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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 19-36 are pending. This is the first Office Action on the merits.
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 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitting et al. (US 2021/0130699 A1, cited in IDS dated 06/03/2024).
Regarding claim 19, Bitting discloses a method comprising:
(a) providing a liquefied waste plastic feed ([0360]: “r-pyoil”);
(b) thermally cracking the liquefied waste plastic feed in a thermal cracking reactor ([0360]: “a feed stream comprising r-pyoil (the r-pyoil containing feed stream) may be introduced into a cracking furnace 20); and
(c) separating at least a fraction including ethylene from an effluent of the thermal cracking reactor (Fig. 4; [0359], [0547]-[0553]).
Bitting does not explicitly disclose that the liquefied waste plastic feed has a content ratio of i-olefins to n-olefins of 3.0 or less.
However, the instant specification discloses that the solid waste plastic that is subjected to the liquefaction preferably comprises polyolefin-rich waste plastic, most preferably polyethylene-rich waste plastic, because it can be easily converted into LWP feed having a low ratio i-olefins to n-olefins (Spec, pg. 32 line 23 – pg. 33, line 4). The specification further discloses that suitable liquefaction methods include thermal non-catalytic pyrolysis and thermal catalytic pyrolysis (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16). It is noted that the r-pyoil in Bitting is also obtained by thermal non-catalytic pyrolysis or thermal catalytic pyrolysis of waste plastics, including as polyethylene ([0304], [0310]-[0316]). Bitting further discloses that the waste plastic feed to the pyrolysis can consist essentially of or consist of high-density polyethylene or low-density polyethylene ([0305]). Therefore, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, and the claimed ratio of i-olefins to n-olefins of 3.0 or less is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting.
Regarding claim 20, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed ratio of i-olefins to n-olefins of “2.5 or less, 2.0 or less, 1.5 or less, 1.0 or less, 0.80 or less, 0.60 or less, and/or 0.50 or less” is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 21, Bitting does not explicitly disclose that the liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) has a total content of i-olefins, n-olefins, i-paraffins and n-paraffins of at least one or more of at least 40 wt.-%, at least 50 wt.-%, at least 55 wt.-%, at least 60 wt.-%, at least 65 wt.-% and/or at least 70 wt.-%. However, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed total content of i-olefins, n-olefins, i-paraffins and n-paraffins is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 22, Bitting discloses that the r-pyoil being fed to the cracking reactor may be at least 99.9 wt% liquid ([0402]), which renders obvious the claimed limitation “a total content of gaseous (NTP) components of at least one or more of 1.5 wt.-% or less, 1.0 wt.-% or less, and/or 0.5 wt.-% or less.”
Regarding claim 23, Bitting discloses that the r-pyoil may contain olefins in an amount of at least 10 wt% or not more than 80 wt% ([0375]).
Regarding claim 24, Bitting does not explicitly disclose that the liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) has a total content ratio of monoolefins to diolefins of “10 or more.” However, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed ratio of monoolefins to diolefins is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 25, Bitting discloses that the r-pyoil may have an n-paraffin to i-paraffin ratio of at least 0.5:1 ([0372]), which is equivalent to an i-paraffin to n-paraffin ratio of 2:0 or less.
Regarding claim 26, Bitting discloses that the r-pyoil may have at least 5 wt% paraffins ([0369]).
Regarding claim 27, Bitting does not explicitly disclose that the liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) has the claimed compositional characteristics, such as (i) total content of n-paraffins and n-olefins, (ii) content ratio of total n-paraffins and n-olefins to total i-paraffins and i-olefins, (iii) total content of n-olefins, i-olefins, and di-olefins, (iv) content ratio of total n-olefins and i-olefins to diolefins, and/or (v) total content of i-paraffins and i-olefins. However, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed compositional characteristics are considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 28, Bitting does not explicitly disclose that the liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) has the claimed compositional characteristics, such as (i) total content of C9 i-olefins, (ii) content of diolefins, and/or (iii) content of conjugated diolefins. However, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed compositional characteristics are considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 29, Bitting discloses that the r-pyoil may have an n-paraffin content of at least 5 wt% ([0341]).
Regarding claim 30, Bitting discloses that the thermal cracking reactor is a steam cracker operating steam cracking ([0404]).
Regarding claim 31, Bitting discloses that the thermal cracking is conducted in the presence of one or more non-recycle cracker feed streams, including naphtha ([0396]).
Regarding claim 32, Bitting discloses that the liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) is pretreated with pretreatments including removal of solid particles from the liquefied waste plastic, separation of gaseous components from the liquefied waste plastic, and hydrogenation ([0325]-[0326], [0328]).
Regarding claim 33, Bitting does not explicitly disclose that the liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) has a total content of i-olefins, n-olefins, i-paraffins and n-paraffins of at least one or more of 40 wt.-% to 100 wt.-%, 50 wt.-% to 100 wt.-%, 55 wt.-% to 100 wt.-%, 60 wt.-% to 100 wt.-%, 65 wt.-% to 100 wt.-%, and/or 70 wt.-% to 100 wt.-%. However, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed total content of i-olefins, n-olefins, i-paraffins and n-paraffins is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 34, the claim is directed to a product-by-process. Therefore, the claimed limitation is given no patentable weight beyond “a feed suitable for thermal cracking, having a content of i-olefins to n-olefins of 3.0 or less.”
In any event, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed ratio of i-olefins to n-olefins of “3.0 or less” is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 35, Bitting and the instant invention disclose the same method of obtaining a liquefied waste plastic feed, i.e., thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, as discussed above, and the claimed ratio of i-olefins to n-olefins of “2.5 or less, 2.0 or less, 1.5 or less, 1.0 or less, 0.80 or less, 0.60 or less, and/or 0.50 or less” is considered a result of predictable variations in the pyrolysis process contemplated by Bitting (Spec: pg. 33, line 31 – pg. 34, line 1; pg. 35, lines 1-16; Bitting: [0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316]).
Regarding claim 36, the claim is directed to a product-by-process. Therefore, the claimed limitation is given no patentable weight beyond “a feed suitable for thermal cracking.”
In any event, Bitting discloses a liquefied waste plastic feed (r-pyoil) derived from thermal pyrolysis of polyethylene, wherein the feed is pretreated with pretreatments including removal of solid particles from the liquefied waste plastic, separation of gaseous components from the liquefied waste plastic, and hydrogenation ([0304]-[0305], [0310]-[0316], [0325]-[0326], [0328]).
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