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 Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 31 is a dependent from a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13, 18-19, 21, 23 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelpfer et al., US Patent No. 6,184,427 (hereinafter referred to as Klepfer).
Regarding claim 1, Klepfer discloses a method for depolymerizing plastic (see Abstract; Col. 1/L. 6-17, a process of activated cracking of high molecular organic waste material; Col. 12/L. 17-27, feed plastic material is extruded into the reactor in the form of strands, sheets, etc., in the reactor, the material undergoes thermal/catalytic cracking, as a result of the high temperature and depolymerization, the material viscosity becomes low; Col. 10/L. 28-39, the plastic material is extruded into the reactor and undergoes depolymerization; Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities), the method comprising: (a) providing a plastic material (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space, organic waste materials include plastic materials; Col. 12/L. 17-18, feed plastic material which is mixed with a sensitizer, catalyst, is extruded into the reactor); (b) contacting the plastic material with at least one catalyst and at least one magnetic susceptor (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts, the sensitizer can consist of materials high dielectric loss which absorb radio frequency energy; Col. 12/L. 17-18, feed plastic material which is mixed with a sensitizer, catalyst, is extruded into the reactor; Col. 8/L. 1-2, examples of suitable sensitizers/catalysts include: gamma-Al203 which contains 10 to 70 wt % of Fe304.
Hence, the "sensitizer" is the magnetic susceptor as it absorbs the applied radio frequency energy. In addition, Fe3O4 is an applicable magnetic susceptor for use; see instant claim 18, wherein the at least one magnetic susceptor comprises Fe3O4); and (c) induction heating the plastic material, catalyst, and magnetic susceptor using a radio frequency (RF) field (see Abstract, treating this mixture by radio frequency electro-magnetic radiation, the sensitizer can consist of materials high dielectric loss which absorb radio frequency energy; Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities; Col. 4/L. 2-5, the technology embraces the use of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation, the chemistry involves RF frequencies to heat and dissolve materials).
Regarding claim 2, Klepfer discloses the plastic material comprises low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polystyrene, polypropylene, polybutylenes, EPDM rubber, polyisoprene, styrene-butadiene rubber, poly(styrene-acrylonitrile) (SAN polymer), copolymers thereof, or any combination thereof (Col. 13/L. 42-44, a mixture of plastics were fed into the reactor consisting of low density polyethylene (35 wt %), high density polyethylene (20 wt %), polypropylene (20 wt %), polystyrene (5 wt %)).
Regarding claim 3, Klepfer discloses the plastic material comprises a virgin polymer, a recycled plastic, or any combination thereof (see Abstract, a process of activated cracking of high molecular organic waste material, organic waste materials include plastic materials; Col. 13/L. 42-44, a mixture of plastics were fed into the reactor consisting of low-density polyethylene (35 wt %), high density polyethylene (20 wt %), polypropylene (20 wt %), polystyrene (5 wt %). Hence, "organic waste" plastic materials indicates that they are recycled).
Regarding claim 5, Klepfer discloses the at least one catalyst comprises a crystalline aluminosilicate, aluminophosphate, or silicoaluminaphosphate catalyst, a cerium oxide-containing catalyst, or any combination thereof (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts; Col. 8/l. 1-5, examples of suitable sensitizers/catalysts include: ZSM-type crystalline zeolite having the composition of (x) M2O:(y) Al203:(z)SiO2, where X = 0.2 to 0.5, y = 1.0, z>6 and M is an alkali metal cation; Col. 14/l. 50-51, the catalyst was a ZSM-type crystalline zeolite having the composition of 0.4 Na20:AI203:8 SiO2).
Regarding claim 11, Klepfer discloses the catalyst is doped with at least one metal or metalloid (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts; Col. 8/L. 1-12, examples of suitable catalysts include: calcium oxide with 10 wt% of a Group VIB metal oxide (chromium, molybdenum, and tungsten), before use, the catalyst is calcined in air).
