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 Interpretation
Claims 12-20 are apparatus claims. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114 I-II. Accordingly, a functional limitation does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114. II. In addition, inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claim. MPEP 2115.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 is considered indefinite for reciting “a light liquid fraction obtained from processing of raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil at less than about 170 degrees centigrade (°C) and a medium liquid fraction obtained from processing of raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil from about 170 °C to about 370 °C.” Specifically, the limitations “a light liquid fraction” and “a medium liquid fraction” are product-by-process limitations and it is unclear what the recited steps of “processing of raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil at less than about 170 degree” and at “about 170 °C to about 370 °C” are intended to mean in limiting/defining the light liquid fraction and the middle liquid fraction. For the purpose of examination, the limitation “a light liquid fraction obtained from processing of raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil at less than about 170 degrees centigrade (°C)” is interpreted to mean a naphtha fraction, i.e., having a boiling point of less than about 170 °C (Spec., [0009]; see also [0027], [0041]). Furthermore, the limitation “a medium liquid fraction obtained from processing of raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil from about 170 °C to about 370 °C” is interpreted to mean a diesel fraction, i.e., having a boiling range from about 170 °C to about 370 °C” ([0009], [0041]).
Claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moll et al. (US 4,180,456, cited in IDS dated 05/30/2024).
Regarding claims 12, Moll teaches a system comprising a reaction vessel (Fig. 1, 10) containing:
a first inlet (16) (col. 6, lines 13-19);
a second inlet (17) (col. 6, lines 13-19);
a mixing element, such as baffles (col. 5, lines 8-11);
a first outlet (14) (col. 6, lines 13-19); and
a second outlet (17) (col. 6, lines 13-19).
Moll further teaches a separator (Fig. 2, 31) in fluid communication with the second outlet, and configured to remove slurry (solids) (33) and supply a stream (32) to the reaction vessel (10) (col. 5, lines 25-28; 62-68).
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 12, claim 12 is directed to an apparatus. The function limitations recited in claim 12 are related to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and do not serve to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of structure. MPEP 2114. Here, the apparatus of Moll is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus and is therefore considered capable of performing the functions of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Moll further teaches a jacket heater (Fig. 1, 11a) operatively connected to an external wall of the reaction vessel.
Regarding claim 14, Moll suggests a downstream reactor in fluid communication with the first outlet or the second outlet (col. 7, lines 9-17).
Regarding claims 15-20, the function limitations recited in claims 15-20 are related to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and do not serve to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of structure. MPEP 2114. The apparatus of Moll is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus and is therefore considered capable of performing the functions of claims 15-20.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiitta et al. (WO 2021/105326 A1, cited in IDS dated 05/30/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Tiitta discloses a process for upgrading liquefied waste plastics, the process comprising:
supplying a pyrolysis oil (liquefied waste plastics obtained by pyrolysis) comprising silicon and chlorine compounds to a reaction vessel (pg. 13, line 29 – pg. 14, line 3; pg. 14, lines 16-31; pg. 16, lines 25-29);
contacting the pyrolysis oil with an aqueous alkaline hydroxide solution in the reaction vessel at a temperature of 200°C or more, the aqueous alkaline hydroxide solution containing at least 0.3 wt% alkali metal hydroxide or alkaline earth metal hydroxide (pg. 14, line 33 – pg. 15, line 6; pg. 15, lines 26-35);
separating the mixture of pyrolysis oil and the aqueous alkaline hydroxide solution into an upgraded pyrolysis oil and an aqueous fraction by liquid-liquid separation (pg. 14, lines 33 – pg. 15, line 6); and
extracting the upgraded pyrolysis oil and supplying it to a hydroprocessing unit (pg. 15, lines 3-6; pg. 17, lines 32-35).
Tiitta does not explicitly disclose that the pyrolysis oil is a mixture of a light liquid fraction obtained from processing of raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil at less than about 170 degrees centigrade (°C) and a medium liquid fraction obtained from processing of the raw mixed plastic waste pyrolysis oil from about 170 °C to about 370 °C. Tiitta, however, discloses that the pyrolysis oil preferably has a 5% boiling point of 25°C or more and a 95% boiling point of 550°C or less (pg. 27, lines 4-5), which is interpreted to encompass a mixture of hydrocarbons boiling at “less than about 170°C” and “about 170 °C to about 370 °C.”
The claimed operating temperature range of “about 15 °C to about 225 °C” overlaps the temperature range taught by Tiitta (pg. 15, line 2, “200°C or more”) and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
With regard to the “at least about 30 weight percent” reduction in the silicon compounds and “at least about 50 weight percent” reduction in the chloride compounds, Tiitta discloses an example of alkaline treatment for a liquefied waste plastic feedstock having a distillation range of 67-476°C that produces a treated product containing >33 wt% less silicon and 89 wt% less chlorine compared the feedstock (pg. 38, lines 1-13; see Table 4).
Regarding claim 2, Tiitta teaches that the alkaline treatment step is followed by a liquid-liquid separation such as gravity-driven phase separation (pg. 14, lines 4-6; pg. 25, lines 24-25), which requires settling and coalescence.
Regarding claim 3, Tiitta discloses that the aqueous alkaline hydroxide solution may contain at least 0.3 wt% of a metal hydroxide (pg. 15, lines 31-33), which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range of “less than about 10 weight percent.”
Regarding claim 4, Titta does not explicitly disclose that the upgraded pyrolysis oil contains at least about 50 wt% less of the silicon compounds and at least 90 wt% less of the chloride compounds relative to the pyrolysis oil feed. However, given that the alkaline treatment step is conducted to remove chlorine contaminants and silicon contaminants and that the treated product may have broad ranges of chlorine and silicon contents (pg. 4, lines 28-34; cl. 4-5 and 12-13), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the operation conditions and arrive at the claimed chlorine and silicon content limitations. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests a process for treating a pyrolysis oil containing silicon compounds and chloride compounds with an aqueous alkaline hydroxide solution having a pH of about 10 or greater in a reaction vessel in three steps, first at 15-30°C, then at 15-225°C, and then at 15-30°C, wherein each step is followed by removal of an aqueous fraction from the reaction vessel.
Tiitta et al. (WO 2021/105326 A1), applied in the above rejection, provides no guidance which would have reasonably motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the alkaline treatment in three steps, first at 15-30°C, then at 15-225°C, and then at 15-30°C.
Bennett et al. (US 2014/0303421 A1) discloses a method for conditioning synthetic crude oils, such as plastic waste pyrolysis oil, the method comprising treating the synthetic crude oil with a process solution that is a caustic solution selected from potassium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, barium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, strontium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, or combinations thereof ([0021], [0027]-[0028]). Bennett teaches that the synthetic crude oil is maintained at a temperature within a range of about 100°F-175°F (37.8°C-79.4°C) throughout the condition process ([0044]; cl. 14). The reference, however, fails to teach or suggest operating the conditioning process in three streps, as required by the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights