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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for being illegible.
Claim Interpretation
The term chlorine in claims 3 and 13 are understood as atomic chlorine in the form of chloride molecules in the oil, as chlorine which is a gas would not be present in the light oil.
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, 3 – 11, 13 – 18 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 term “light” and the term “heavy” in claims 1, 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light” or “heavy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the sake of prosecution, the term light is taken as low molecular weight hydrocarbons of 1000 daltons or less, and/or hydrocarbons having boiling point of lower than 180℃ as recited in claims 2 and 12. The term heavy is taken as hydrocarbons having higher molecular weights of more than 1000 daltons and/or having boiling point of at least 180℃.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 12, 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. (WO 2021/165178)
In regards to claim 1, Weiss teaches method for processing a plastic pyrolysis oil comprising hydrogenative a feedstock in the presence of hydrogen and a catalyst, hydroprocessing the effluent at temperatures of from 250 to 370℃ (abstract). The pyrolysis oil is a hydrocarbon liquid stream which is treated to produce a treated stream and a first heavies stream, and wherein the first heavies stream is further processed to provide a second hydrocarbon product and the treated hydrocarbon stream is sent to a steam cracker to provide steam cracked products [0021]. Pyrolysis products include pyrolysis liquid and gas phases such as HCL [0028].
The pyrolyzed plastics contain from 10 ppm to 1000 ppm of chloride (i.e., chlorine) [0030]. The pyrolysis unit comprises several units including separators, distillation columns etc. [0043]. The gas products flow from the pyrolysis unit as a gas steam [0044 – 0046]. The liquid hydrocarbon stream (pyrolysis oil) comprises chlorine in amounts of from 10 ppm to less than 2000 ppm [0048]. The pyrolysis oil comprises C1 to C22 paraffins and the heavy ends of the pyrolysis oil are sent to a hydrocracker for hydrocracking [0049, 0050]. The lower carbon hydrocarbons such as paraffins provide the light oils and the separated heavy ends (heavies stream) provide the heavy oils of the claim.
At least a portion of the hydrocarbon liquid stream (pyrolysis oil) is sent to a hydroprocessing unit with hydrotreating with a catalytic cracker wherein hydrogen gas is added and the stream is dechlorinated (i.e., HCL removal) [0056]. The gas is sent to a scrubber and thus separated [0069]. The effluent from hydroprocessing is separated into the treated hydrocarbon stream having C5 to C8 hydrocarbon and the first heavies stream having C9 or more hydrocarbons using separation units that separates by boiling points such as distillation columns [0070, 0071]. The treated stream comprises chloride at amounts of 10 ppm or less and thus separation of the chloride occurs before the separation of the light and heavy steam [0075]. The heavies stream further undergoes hydrodealkylation at 100 to 500℃ which can include further hydrocracking and de-chlorination [0081, 0090]. The step of hydroprocessing steps occurs at temperatures of from 300 to 500℃ [0111].
Weiss thus teaches a similar process and the separation units and reactors of the claims. However, while Weiss teaches separation of HCL from the hydrocarbon liquid prior to separation of the light and heavy oil as required by the claim, the order of separating the products is routine and would be obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention.
In regards to claim 2, Weiss teaches the refining equipment wherein the light oils can be C5 to C8 hydrocarbon oils and the heaving oils are C9 or higher which would be expected to having the boiling points of the light and heavy oil of the claim. They are separated in a distillation unit by boiling point as previously stated.
In regards to claim 4, Weiss teaches the equipment wherein the hydroprocessing pressures of from 10 to 150 barg (i.e., about 11 to about 151 bar) or from 20 to 60 barg (about 21 to about 61 bar) [0066].
In regards to claims 5 – 7, Weiss teaches the equipment wherein hydrogen gas is provided into the reactor and hydrogen chloride (HCL) is removed, which provides the inlet and separators and wherein the process comprises a catalyst. The gas such as chlorine is removed using an adsorber (i.e., adsorbent) [0095]. The catalyst for hydroprocessing such as hydrodealkylation which is used for the heavy oil purifying is a solid acidic catalyst [0084, 0085]. The hydrodealkylating unit products comprises N2 gas which are inert gas [0090, 0091].
In regards to claim 8, Weiss teaches the equipment and process of the claim [0156].
In regards to claim 9, Weiss teaches the equipment and process of the claim comprising reforming oil fractions such as hydroprocessing and/or hydrodealkylation and the removal of HCL as previously stated.
In regards to claim 10, Weiss teaches the equipment and the separation using distillation units (i.e., performing fractional distillation) which separates fractions of oils by boiling points.
In regards to claims 11, 12, 14 – 18, Weiss teaches the process of refining as previously discussed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771