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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
The expression "fed with the hydroconverted effluent obtained from step b) and an aqueous solution" in step c) of claim 1, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the both the effluent and an aqueous solution are fed into a separator. The expression "said step being performed at a temperature between 20 and 450° C" in step c) of claim 1, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if "said step" is the separation step.
The expression "each comprising at least one hydrotreatment catalyst" in line 4 of claim 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if "each" is the catalytic bed.
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 1-16 are rejected over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nousiainen et al., International Publication No. WO2014/001632 (hereinafter referred to as Nousiainen) in view of either Weiss et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0299515 (hereinafter referred to as Weiss), Singh et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0370871 (hereinafter referred to as Singh), or Housmans et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0062655 (hereinafter referred to as Housmans).
Nousiainen discloses a method for treating a feedstock comprising a plastic pyrolysis oil comprising: b) the pyrolysis oil and hydrogen are fed into a hydroconversion (e.g., hydrodesulfurization and hydrocracking) step 500 comprising at least one hydroconversion catalyst. The hydroconversion reaction step is operated at a temperature between 250 and 450°C, at a hydrogen partial pressure between 1.0 and 20.0 MPa abs, and at an hourly volumetric flow rate between 0.05 and 10.0 h-¹ to obtain a hydroconverted effluent (see page 11, line 21 - page 16, line 20). c) The hydroconverted effluent from step b) and an aqueous solution are passed to a separation zone to obtain at least one gaseous effluent 150, one aqueous effluent 140, and one hydrocarbon effluent 160. e) A portion of said hydrocarbon cut comprising from step c) and hydrogen are passed into hydrotreatment reaction section 300 operated at a temperature between 250 and 430°C, at a partial pressure of hydrogen between 1.0 and 20.0 MPa abs, and an hourly volumetric velocity between 0.1 and 10.0 h', to obtain a hydrotreated effluent. The hydrotreatment step comprising two or more fixed-bed reactors comprising at least one hydrotreatment catalyst. (See page 11, line 21 - page 16, line 20); f) the hydrotreated effluent from step e) is fed in separation step 400 to obtain at least one gaseous effluent and one hydrotreated liquid hydrocarbon effluent and further separated into specific fuels (claims 16 and 17). Nousiainen also teaches that any reactor type or configurations and devices can be used in the process and the pyrolysis oil can be pretreated by extracting or filtering (page 25, lines 25-26; page 26, lines 20-21; claim 13). Also see figures 1-7; page 9, line 16 - page 27, line 21; examples 1-2; tables 1-5; claims 1-17.
Nousiainen does not teach the use of a reactor as in step b), does not teach step d) of fractionating all or part of the hydrocarbon effluent from step c), to obtain a hydrocarbon cut comprising compounds having a boiling point lower than or equal to 385°C, and does not teach that step (c) is being carried out at a temperature between 50 and 450°C.
Singh teaches a hydroconversion process wherein a moving bed reactor is used and a steam heater. (See [0033], [0049] and [0066]).
Weiss teaches a hydroconversion process wherein an ebullated bed reactor is used. (See [0007], [0020], [0038],[0041]).
Housmans teaches a hydroconversion process wherein an ebullated bed reactor, a entrained reactor, or a moving bed reactor is used and a steam cracker. (See [0088] and throughout description)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Nousiainen by utilizing a reactor as suggested by Singh, Weiss, or Housmans because Nousiainen teaches that any type of reactor can be used (page 26, lines 20-21) and reactors that are taught by Singh, Weiss, and Housmans are known to be effective in a hydroconversion process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Nousiainen by operating the aqueous separation step at a temperature as claimed because it is known that the operating temperature is depended on the properties of the mixture and one of skill in the art would employ an operating temperature, including the claimed operating temperature of 50-450° C, that facilitate efficient disengagement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Nousiainen by fractionating the effluent to obtain a cut having a boing point lower or equal 385° C because it is within the level of one of skill in the art to either hydrotreat the entire hydrocarbon effluent or on only a specific cut when a specific cut is desired as Nousiainen teaches that the liquid product can be separated into gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, diesel oil and naphtha (claim 17).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of co-pending application No. 18/028,273. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '273 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application, the disclosures above are incorporated herein by reference and render the instant claims obvious.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Double Patenting II
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,627. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The '627 patent discloses discloses the same limitations as does the instant application, the disclosures above are incorporated herein by reference and render the instant claims obvious.
These are the same reaction components recited in the instant claims. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Conclusion
11. There were unused X references 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