Regarding claim 13, Klepfer discloses the crystalline aluminosilicate, aluminophosphate, or silicoaluminaphosphate catalyst comprises Linde Type-L (LTL), ZSM-5 (MFI) or another member of the ZSM family, Beta (BEA), Theta-1 (TON), SSZ-13, or any combination thereof (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts; Col. 8/L. 1-5, examples of suitable sensitizers/catalysts include: ZSM-type crystalline zeolite having the composition of (x) M2O:(y) Al203:(z)SiO2, where X = 0.2 to 0.5, y = 1.0, z>6 and M is an alkali metal cation; Col. 14/L. 50-51, the catalyst was a ZSM-type crystalline zeolite having the composition of 0.4 Na2O:AI203:8 SiO2).
Regarding claim 18, Klepfer discloses that the at least one magnetic susceptor comprises Fe304 (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts, the sensitizer can consist of materials high dielectric loss which absorb radio frequency energy; Col. 12/L. 17-18, feed plastic material which is mixed with a sensitizer, catalyst, is extruded into the reactor; Col. 8/L. 1-2, examples of suitable sensitizers/catalysts include: gamma-Al203 which contains 10 to 70 wt % of Fe304).
Regarding claim 19, Klepfer discloses the catalyst and magnetic susceptor are present in a weight ratio of from about 2:1 to about 1:2 (Col. 9/L. 6-7, a typical range of the sensitizer concentration is from 1 to 60 wt %; Col. 14/L. 44-51, the plastics mixture consisted of low density polyethylene (25 wt %), high density polyethylene (15 wt %), polypropylene (12 wt %), polystyrene (10 wt %), polyethylene terephthalate (8 wt %), a carbon-based sensitizer (20 wt %), and a catalyst (10 wt %), the catalyst was a ZSM-type crystalline zeolite having the composition of 0.4 Na20:AI203:8 SiO2. Hence, the weight ratio of catalyst to the magnetic susceptor (sensitizer) is 10 wt % to 20 wt %, or 1:2).
Regarding claim 21, Klepfer discloses the combined weight of the catalyst and magnetic susceptor and a weight of the plastic material are present in a ratio of from about 1:10 to about 1:2 (Col. 14/L. 44-51, the plastics mixture consisted of low density polyethylene (25 wt %), high density polyethylene (15 wt %), polypropylene (12 wt %), polystyrene (10 wt %), polyethylene terephthalate (8 wt %), a carbon-based sensitizer (20 wt %), and a catalyst (10 wt %), the catalyst was a ZSM-type crystalline zeolite having the composition of 0.4 Na20:Al203:8 SiO2. Hence, as the catalyst and magnetic susceptor (sensitizer) make up a wt % of 30 wt %, and the plastics make up a wt % of 70 wt % (25 + 15 + 12 + 10 + 8), the weight ratio of the catalyst and magnetic susceptor to the plastic material is 30 wt % to 70 wt %, or 3:7, 1:2.333, falling in the desired range).
Regarding claim 23, Klepfer discloses the induction heating raises a temperature of the plastic material, catalyst, and magnetic susceptor to from about 200°C to about 450°C (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts, treating this mixture by radio frequency electro-magnetic radiation, the sensitizer can consist of materials high dielectric loss which absorb radio frequency energy; Col. 4/L. 2-5, the technology embraces the use of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation, the chemistry involves RF frequencies to heat and dissolve materials; Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities; Col 15/L. 14-21, the reactor set-up was the same as Examples I and II, the plastics mixture consisted of low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate, a carbon-based sensitizer, and catalyst, the temperature in the extruder was maintained from 290-300°C; Col. 13/L. 53-56, as a result of high temperature and depolymerization, the material viscosity became low and the extruded "rods" or "spaghetti" broke before a complete decomposition took place).
Regarding claim 31, Klepfer discloses the plastic additives and residues comprise antioxidants, flame retardants, plasticizers, food residue, green waste, or any combination thereof (Col. 11/L. 51-53, waste feed contains non-plastic additives
such as wood. Hence, wood may be considered as green waste as it is biodegradable).
