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 30, 37-39, 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.
Regarding claim 30, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “up to 70 wt.%”, and the claim also recites “5-70 wt.%”, “10-50 wt.%” and “15-30 wt.%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 37, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 37 recites the broad recitation “200-450 Nm3/stdm3”, “1-2 h-1”, and “100-350 oC” the claim also recites “200-450 Nm3/stdm3”, “0.2-0.5 h-1” and “170-340 oC” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 38, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 38 recites the broad recitation “150-400 Nm3/stdm3”, “0.5-2 h-1”, and “355-400 oC” the claim also recites “180-250 Nm3/stdm3”, “1-1.5 h-1” and “366-390 oC” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 39, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 38 recites the broad recitation “30-200 oC” and “150 to about 400o C” the claim also recites “30-180o C”, “30-110o C”, “160 to about 360o C”, and “about 160 to about 330o C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 (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 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 23 and 25-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. (WO 2021/204819 A1) in view of Tiitta et al. (WO 2021/105326 A1). Regarding claim 23, Adam teaches a process for treating waste plastic pyrolysis oil comprising providing a hydrocarbon stream containing pyrolysis plastic oil, performing a first hydrotreating step at a temperature of at most 225°C, and performing a second hydrotreating step at a temperature of at least 200°C to obtain a purified hydrocarbon stream suitable for steam cracking. Adam teaches that “a first hydrotreating step” is performed “at a temperature of at most 225°C” and that “a second hydrotreating step” is performed “at a temperature of at least 200°C” (page 6, lines 9–24). Adam further teaches second-stage temperatures of “250°C to 500°C” (page 13, lines 1–10). Adam additionally teaches introducing a dilution stream “before performing the first and/or the second hydrotreating” (page 13, lines 17–24). Adam also teaches catalysts containing Group VIB and Group VIII metals including Ni, Co, Mo, and W supported on alumina, silica, silica-alumina, titania, or carbon supports (page 7, lines 1–28). Adam teaches intermediate hydrogen quench between catalyst beds and temperature increases across catalyst beds (page 7, lines 29–38). Adam additionally teaches impurity-removal systems including traps for silicon, phosphorus, metals, and halogens (pages 16–19). Adam also teaches that the resulting hydrocarbon stream may be directed to steam cracking (page 12, lines 7–14). Adam further teaches introducing a dilution stream (hydrocarbon stream) and mixing hydrotreated waste plastic-derived hydrocarbons prior to second-stage hydrotreatment. Specifically, Adam teaches introducing a dilution stream “before performing the first and/or the second hydrotreating” (page 13, lines 17–24). Adam does not specifically teach blending the hydrotreated LWP with the hydrocarbon co-feed streams. Tiitta teaches a process for converting liquefied waste plastics into steam cracker feed comprising pretreating liquefied waste plastics, hydrotreating the liquefied waste plastics, and optionally combining the hydrotreated material with a co-feed stream (page 3, lines 1–24). Tiitta further teaches pretreatment using “an aqueous medium having a pH of at least 7” at temperatures of “200°C or more” followed by liquid-liquid separation (page 2, lines 18–30). Tiitta additionally teaches blending with hydrocarbon streams including vacuum gas oil, gas oil, heavy gas oil, kerosene, LPG fractions, paraffinic materials, renewable paraffins, and other hydrocarbon streams (pages 10–11). Tiitta also teaches supported NiMo and CoMo catalysts on alumina supports (page 8, lines 10–22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ the hydrocarbon blending streams taught by Tiitta as the dilution stream in Adam's staged hydrotreatment process, in order to dilute reactive components and impurities, facilitate temperature control during hydrotreatment, and produce hydrocarbon feedstocks suitable for subsequent refinery and petrochemical processing. Adam further teaches operating the second hydrotreatment at elevated temperatures, including temperatures within 250–500°C (Adam, p. 13, lines 1–10). However, Adam does not specifically disclose maintaining the mixed stream at a temperature within 140–370°C before the second hydrotreatment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to maintain the mixed stream at a suitable elevated temperature within 140-370°C before introducing it into the second hydrotreatment step, since the second hydrotreatment operates at elevated temperatures. Maintaining the mixed stream at an elevated temperature would facilitate bringing the feed to the desired hydrotreatment temperature, reduce unnecessary cooling and reheating, improve thermal efficiency, and facilitate temperature control during the second hydrotreatment. Regarding claims 25-26, Adam teaches first-stage temperatures of at most 225°C and second-stage temperatures of at least 200°C, preferably 250–500°C, overlapping the claimed ranges (page 6, lines 9–24; page 13, lines 1–10). Regarding claim 27, Tiitta teaches pretreatment using an aqueous medium having a pH of
at least 7 at temperatures of at least 200°C followed by liquid-liquid separation (page 2, lines 18–
30). Regarding claims 28-30, Tiitta teaches blending with hydrocarbon streams including vacuum gas oil, gas oil, heavy gas oil, kerosene, LPG fractions, paraffinic streams, and renewable paraffins (pages 10–11). Regarding claims 31-33, Adam teaches catalysts containing Group VIB and Group VIII metals including Ni, Co, Mo, and W supported on alumina, silica, silica-alumina, titania, or carbon supports (page 7, lines 1–28). Tiitta further teaches supported NiMo and CoMo catalysts on alumina supports (page 8, lines 10–22). Regarding claim 34, Adam teaches impurity-removal systems including traps and adsorption systems for removal of silicon, phosphorus, metals, and halogens (pages 16–19).
Regarding claims 35-36, Tiitta teaches treatment of liquefied waste plastic streams and repeated treatment/hydrotreatment of liquefied waste plastic-derived streams (pages 8–9). Regarding claims 37-38, Adam teaches hydrotreatment operating conditions including H2/oil ratios, LHSV ranges, temperatures, and pressures overlapping the claimed ranges (page 6, lines 9–24; page 13, lines 1–10). Regarding claims 39-40, Adam teaches fractionation and production of hydrocarbon streams suitable for steam cracking and direct introduction into a steam cracker (pages 14–15). Regarding claims 41-43, Adam teaches multiple catalyst beds, staged reactors, hydrogen introduction, and intermediate hydrogen quench between catalyst beds (page 7, lines 29–38).
Response to Applicant's Arguments and Declaration
Applicant's arguments and the Kurkijärvi Declaration under 37 CFR §1.132 have been considered. Applicant argues that Adam and Tiitta do not teach maintaining the mixed stream at 140–370°C before the second hydrotreatment and that this temperature range unexpectedly reduces salt precipitation. Adam teaches elevated-temperature second-stage hydrotreatment and hydrocarbon dilution before that stage (Adam, p. 6, lines 9–24; p. 13, lines 1–24). Although Adam does not specifically disclose the claimed upstream temperature range, maintaining a feed at an appropriate elevated temperature before high-temperature hydrotreatment would have been a predictable process modification for facilitating feed heating, reducing unnecessary cooling and reheating, and improving thermal efficiency.
The Kurkijärvi Declaration reports simulations indicating reduced ammonium chloride formation as temperature increases, with negligible formation around 140°C under the simulated conditions. The evidence is relevant to the claimed lower temperature boundary and has been considered. However, the simulations employ particular feed compositions, pressures, and blending ratios, while claim 23 broadly encompasses different hydrotreated LWP compositions, hydrocarbon blending streams, and operating conditions. The Declaration does not establish criticality of the upper boundary of 370°C or demonstrate that the reported results are unexpected relative to the closest prior-art process. Further, Thompson confirms that salt deposition and aqueous-phase management were recognized concerns in hydrotreatment operations and that water addition was a known approach for preventing solid deposits.
Accordingly, the Declaration does not presently establish unexpected results sufficient to overcome a properly supported prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights