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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18710456 filed 5/15/24.
Claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 5/15/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 5/15/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAVEED ET AL. (US PG PUB 20190270939) in view of GAFFNEY (US PG PUB 20120215043) and as evidence by MCLAUGHLIN ET AL. (US 5656151) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as JAVEED, MCLAUGHLIN and GAFFNEY.
Regarding claims 1-11, 13-19 and 21-22:
JAVEED teaches in para [0017] FIG. 1A illustrates a dichlorination system 100 which dechlorinates chloride compounds, and may additionally hydrogenate olefins, to provide for a dechlorinated feed that meets requirements for introduction to a steam cracker 40. The system 100 includes a feeder 5, a devolatilization extruder (DE) 10, a chloride stripping unit 20, a scavenging vessel or tank 30, and a steam cracker 40.
JAVEED teaches in para [0019] FIG. 1C illustrates a dichlorination system 102 which dechlorinates chloride compounds, and may additionally hydrogenate olefins, to provide for a dechlorinated feed that meets requirements for introduction to a steam cracker 40. The system 102 includes a feeder 5, a reactor 7, a DE 10, a chloride stripping unit 20, a scavenging vessel or tank 30, and a steam cracker 40.
JAVEED teaches in para [0051] At least a portion of the spent stripping gas stream 12 can be introduced to the chloride stripping unit 20 to remove at least a portion of the chloride compounds from the spent stripping gas stream 12. The chloride stripping unit 20 can comprise a scrubbing unit containing a caustic solution (e.g., a solution of sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide in water) which can remove (e.g., via reaction, adsorption, absorption, or combinations thereof) a first portion of chloride (e.g., chlorine-containing gases) from the spent stripping gas stream 12 to yield a treated spent stripping gas. At least a portion of the treated spent stripping gas can be further contacted with a chloride adsorber to remove a second portion of the chloride from the treated spent stripping gas to produce a treated gaseous stream. At least a portion of the treated gaseous stream can be recycled to the DE 10 as the stripping gas.
JAVEED teaches in para [0056] A process for dechlorination of a hydrocarbon stream and/or a hydrocarbon stream precursor can further comprise introducing at least a portion of the extruder effluent 11 (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1C) or at least a portion of the hydrocarbon product stream 26 (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1B and 1D) to the scavenging vessel 30 to yield a polished hydrocarbon stream 31. The scavenging vessel 30 may be considered a polishing stage in which the extruder effluent 11 or the hydrocarbon product stream 26 is “polished” to further reduce the chloride content. The extruder effluent 11 and/or the hydrocarbon product stream 26 may contain chloride in an amount of greater than about 10 ppm, based on the weight of the extruder effluent 11 and/or the hydrocarbon product stream 26, respectively, which may not meet the requirements for the steam cracker 40. As such, the extruder effluent 11 or the hydrocarbon product stream 26 may be introduced to the scavenging vessel 30 for further chloride removal such that the polished hydrocarbon stream 31 flowing from the scavenging vessel 30 has an amount of one or more chlorides which meet the requirement of the steam cracker 40. In some aspects, when multiple DE units are present, some DE units could send extruder effluents to the catalytic cracker 25, while other DE units could send extruder effluents to the scavenging vessel 30, wherein the DE units which feed directly to the scavenging vessel 30 would have to be run at higher temperature and catalytic severity as compared to the other DE units that feed directly to the catalytic cracker 25.
JAVEED teaches in para [0059] Dechlorinating (e.g., polishing) the extruder effluent 11 or the hydrocarbon product stream 26 may include removing at least a portion of one or more chloride compounds remaining in the extruder effluent 11 or the hydrocarbon product stream 26, respectively, via adsorptive dichlorination to yield the polished hydrocarbon stream 31. Removal of remaining chloride compounds may occur in the scavenging vessel 30 in the form of one or more adsorption units. The one or more adsorption units may contain one or more chloride adsorbers, which can remove (e.g., via reaction, adsorption, absorption, or combinations thereof) a portion of one or more remaining chloride compounds from the extruder effluent 11 or the hydrocarbon product stream 26 to yield a polished hydrocarbon product which flows from the adsorption unit via polished hydrocarbon stream 31. One or more chloride compounds which are removed by sorbents (e.g., chloride adsorbers) in the adsorption unit may be recovered from the adsorption unit(s) via processes known in the art with the aid of this disclosure (e.g., regeneration of adsorption units operating in parallel). An example of an adsorption process suitable for use in the scavenging vessel 30 is found in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/053,589, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
JAVEED teaches the chloride stripping unit 20 can comprise a scrubbing unit containing a caustic solution (e.g., a solution of sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide in water) which can remove (e.g., via reaction, adsorption, absorption, or combinations thereof) a first portion of chloride (e.g., chlorine-containing gases) from the spent stripping gas stream 12 to yield a treated spent stripping gas; which is evident by MCLAUGHLIN teaches in col. 1 ln 6-8 removing salt deposits from refinery and petrochemical streams by water washing and minimizing corrosion during water washing; that further dichlorination/dehalogenation can be achieved by water extraction.
JAVEED teaches the process and system as disclosed above; and GAFFNEY further teaches overlapping components of the system.
GAFFNEY teaches in para [0013] FIG. 1 is a high-level schematic diagram of a process for converting mixed waste plastics into low molecular weight organic compounds. [0080] Example of a process of converting mixed waste plastics into low molecular weight organic compounds using the solid catalyst component is now described. Referring to FIG. 1, a high-level schematic diagram of converting mixed waste plastics into low molecular weight organic compounds is shown. [0093] In one particular embodiment as shown in FIG. 1, at least a portion of lights, gases and olefins 13 of the volatile organic hydrocarbon component is separated from the rest of the product stream 21 in the product separator 12. Olefins include, but are not limited to, ethene, propene, butenes, and the like. The rest of the product stream include, but are not limited to, benzene, toluene, xylene and other hydrocarbons.
PNG
media_image1.png
889
1141
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the teachings of the all the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
In addition, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
Additionally, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Nevertheless, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771