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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18701625 filed 4/16/24.
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 12/6/24 and 4/16/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR101916404B1; 11/8/2018) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as KIM.
Regarding claims 1-13:
KIM teaches in claim 1 - An apparatus for recycling a plastic mixture containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC), the apparatus comprising: an auger reactor; a fluidized bed reactor; and a hot filter filled with calcium oxide, wherein the auger reactor has a temperature of 280 to 400°C, the fluidized bed reactor has a temperature of 680 to 750°C, and the hot filter has a temperature of 400 to 700°C, wherein the auger reactor and the fluidized bed reactor pyrolyze the plastic mixture containing polyvinyl chloride, wherein the auger reactor and the fluidized bed reactor are connected in series, and wherein a product produced from the apparatus has one or more of the following characteristics: i) a content of aromatic compounds in oil of the product is 90 wt% or more based on the total weight of the oil; ii) a content of wax in oil of the product is 0.1 wt% or less; And iii) the content of chlorine in the oil among the products is 10 ppm (w/w) or less.
KIM teaches in claim 2 - A device for recycling a plastic mixture containing polyvinyl chloride, wherein the content of PVC in the plastic mixture is 2 wt% or more based on the total weight of the plastic mixture.
KIM teaches in claim 12 - A method for recycling a plastic mixture containing polyvinyl chloride, comprising: a first pyrolysis step of pyrolyzing a plastic mixture containing PVC in an auger reactor; a second pyrolysis step of pyrolyzing a plastic mixture containing PVC pyrolyzed in the auger reactor in a fluidized bed reactor; and a step of filtering pyrolysis vapor of the plastic mixture containing PVC pyrolyzed in the auger reactor.
KIM teaches in para [105] as a result of measuring the chlorine content in the pyrolysis oil recovered in this experiment, it was found that the pyrolysis oil contained approximately 9.25 ppm of chlorine (average of filter oils 1 (yield: 14.12 wt%) and 2 (yield: 7.49 wt%)) (Table 5).
KIM teaches in para [0069] that the sample used was a waste PE/virgin PVC mixture (96:4), and the properties of the feedstock are shown in Table 1. Proximate analysis was performed according to ASTM D3172. In each experiment, the waste plastics exhibited high volatile matter. Elemental analysis results showed that the chlorine contents of PE and PVC were 0.2 and 21.4 wt%, respectively. The total input Cl content was approximately 1 wt%.
KIM differ from the claimed invention in that the pyrolysis oil contains 50 wt% or more of naphtha having a boiling point of 150°C or less and kerosene having a boiling point of 150°C to 265°C; however the difference could be readily derived by a person skilled in the art from the disclosure of KIM wherein the pyrolysis oil contains 36.91wt% of benzene (boiling point 80.1 °C), 6.84 wt% of toluene (boiling point 110.6°C), 5.75 wt% of styrene (boiling point 145°C), and 4.30 wt% of allylbenzene (boiling point 156.3°C), and the like (para [0097]-[0101] and TABLE 4).
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that performing specific test, adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771