DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites in step (ii) “reactor vessel”, in step (iii) “the reactor vessel” and “the vessel”, and in step (iv) “the reaction vessel”. For antecedent basis purposes and for consistency the phrase “reactor vessel” should be recited in all four places.
Also with regard to claim 1, the claim recites in step (iii) “the generated hydrogen chloride (B)”. For antecedent basis purposes “the” should be deleted, such that the phrase is “generated hydrogen chloride (B)”.
With regard to claim 2, the claim recites in line 2 “the total weight”. This should be “a total weight” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claim 7, the claim is redundant and contains unnecessary verbiage. The Examiner suggests:
“Process according to claim 1, wherein the separation step (v) comprises passing the plastics stream (C) over a filter system to obtain a dechlorinated waste plastics stream (D) and a solid partially unsaturated PVC stream (F).”
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites “the evacuated HCl stream (B)”. For consistency with claim 1, claim 8 should be amended to “the evacuated hydrogen chloride (B)” or claim 1 step (iii) should be amended to “evacuating a generated HCl stream (B).
With regard to claim 9, the claim recites “the evacuated HCl-containing stream (B)…”. For consistency in the claims, claim 9 should be amended to match whatever wording is selected for claim 8 above.
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites “the total weight”. This should be “a total weight” for antecedent basis purposes.
Also with regard to claim 10, the claim recites “wherein the stream (H) comprises ≥ 0.1 and ≤ 10.0 wt% of plastics, with regard to the total weight of stream (E).” This recitation of “stream (E)” is a typographical error of “stream (H)”.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 1-15 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.
With regard to claim 1, step (iii) recites “subjecting the plastics in the reactor vessel to a temperature…” However, the claim previously recites only “a plastics stream (A) and a solvent” being supplied to the reactor vessel. It is unclear if “the plastics” in the vessel are only plastics stream (A) or if additional plastics are added. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that it is the “plastics stream (A)” which is subjected to the temperature in step (iii). Appropriate correction to step (iii) is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the plastics are present in the reactor vessel…in a molten state, as a slurry, or as a solution.” It is unclear whether “the plastics” of claim 3 is the plastic stream (A) before dechlorinating, or the plastics stream (C) after dechlorinating, as both are present in the reactor vessel. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, instant claim 4 describes melting the plastics in an extruder before supplying the molten plastics to the dechlorination reactor vessel. Thus, it appears it is the plastics stream (A) which is in a molten state, slurry, or solution, and claims 3 will be interpreted as such.
With regard to claims 2 and 4-15, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2024/0191148) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644).
With regard to claim 1, Patel teaches a method for reducing chlorine content from co-processing of plastics in a refinery process such as coking (Abstract), comprising the following steps:
(i) and (ii) mixing a plastics feedstock comprising a chlorine-containing polymer with an additional feedstock (solvent) (paragraph [0013]), where the chlorine containing polymer is PVC (paragraph [0035]).
(iii) dechlorinating the mixture in a vessel at a temperature of 170 to 250°C (paragraph [0013]), which touches the range of ≥ 250°C to <350°C as claimed, rendering the range prima facie obvious. Patel further teaches the dechlorination includes passing a purge gas stream through the reactor (paragraph [0013]) where the purge gas stream is nitrogen (inert) and is used to remove the HCl from the vessel (paragraph [0048]).
(vii) mixing the dechlorinated mixture with recycle from the co-processing stage (coking) (paragraph [0052]).
(viii) mixing the combined plastics and recycled coker stream with a supplemental conventional coker feedstock to meet chlorine specifications (paragraph [0052]).
(ix) coking the mixture to produce a solid coke product and at least one liquid product fraction (paragraph [0078]).
Patel fails to teach i) the dechlorination produces partially unsaturated PVC in the dechlorinated mixture; ii) separating at least part of the partially unsaturated PVC from the dechlorinated mixture; or iii) separating the solvent in a solvent recovery system from the dechlorinated mixture.
With regard to i), Patel teaches the same plastics feed comprising PVC mixed with a solvent and reacted at a temperature which overlaps the claimed temperature for the same purpose of dechlorinating the mixture. Therefore, while Patel does not explicitly teach the presence of partially unsaturated PVC, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the presence of partially unsaturated PVC in the mixture of Patel which is formed from the same process, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to ii) and iii), Li teaches a method for treating waste plastics (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps:
a) contacting waste plastics with a solvent and heating to dechlorinate the plastics (paragraph [0083]).
b) separating the waste plastics from the dechlorinated mixture (paragraph [0083]).
c) separating PVC particles from the solvent in a solvent recovery unit (paragraph [0084]).
Li further teaches that the steps of separating the PVC and separating the solvent allow for the remaining plastics to have a low impurity composition including a chlorine content of less than 20 µg/g (20 ppm) (paragraph [0053]).
Li does not specifically teach the claimed order of steps, where the PVC is removed from the mixture and then the solvent is removed after the PVC is removed. However, this is merely a selection of the order of steps, which is prima facie obvious absent any criticality or unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the steps of Li in the process of Patel, because Patel and Li each teach dechlorination of waste plastics comprising PVC by mixing with a solvent and heating, and Li teaches that separating the solid PVC particles and solvent from the dechlorinated plastics allows producing a dechlorinated mixture having a low impurity composition including a chlorine content of less than 20 ppm (paragraph [0053]).
With regard to claim 2, Patel teaches that the plastics stream in an embodiment comprises 0.001 to 10 wt% of the feedstock (paragraph [0035]), which is within the range of ≤ 10 wt% of instant claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, Patel teaches that the plastics are present in the additional feedstock (solvent) in the vessel as a solution (paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claim 7, Li teaches that the separation of the PVC includes filtration to remove the PVC as a solid and produce the liquid comprising the organic solvent (paragraph [0065]).
With regard to claim 10, Patel teaches that the feed stream to the coking comprising the dechlorinated mixture of plastics, supplemental feedstock, and recycle comprises at least 50 wt% recycle feedstock (paragraph [0055]). Thus, the plastics comprise up to 50 wt% of the feed to the coker (stream (H)), which overlaps the range of 0.1 to 10 wt% of instant claim 10, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 11, Patel teaches the coking comprises delayed coking, which comprises passing the feed to a pre-heater (furnace) and then to a coke drum to produce the coke and liquid product (paragraph [0101]).
With regard to claim 12, Patel teaches that the coker feed (stream (H)) is preheated to 480-520°C (paragraph [0101]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that preheating implies that the original temperature is less than 480-520°C. The range of less than 520°C overlaps the range of 300-450°C of instant claim 12, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 15, Patel teaches that the pressure of the coke drum is 100 to about 550 kPa (paragraph [0101]), which is within the range of 100 to 600 kPa of instant claim 15.
Claims 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2024/0191148) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275).
With regard to claim 4, Patel in view of Li teaches the process above.
Patel does not specifically teach passing the plastics through an extruder before mixing with the solvent for dechlorination.
Tadauchi teaches a process for pyrolytically decomposing waste plastic (column 1, lines 16-17) comprising heating a plastic material to 300-350°C in a heating unit (reactor vessel) to produce a molten plastic and hydrogen chloride, and removing the hydrogen chloride gas from the plastic material (column 36, lines 58-66). Tadauchi teaches that the process further comprises melting the plastic before passing to the vessel for the dechlorination step (column 16, lines 13-16) where the melting is performed at a temperature of 150-250°C (column 15, lines 65-67), which is within the range of ≤250°C of instant claim 4. Tadauchi further teaches that the melting is performed in an extruder (column 16, lines 9-10). Tadauchi additionally teaches that the preliminary step in the extruder enhances the later reaction steps (column 16, lines 13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of passing the plastics through an extruder before mixing with the solvent for the dechlorination, because Patel and Tadauchi each teach dechlorination of plastics comprising a dechlorination step to remove HCl gas, and Tadauchi teaches that adding the step of extruding the plastics at the claimed temperature before dechlorination enhances the later reaction steps (column 16, lines 13-15).
With regard to claim 8, Patel in view of Li teaches the method above, which produces HCl containing purge gas (paragraph [0048]).
Patel in view of Li fails to teach caustic treatment of the purge gas.
Tadauchi teaches a process for pyrolytically decomposing waste plastic (column 1, lines 16-17) comprising heating a plastic material to 300-350°C in a heating unit (reactor vessel) to produce a molten plastic and hydrogen chloride, and removing the hydrogen chloride gas from the plastic material (column 36, lines 58-66). Tadauchi further teaches washing the gaseous product by a shower of alkali liquid to convert hydrogen chloride to harmless salt (column 19, lines 2-6) where the alkaline material can be sodium hydroxide and the salt produced is NaCl (column 12, lines 41-45 and Formula 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to wash the purge gas comprising HCl of Patel as taught by Tadauchi, because each of Patel and Tadauchi teach dechlorination to produce a gaseous stream comprising HCl, Patel is silent regarding any further treatment, and Tadauchi teaches that caustic treatment converts the HCl to harmless salt (column 19, lines 2-6).
