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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in section a) and b) of claim 1 “MPa abs.” should be “MPa abs,”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. (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 sections c) and d) use the phrase “substantially identical” which is not defined in the specification as to what “substantially identical” means in terms of a numerical value. For this reason, the phrase is indefinite.
Claim 1 section f) uses the phrase “and/or” which would be a broad limitation and a narrow limitation within the same claim. The claim should be broken up into a separate claim.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2019/0161683) in view of Guttierrez (WO 2014/001632) and Gruia (US 5,007,998).
Regarding claims 1-17, Narayanaswamy teaches a method for pyrolysis of waste plastics followed by a hydroprocessing stage, in order to make feedstock for a steam cracker (Para. [0029], [0031], [0049], [0056], [0073], and [0102] and see Figure). Narayanaswamy teaches that the hydroprocessing can be performed in one or more fixed bed [0057] and include various processes including combinations of hydrogenation of olefins (reads on claimed selective hydrogenation), hydrotreatment, and hydrocracking reactions [0056], [0058]. Narayanaswamy teaches nickel molybdenum catalysts on alumina or zeolites [0060}. Narayanaswamy teaches hydroprocessing conditions of 100-500°C, 1-200 barg, and space velocity of 0.1-10hr-1 [0066], which encompasses the conditions recited in claimed steps a)-c). Narayanaswamy teaches separation of hydroprocessing products (see Figure).
Examiner considers Narayanaswamy teaching of combinations of hydrogenation, hydrotreatment, and hydrocracking, as well as multiple fixed beds, to include operations using separate stages. Examiner additionally notes that since the claimed conditions are within the ranges described by Narayanaswamy, it is expected that the same or similar reactions would occur.
Narayanaswamy does not explicitly disclose (1) separation of liquid effluent from the hydroprocessed product, separation temperature (2) two stages of separation and hydrocracking of the 175°C+
Regarding (1), Gutierrez teaches a similar process for hydrotreatment of pyrolysis oil. Gutierrez teaches separating aqueous streams for hydroprocessed pyrolysis oil effluent and recycling the water as needed in other stages of the process (page 15, lines 20-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed Gutierrez separation of water, in order to provide to other stages of process where the water is needed.
Regarding (2), Gruia teaches a similar process for hydrocracking of hydrocarbon feeds. Gruia 15. teaches hydrocracking (stage 2) followed by separation of gases (5) and further fractionation (11) and sending heavy stream (12) boiling above 204°C to hydrocracking zone (13), and recycling the hydrocracked effluent (14) to gas separation step (5) (figure 2, column 11, line 64-column 12, line 50 and column 7, lines 25-35). Gruia teaches hydrocracking (13) temperatures of 50-454°C, pressures of atmospheric -3000 psig, and space velocity of 0.05-20 hr-1 in order to hydrogenate and convert heavy polynuclear aromatic compounds (column 8, lines 1-34). Gruia teaches that hydrocracking stage (13) enables the hydrocracking recycle (stream 20) to be maintained indefinitely without encountering fouling or precipitation problems (column 4, lines 50-55). Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art have selected separation conditions in order to achieve the desired fractions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have 16. performed the Gruia hydrocracking of the heavy stream in the process of Narayanaswamy, in order to enable indefinite hydrocracker recycle without encountering fouling or precipitation problems.
Gutierrez teaches pretreatment of plastic pyrolysis oil prior to hydroprocessing, including water wash, filtering, and extraction (page 9, lines 16-34). Narayanaswamy further teaches the hydroprocessing nickel molybdenum on 20. alumina and zeolites including y zeolite (Para. [0060]).
Conclusion
There was an unused X reference from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771