Regarding claim 32, Klepfer discloses the plastic material depolymerizes into C2-C20 alkanes or alkenes (Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities; Col. 14/l. 14-40, the reactor was constantly flushed with a flow of nitrogen to remove the cracking products, the composition of the products collected after cooling is as follows: Product: methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene, C4 paraffins, C4 olefins, benzene, toluene, other hydrocarbons; Col. 18/L. 47-58, the products were: (C1-C5) hydrocarbons 0.4% (C6-C10) 16% (C11-C20) 83.6%, the present invention deals with the process of activated cracking of high molecular weight organic waste material which includes confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a
pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts and treating this mixture by radio frequency electromagnetic radiation).
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 4, 25 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepfer.
Regarding claim 4, Klepfer does not specifically teach wherein the recycled plastic comprises an LDPE grocery bag. However, Klepfer teaches wherein the recycled plastic comprises recycled LDPE (see abstract, a process of activated cracking of high molecular organic waste material, organic waste materials include plastic materials; Col. 13/L. 42-44, a mixture of plastics were fed into the reactor consisting of low-density polyethylene (35 wt %), high density polyethylene (20 wt %), polypropylene (20 wt %), polystyrene (5 wt %). Hence, "organic waste" plastic materials indicates that they are recycled). Based on the teachings of Klepfer, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ recycled LDPE grocery bags as the recycled plastic to be depolymerize/cracked to obtain desired, smaller molecular weight entities (see Klepfer Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities).
Regarding claim 25, Klepfer does not specifically teach wherein the RF field has a current of from about 50 A to about 1000 A. However, Klepfer teaches employing RF applicators for radio frequency irradiation (Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities; Col. 10/L. 2-5, application of radiofrequency is contemplated, two types of RF applications are shown, namely, a plate capacitor and ring electrodes structure). Based on the teachings of Klepfer, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to adjust the current of the RF field generated from such RF applicators to 50-1000 A to optimize the radio frequency irradiation and subsequent depolymerization of the plastics in the mixture.
Regarding claim 40, Klepfer does not specifically teach wherein the method produces less than 10 wt% coke on a carbon % basis. However, Klepfer teaches wherein the method produces coke (see Abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts, a process of activated cracking of high molecular organic waste material; Col. 9/L. 43-45, residue from depolymerization and cracking mainly consists of a solid carbonized material and coke, some fraction of this material will be recycled as sensitizer; Col. 11/L. 43-45, the deactivated catalyst in the solidified (carbonized waste) will contain the products of reactions of the additives with heteroatoms and coke; Col. 12/L. 38-40, the dielectric characteristics of the reactor load may slowly be changing due to the deposition of the coke on the surface). Based on the teachings of Klepfer, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to the art to produce less than 10 wt% of the coke on a carbon % basis to optimize the purity of the desired products (C1-C20 alkanes or alkenes) and recycle the coke for use (see Klepfer Col 9/L. 43-45, residue from depolymerization and cracking mainly consists of a solid carbonized material and coke, some fraction of this material will be recycled as sensitizer; see Klepfer abstract, confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepfer in view Sacripante et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0134533 (hereinafter referred to as Sacripante).
Regarding claim 14, Klepfer discloses all the limitations discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the cerium oxide-containing catalyst comprises cerium oxide and zirconium oxide. In a similar invention, however, Sacripante discloses a method of depolymerizing a plastic (Para. [0004], the present disclosure describes toner comprising a polymer resin comprising depolymerized, recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET); Para. [0019], empty bottles ca be washed, dried and shredded into a granular or pellet form, the pellets can be treated in a depolymerization reaction; Para. [0135] and see Example 1, Depolymerization of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles) and employing cerium oxide (Para. [0073], the toner particles may be mixed with one or more of silica (SiO2), titania and/or cerium oxide, the cerium oxide may have an average primary particle size in the range of about 5 nm to about 50 nm). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine both references to employ Xerox's cerium oxide as the catalyst in Klepfer's mixture and process to optimize the catalytic depolymerization of the plastics.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepfer in view of Xu et al., Chinese Publication No. CN111604086 (hereinafter referred to as Xu).