With regard to claim 9, Patel in view of Li teaches the method above. Patel further teaches that when the dechlorination is performed at a higher temperature, it can provide the benefits of increasing the rate of chlorine removal, thus potentially increasing the volume of feedstock which can be processed within the system (paragraph [0031]). However, the increased temperature also increases the likelihood that the stream comprising HCl purged from the system comprises hydrocarbons which should be recovered, increasing the number of components exposed to the corrosive gas (paragraph [0030]). Thus, Patel teaches the possibility of the purge gas containing hydrocarbons (medium) which can be recovered.
Patel in view of Li does not specifically teach recovering the hydrocarbons by condensing and then recycling the hydrocarbons to the reactor.
Tadauchi teaches a process for pyrolytically decomposing waste plastic (column 1, lines 16-17) comprising heating a plastic material to 300-350°C in a heating unit (reactor vessel) to produce a molten plastic and hydrogen chloride, and removing the hydrogen chloride gas from the plastic material (column 36, lines 58-66). Tadauchi further teaches condensing the gas product comprising HCl and hydrocarbons to produce an oil (column 19, lines 6-7), which can be recycled back to the vessel (column 7, lines 18-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the steps of condensing and recycling of Tadauchi to the process of Patel, because each of Patel and Tadauchi teaches a process which comprises dechlorination of plastics to produce a stream comprising HCl and hydrocarbons, Patel teaches the need to recover the hydrocarbons, and Tadauchi teaches condensing and recycling the hydrocarbons to the dechlorination step is known and useful (column 7, lines 18-19).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2024/0191148) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) and Tadauchi et al. (US 6,172,275) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chakraborty et al. (US 2022/0228070).
With regard to claim 5, Patel in view of Li and Tadauchi teaches the process above, comprising extruding the plastics to melt them (column 16, lines 9-10).
Patel in view of Tadauchi fails to teach preheating the molten waste plastics after the extruder and before entering the dechlorination step.
Chakraborty teaches a method for conversion of plastics (Abstract) comprising melting the plastics at a temperature low enough to avoid conversion (paragraph [0014]) followed by heating the molten plastics in a heat exchanger before passing to the reactor (paragraph [0023]). Chakraborty further teaches that the heating may be required to maintain flowability (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat the molten plastics after extrusion and before passing them to the dechlorination step of Patel Tadauchi, because each of Tadauchi and Chakraborty teach melting plastics followed by conversion, and Chakraborty further teaches the heating after the melting (extrusion) may be required to maintain flowability (paragraph [0023]).
Chakraborty does not explicitly the temperature of the heating step. However, Chakraborty teaches the heating may be required to maintain flowability (paragraph [0023]), and thus the temperature is a result-effective variable that will maintain the flowability of the plastics, and can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the temperature of the heating to 250-300°C, as claimed, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2024/0191148) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al. (US 4,713,168) as evidenced by Colorado School of Mines (Refinery Feedstocks & Products Properties & Specifications).
With regard to claims 6 and 14, Patel teaches the process above. Patel further teaches that the solvent is any feedstock suitable for the coking which has a T5 distillation or boiling point higher than the temperature of the dechlorination process (greater than 250°C) (paragraph [0047]).
Patel does not specifically teach vacuum gas oil having a boiling point range of 250-600°C as an additional feed (solvent).
Newman teaches delayed coking of feedstocks (Abstract) where the feedstock includes vacuum gas oil (column 2, lines 44-45). Colorado School of Mines teaches that the boiling point of vacuum gas oil ranges from 340-570°C (page 21), which is within the range of 250-600°C of instant claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use vacuum gas oil having the claimed boiling point range as the additional feed (solvent) in Patel, because Patel teaches that any feedstock suitable for coking is suitable for the solvent, and Newman and Colorado School of Mines evidence that vacuum gas oil is known to be used as a coker feedstock and known to have a boiling point above the temperature of the dechlorination process (greater than 250°C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2024/0191148) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Koseoglu (US 2012/0298552).
With regard to claim 13, Patel in view of Li teaches the process above, where the stream is heated in the furnace of a delayed coker.
Patel does not explicitly teach the furnace comprises heating tubes by external energy to a temperature of 450-550°C
Koseoglu teaches a process for delayed coking of hydrocarbon oils (Abstract). Koseoglu teaches that the furnace for delayed cracking is known to comprise horizontal tubes which heat the feed to a temperature of 485-505°C and then pass the heated feed to the drum (paragraph [0002]). This temperature is within the range of 450-550°C of instant claim 13. Koseoglu further teaches that the tube furnace heated with burning fuel (external heat energy) is widespread and preferred for the delayed coker (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the furnace of Koseoglu in the process of Patel, because each of Patel and Koseoglu teach delayed coking in a unit comprising a furnace and coke drum, Patel is silent regarding the specifics of the furnace, and Koseoglu teaches that a furnace comprising heated tubes from burning fuel is widespread and preferred for the process (paragraph [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights