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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 35 – 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) allowing uncondensed pyrolysis gases to return from the stack condenser for further pyrolysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of allowing uncondensed gases for further pyrolysis does not require that the uncondensed gases actually undergo further pyrolysis. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the judicial exception of allowing uncondensed gases to undergo further pyrolysis does not actually require a step of pyrolyzing such uncondensed gases but merely allows them to undergo pyrolysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35 – 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 35 recites a step wherein condensed hydrocarbons within a stack condenser is collected and the uncondensed pyrolysis gases are allowed to return from the stack condenser for further pyrolysis which is not supported by disclosure as originally filed. While the disclosure allows for pyrolyzing of condensed gases, there is no teaching of returning of the uncondensed gas for further pyrolysis. Similarly, claim 50 recites collection and return of uncondensed gases to from the stack condenser to the pyrolysis reactor vessel which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. All other dependent claims are rejected on the same basis. While paragraph 0082 of the instant specification recites that whatever is not caught by the slip-catch is returned to the pyrolysis reactor, it does not recite that such components are uncondensed gases.
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 35 – 49 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 claims recite allowing uncondensed pyrolysis gases to return from the stack condenser for further pyrolysis which is indefinite as it is unclear where the gases are returned to, whether to the feedstock or to the pyrolysis reactor.
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 § 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 35 – 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bitting et al. (WO 2021/163113A1) in view of Hob et al. (RU 24 464 U1)
In regard to claim 35, Bitting teaches methods and systems for conversion of waste plastic into various downstream recycle products through a pyrolysis and cracker process, wherein pyrolysis gas is separated to form one or more recycle products (abstract). The process includes introducing a pyrolysis feed into a pyrolysis unit, wherein the feed comprises a recycled waste plastic, pyrolyzing at least a portion of the pyrolysis feed to form a pyrolysis effluent comprising a pyrolysis gas; and feeding at least a portion of the pyrolysis gas into a partial oxidation gasifier [0004].
The plastics are comminuted (shredded, chopped, chips, flakes, powder or pellets) [0045]. The product comprises pyrolysis oil, pyrolysis gas, pyrolysis residue (i.e., char) and wherein the pyrolysis process is inert and substantially oxygen free [0101, 0126]. The process can occur in the absence of a catalyst [0102]. Various types of reactors are useful in the process [0103]. Pyrolysis occurs at temperatures of from 325 to 800℃, and a pressure of from 0.1 to 100 bar (i.e., 10 to 10,000 kpa) [0112, 0116].
The pyrolysis gas product stream which is fed into the cracker facility includes hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene [0322 – 0326]. The gas products go through a separator and compression stages in a compressor with cooling to condense the gas and provide a liquid condensate hydrocarbon product [0372, 0373]. The products are removed (i.e., collected) [0374].
Bitting teaches each step of the process including condensing of the gas. While the step of returning the condensate to the reactor vessel is not particularly recited, it does not carry patentable weight as the further reheating of the condensate is optional, and the claims allow for the step of separation of the product following condensation which Bitting teaches. However, in the alternative, Bitting teaches using some of the product stream as fuel, and thus makes recycling the product for use as fuel in the pyrolysis or cracking steps [0484].
Bitting fails to particularly recite the step of allowing recycling of uncondensed gases for pyrolysis. However, Hob similarly recites pyrolysis of tires/plastic wastes wherein uncondensed pyrolysis gas are further recycled back to the furnace for pyrolysis (specification). Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have recycled uncondensed gas products of Bitting for pyrolysis in order to optimize the reaction process.
The claims are drawn to a process and does not require the specific equipment limitations for performing the process such as the presence of a split catch system for separating the condensed gases from uncondensed gases.
In regard to claims 36, 37, Bitting teaches the process having temperatures and pressures overlapping the claimed ranges.
In regard to claim 38, Bitting teaches the process which is inert and does not require oxygen or is substantially absent.
In regard to claim 39, Bitting teaches the process having the amount of conversion claimed [0517].
In regard to claims 40 – 42, Bitting teaches the process and the liquid product streams comprising kerosene, gasoline and diesel which would be expected to provide the claimed ASTM specification.
In regard to claim 43, Bitting teaches the process which further comprises a refining step such as cracking as previously stated.
In regard to claim 44, Bitting teaches the process wherein unreacted solids can be returned to the reactor for reheating [0225, Fig 2]. Also, condensation can occur multiple times (i.e., polycondensation) [0093].
In regard to claims 45 – 47, Bitting teaches the process comprising various hydrocarbon product streams comprising gases, liquids, and solid residue as previously stated.
In regard to claim 48, Bitting teaches the process wherein the system comprises burners which provides heat to the furnace [0338]. Also, as previously discussed, Bitting teaches using some of the product stream as fuel, and thus makes the use of the fuel products for the burners obvious [0484].
In regard to claim 49, Bitting teaches the process having the comminuted plastic material as previously stated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
