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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (US 5841011).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5-8, Hashimoto discloses a process for converting waste plastic, such as polyethylene, into hydrocarbon oil by steam pyrolysis in the presence of iron oxide at temperatures up to 550 C and ordinary pressure. The iron oxide (filler) can be reduced- regenerated and recycled [claim 1; col.2, 1.50-66; col.3, I.11-20 and 49-65; col.4, I.18-26; col.7, 1.40-43].
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.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US 5841011) alone.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 16, although the steps are not explicitly detailed, it would have been obvious to conduct the additional processing and reducing steps, as Hashimoto discloses regeneration in their process.
Regarding claims 12-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at that varying the temperature and pressure could be done to optimize the chemical reaction. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US 5841011) in view of Sakata et al. (JP H11140460).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Hashimoto fails to disclose the process using specifically ferrous oxide and alumina.
Sakata teaches a process for produce a hydrocarbon from plastic waste comprising utilizing a ferrous oxide and alumina [Claims 1-3].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Hashimoto by utilizing the ferrous oxide and alumina as described by Sakata to reduce the harmful chlorine compounds such as dioxin from the recovered hydrocarbon [Summary of the Invention].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest – either alone or in combination – the Al203 particles coated with iron(Ill) oxide are coated in an amount corresponding to 2 wt% atomic iron ("2 Fe/Al203") as explicitly recited in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art documents are related to methods of producing hyrdrocarbon products from plastic waste similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619