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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Narayanaswamy et al (US 2019/0233744).
With respect to claim 1, Narayanaswamy discloses a refining method of a waste plastic pyrolysis oil, the method comprising:
mixing a waste plastic pyrolysis oil and a sulfur source to prepare a mixed oil fraction (see paragraph 0007-0008, and abstract );
hydrotreating the mixed oil fraction with a reaction gas including a hydrogen gas (H2) (see paragraph 0027) in the presence of a molybdenum-based hydrogenation catalyst (see paragraph 0035); and
removing by-products of the hydrotreating from a product of to obtain a refined oil (see paragraph 0046-0048).
With respect to claim 2, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1. Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur source includes a sulfur- containing oil fraction (see paragraph 0021-0022).
With respect to claim 3, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the mixed oil fraction includes 100 ppm or more of sulfur (see paragraph 0021-0022).
With respect to claim 4, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 2.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur-containing oil fraction is included at less than 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the waste plastic pyrolysis oil (see paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 5, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 2.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur-containing oil fraction is included at less than 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the waste plastic pyrolysis oil (see paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 6, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur source includes one or two or more sulfur-containing organic compounds selected from disulfide-based compounds, sulfide-based compounds, sulfonate-based compounds, and sulfate-based compounds (see paragraph 0021-0022).
With respect to claim 7, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the reaction gas of (S2) includes a hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) (see paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 9, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the molybdenum-based hydrogenation catalyst is a catalyst in which a molybdenum-based metal, or a metal including any one or two or more selected from nickel, cobalt, and tungsten and a molybdenum-based metal are supported on a support (see paragraph 0035).
With respect to claim 10, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further wherein the molybdenum-based hydrogenation catalyst includes a molybdenum-based sulfide hydrogenation catalyst (see paragraph 0035).
With respect to claim 11, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further wherein (S2) is performed at a pressure of 200 bar or less (see paragraph 0033).
With respect to claim 12, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein (S2) is performed at a temperature of 300°C or higher and lower than 450°C (see paragraph 0032).
With respect to claim 13, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein (S2) is performed at a liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV) of 0.1 to 5 h-1 (see paragraph 0032).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswam, as applied to claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 7.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) is separated from the by-products of the hydrotreating which has been removed in (S3) (see paragraph 0047-0049).
Narayanaswamy does not disclose wherein separated H2S is supplied to the reactor.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanaswamy with the claimed limitation, as Narayanaswamy discloses separating a hydrogen sulfide product and further discloses wherein the feedstock is doped with a sulfur containing compound to include hydrogen sulfide, thus the modification would have been obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswam.
With respect to claim 14-15, Narayanaswamy discloses a continuous operation method of waste plastic pyrolysis oil refining equipment, the method comprising:
(S1) mixing a waste plastic pyrolysis oil and a sulfur source to prepare a mixed oil fraction (see paragraph 0007-0008 and 0025);
(S2) hydrotreating the mixed oil fraction with a reaction gas including a hydrogen gas (H2) and a hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) at a pressure of 200 bar or less in the presence of a molybdenum-based sulfide hydrogenation catalyst (see paragraph 0021-0022, 0027 and 0033); and
(S3) removing by-products of the hydrotreating from a product of (S2) to obtain a refined oil, wherein the hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) of (S2) is separated from the by-products of the hydrotreating of (S3) (see paragraph 0047-0049).
Narayanaswamy does not disclose wherein separated H2S is supplied to the reactor.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narayanaswamy with the claimed limitation, as Narayanaswamy discloses separating a hydrogen sulfide product and further discloses wherein the feedstock is doped with a sulfur containing compound to include hydrogen sulfide, thus the modification would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 16, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 14.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the mixed oil fraction includes 100 ppm or more of sulfur (see paragraph 0021-0022).
With respect to claim 17, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 14. Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur source includes a sulfur- containing oil fraction (see paragraph 0021-0022).
With respect to claim 18, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 14.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur-containing oil fraction is included at less than 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the waste plastic pyrolysis oil (see paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 19, Narayanaswamy discloses the limitation of claim 14.
Narayanaswamy further discloses wherein the sulfur source includes one or two or more sulfur-containing organic compounds selected from disulfide-based compounds, sulfide-based compounds, sulfonate-based compounds, and sulfate-based compounds (see paragraph 0021-0022).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771