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.
Claim 5 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.
In claim 5 it is not clear what pressure qualifies as a “normal pressure condition”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neha (Neha, S., Remya, N. “Optimization of bio-oil production from microwave co-pyrolysis of food waste of low-density polyethylene with response surface methodology”, Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 113345).
In the abstract, Neha discloses the co-pyrolysis of food waste and waste plastic (LDPE). In Run 17 of Table 2 on page 5 of the reference, Neha discloses a pyrolysis run where the LDPE is present in 25% by weight of the feed, implying a food waste content of 75% by weight of the feed. In section 2.1 on page 2 of the reference, Neha disclose that the food waste is dried to a moisture content of less than 7% prior to the pyrolysis, and in Table 1 on page 3 of the reference Neha discloses that the LDPE has a moisture content of about 0.22%. In section 3.1.2 on page 4 of the reference Neha observes about a 7% weight reduction in the food waste within 110° C, indicating that the moisture content of the food waste is close to 7%. The feed of Run 17 of Neha therefore has a moisture content of about 5.3%, and since the feed contains 25% by weight of plastic waste, the feed has about 21.2 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of waste plastic, within the range recited in the first step of claim 1. In Table 2 Neha discloses that Run 17 is carried out at a pyrolysis temperature of 550° C, within the range recited in claim 1.
As noted above, Neha discloses that the LDPE contains moisture, meeting the limitations of claim 2. In section 2.3 on page 2 of the reference, Neha discloses that the pyrolysis is carried out in an inert atmosphere, meeting the limitations of claim 3. As Neha does not provide any specific teaching regarding the pressure of the atmosphere in the pyrolysis reactor, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the method of Neha as being carried out under a normal pressure condition, as recited in claim 5, noting that “normal pressure condition” is indefinite as discussed in paragraph 3 above. Section 2.3 and Figure 1 on page 2 of Neha indicate that the pyrolysis is carried out in a batch reactor, as recited in claim 6.
In light of the above, claims 1-3 and 5-6 are anticipated by Neha.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Genuino (Genuino, H.C, Ruiz, M.P., Heeres, H.J., Kersten, S.R.A., “Pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste (DKR-350): Effect of washing pre-treatment and fate of chlorine”, Fuel Processing Technology, 2022, 107304).
The Genuino reference was available online on 5/11/22. While applicant has made a foreign priority claim to a Korean application filed 12/29/21, applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
In the abstract, Genuino discloses the pyrolysis of a post-consumer plastic waste stream (DKR-350) at 500° C, meeting the limitations of the second step of claim 1. In Table 1 on page 4 of the reference, Genuino discloses an unwashed DKR-350 stream having a moisture content of 1.56%, within the range recited in the first step of claim 1 and also meeting the limitations of claim 2 regarding the moisture being contained in the waste plastic. In section 3.3.1 on page 6 of the reference, Genuino specifically discloses performing pyrolysis on the unwashed DKR-350 at 500° C. Claims 1-2 are therefore anticipated by Genuino.
In section 2.3.1 on page 3 of the reference, Genuino discloses that the pyrolysis is carried out under a nitrogen atmosphere, meeting the limitations of the non-oxidizing atmosphere of claim 3. As Genuino does not provide any specific teaching regarding the pressure of the atmosphere in the pyrolysis reactor, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the method of Genuino as being carried out under a normal pressure condition, as recited in claim 5, noting that “normal pressure condition” is indefinite as discussed in paragraph 3 above.
In Figure 7(a) Genuino discloses that the pyrolysis oil obtained from the unwashed DKR-350 feed contains 226 ppm of chlorine, within the range recited in claim 7. Since the unwashed DKR-350 feed contains 1875 ppm of chlorine, about 88% of the chlorine is removed, meeting the limitations of claim 8. In figure 7(c) Genuino discloses that the chlorine content of a feed containing unwashed DKR-350 and 1% by weight of PVC decreases from 7407 ppm in the feed to 275 ppm in the pyrolysis oil, also meeting the limitations of claims 7-8.
In light of the above, claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are anticipated by Genuino.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 111662731 A).
An English-language translation of Wang, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the English-language reference.
In paragraphs 9-12 Wang discloses a process for treating waste plastics from paper mills, comprising dehydrating and drying the waste plastics to a moisture content of less than 10% by weight, and pyrolyzing the waste plastic. In paragraph 66 Wang discloses drying the waste plastic to a moisture content of 5 to 10% by weight, within the range recited in the first step of claim 1, and in paragraph 96 Wang discloses a specific method where the moisture content of the waste plastic is 6% and the pyrolysis temperature is 550°, meeting the limitations of the first and second steps of claim 1. In paragraph 116 Wang discloses a similar method where the moisture content of the waste plastic is 10% and the pyrolysis temperature is 500° C, also meeting the limitations of the first and second steps of claims 1-2. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by Wang. Since the moisture is contained in the waste plastic, claim 2 is anticipated as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,011) in view of Genuino.
