 300℃ to about 650℃.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771