Regarding claim 17, Regarding claim 17, Klepfer discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the catalyst comprises Pt/K-MFI, PtSn/K-MFI, Pt/Ba-K-L, PtSn/K-L, Pt/K-TON, Pt/K-SSZ-13, or any combination thereof. In a similar invention, however, Xu teaches a PtSn/K-L catalyst (Para. [0050], take 20 g of 40-60 mesh KL molecular sieve is impregnated in the mixed solution, stand overnight at room temperature, after filtration, dry at 120°C for 12h under vacuum condition, and in air atmosphere at 350°C muffle Calcined in the furnace for 4 hours to obtain a Sn-modified PtSn/KL catalyst). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine both references to employ Xu's PtSn/K-L catalyst as the catalyst in Klepfer's mixture and process to optimize the catalytic depolymerization of the plastics.
Regarding claim 35, Klepfer discloses all the limitations discussed above including, wherein at least 90% of the plastic material depolymerizes into C2-C20
alkanes or alkenes (Col. 4/L. 18-22, the present invention is intended to employ the principles of wave physics including radio frequency irradiation in order to crack waste plastics into smaller molecular weight entities; Col. 14/L. 14-40, the reactor was constantly flushed with a flow of nitrogen to remove the cracking products, the composition of the products collected after cooling is as follows: Product: methane,
ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene, C4 paraffins, C4 olefins, benzene, toluene, other hydrocarbons; Col. 12/l. 35-37, the reactor length is chosen in such a way that is provides a residence time sufficient for high conversion (80% to 90%) of the plastics; Col. 13/L. In 53-56, as a result of high temperature and depolymerization, the material viscosity became low and the extruded "rods" or "spaghetti" broke before a complete decomposition took place. Hence, "complete decomposition" of the plastic material implies 100% depolymerization, which is greater than 90%) but does not specifically teach wherein the catalyst comprises PtSn/K-L or Pt/K-SSZ-13. In a
similar invention, however, Xu teaches a PtSn/K-L catalyst (para [0050], take 20 g of 40-60 mesh KL molecular sieve is impregnated in the mixed solution, stand overnight at room temperature, after filtration, dry at 120 degrees C for 12h under vacuum condition, and in air atmosphere at 350 degrees C muffle Calcined in the furnace for 4 hours to obtain a Sn-modified PtSn/KL catalyst). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine both references to employ Xu's PtSn/K-L catalyst as the catalyst in Klepfer's mixture and process to optimize the catalytic depolymerization of the plastics.
Regarding claims 36-37, Klepfer discloses all the limitations discussed above including wherein C2-C20 alkanes or alkenes are produced including C6-C20 alkenes
and alkanes (Col. 18/L. 47-58, the products were: (C1-C5) hydrocarbons 0.4% (C6-C10) 16% (C11-C20) 83.6%, the present invention deals with the process of activated cracking of high molecular weight organic waste material which includes confining the organic waste material in a reactor space as a mixture with a pulverized electrically conducting material (sensitizer) and/or catalysts and treating this mixture by radio frequency electromagnetic radiation) but does not specifically teach wherein the catalyst comprises PtSn/K-L and wherein 30% to about 50% of the C2-C20 alkanes or alkenes are C6-C20 alkanes or alkenes. Based on Klepfer's teachings, it would have been
obvious to one of skill in the art to ensure that out of the C2-C20 alkanes or alkenes that are produced from the depolymerization of plastics, about 30-50% of them are C6-C20 alkenes and alkenes to optimize the amount of desired product available. In a similar
invention, however, Xu teaches a PtSn/K-L catalyst (para [0050], take 20 g of 40-60 mesh KL molecular sieve is impregnated in the mixed solution, stand overnight at room temperature, after filtration, dry at 120 degrees C for 12h under vacuum condition, and in air atmosphere at 350 degrees C muffle Calcined in the furnace for 4 hours to obtain a Sn-modified PtSn/KL catalyst). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine both references to employ Xu's PtSn/K-L catalyst as the catalyst in Klepfer's mixture and process to optimize the catalytic depolymerization of the plastics into the desired C6-C20 alkanes or alkenes.
Conclusion
There was an unused Y reference from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
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