In column 1 lines 8-13, Hashimoto discloses a process for producing lightweight oil from waste plastics containing phthalic polyester and/or polyvinyl chloride (PVC). In column 3 lines 10-20 Hashimoto discloses that the process can also be applied to waste plastics containing other plastic resins. In column 4 lines 8-10 Hashimoto discloses that the pyrolysis is carried out at a temperature of 350° C to 550° C, overlapping the range recited in the second step of claim 1. From column 2 line 65 through column 3 line 9 and column 4 lines 27-30 Hashimoto discloses that the pyrolysis can be carried out in a steam atmosphere, meeting the limitations of the non-oxidizing atmosphere of claim 3 and the water vapor atmosphere of claim 4. In column 4 lines 8-10 Hashimoto discloses that the reaction pressure for the pyrolysis is “ordinary pressure”, meeting the limitations of the “normal pressure condition” of claim 5. In column 2 lines 61-64 Hashimoto discloses that the pyrolysis can be carried out in a batch system, meeting the limitations of the batch reactor of claim 6.
Hashimoto does not specifically disclose using a waste plastic feed having the moisture content recited in the first step of claim 1, where the moisture is contained in the waste plastic as recited in claim 2. Hashimoto also does not disclose the amount of chlorine reduction from the pyrolysis step.
The discussion of Genuino in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference. Genuino discloses the pyrolysis of a DKR-350 waste plastic mixture, both alone and in combination with 1% PVC. In the abstract, Genuino discloses that DKR-350 comprises polyethylene terephthalate, which is a phthalate polyester as defined in column 3 lines 16-20 of Hashimoto. The DKR-350 of Genuino therefore falls within the scope of the waste plastics used in the method of Hashimoto. In table 1 on page 4 of the reference, Genuino discloses that an unwashed DKR-350 stream has a moisture content of 1.56%, within the range recited in the first step of claim 1 and also meeting the limitations of claim 2 regarding the moisture being contained in the waste plastic. In Figure 7(a) Genuino discloses that the pyrolysis oil obtained from the unwashed DKR-350 feed contains 226 ppm of chlorine, within the range recited in claim 7. Since the unwashed DKR-350 feed contains 1875 ppm of chlorine, about 88% of the chlorine is removed, meeting the limitations of claim 8. In figure 7(c) Genuino discloses that the chlorine content of a feed containing unwashed DKR-350 and 1% by weight of PVC decreases from 7407 ppm in the feed to 275 ppm in the pyrolysis oil, also meeting the limitations of claims 7-8.
The use of the DKR-350 or DKR-350+PVC waste plastic feeds of Genuino as the waste plastic feed in the method of Hashimoto therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the DKR-350 or DKR-350+PVC waste plastic feeds of Genuino as the waste plastic feed in the method of Hashimoto, since they comprise phthalic polyesters and PVC and are therefore suitable feeds for the method of Hashimoto.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,011) in view of Wang.
In column 1 lines 8-13, Hashimoto discloses a process for producing lightweight oil from waste plastics containing phthalic polyester and/or polyvinyl chloride (PVC). In column 3 lines 10-20 Hashimoto discloses that the process can also be applied to waste plastics containing other plastic resins such as polyethylene. In column 4 lines 8-10 Hashimoto discloses that the pyrolysis is carried out at a temperature of 350° C to 550° C, overlapping the range recited in the second step of claim 1. From column 2 line 65 through column 3 line 9 and column 4 lines 27-30 Hashimoto discloses that the pyrolysis can be carried out in a steam atmosphere, meeting the limitations of the non-oxidizing atmosphere of claim 3 and the water vapor atmosphere of claim 4. In column 4 lines 8-10 Hashimoto discloses that the reaction pressure for the pyrolysis is “ordinary pressure”, meeting the limitations of the “normal pressure condition” of claim 5. In column 2 lines 61-64 Hashimoto discloses that the pyrolysis can be carried out in a batch system, meeting the limitations of the batch reactor of claim 6.
Hashimoto does not specifically disclose using a waste plastic feed having the moisture content recited in the first step of claim 1, where the moisture is contained in the waste plastic as recited in claim 2. Hashimoto also does not disclose the amount of chlorine reduction from the pyrolysis step.
The discussion of Wang in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Wang discloses the pyrolysis of waste plastics from a paper mill. In paragraph 21 Wang discloses that the waste plastics can be rich in PVC as well as other plastics such as polyethylene, falling within the scope of the waste plastics used in the method of Hashimoto. As discussed above, Wang discloses that the waste plastics have a moisture content within the range recited in the first step of claim 1 and also meeting the limitations of claim 2 regarding the moisture being contained in the waste plastic.
The use of the waste plastic feeds of Wang, rich in PVC and/or polyethylene, as the waste plastic feed in the method of Hashimoto therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the waste plastic feeds of Wang, rich in PVC and/or polyethylene, as the waste plastic feed in the method of Hashimoto, since they comprise polymers disclosed by Hashimoto as suitable feeds for the method of Hashimoto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771