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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/13/26 have been fully and carefully considered.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted 7/13/26 (see arguments P 8).
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that the rejections over Bozi et al "Thermal decomposition of flame retarded polycarbonates", JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS, ELSEVIER BV, NL, vol. 79, no. 1-2, 19 April 2007 (2007-04-19), pages 337-345) taken in combination with Crawford et al (US 2022/018121) fails to fairly teach or suggest all limitations of the claims as amended, specifically that:
Crawford, which is relied upon for the continuous process, teaches away from a feed of polycarbonate-containing compound with phosphorous-containing organic compound because Crawford teaches phosphorous-containing compounds as “contaminants” (see arguments P9-P10 first paragraph). This is respectfully not found persuasive. Firstly, the nature of the phosphorous component as being considered a contaminant or not would still read upon the claim language that requires “phosphorous-containing organic compound”; additionally Crawford teaches the additional components may be “other amendments, introduced at the time of manufacture of the waste plastics” [0010], therefore if the compound is purposely added to a plastic, it wouldn’t necessarily be considered “bad” or “contaminant”, or limited, just as a component of the feed, which reads upon the claims. Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that Bozi is primarily relied upon for teaching the “phosphorous-containing organic compound”.
Crawford is broadly applied to waste plastics, i.e. a genus, rather than polycarbonates with phosphorous containing organic compounds, i.e. a species (see arguments P10, 2nd-3rd paragraphs). This is respectfully not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that Bozi is primarily relied upon for teaching the polycarbonate with phosphorous-containing organic compound, and the general teachings of Crawford shows that Crawford is in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore the rejections are maintained and this action will be made Final.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozi et al "Thermal decomposition of flame retarded polycarbonates", JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS, ELSEVIER BV, NL, vol. 79, no. 1-2, 19 April 2007 (2007-04-19), pages 337-345) taken in combination with Crawford et al (US 2022/018121).
Regarding claim 1, Bozi teaches introducing into a thermal decomposition reactor polycarbonates PC mixed with TBBA APP and TBP flame retardants, and then measuring the thermal decomposition pyrolysis gas generated by GC/MS techniques to determine the maximal rate of polycarbonate decomposition and formation of phenols from the BPA segments of the PCs (title, abstract) Bozi teaches the feed of TBBA, TBP and APP in the PC feeds (therefore having expected similar formal oxidation states as claimed) are pyroylyzed at from 550-700 C in a flash pyrolysis reactor, with helium as carrier gas, i.e. low O2 present, where the pyrolysis gases are analyzed for compositions in GC/MS, which is held at 300C at 10C/min change, and the temperature of the gas, i.e. pyrolysate, transfer line and source of mass spectrometer was 280 and 200 C, respectively (See 2. Experimental, P338-339), Bozi’s results found characteristic changes in the case of ammonium polyphosphate (APP) blended polycarbonates based upon yields of compounds, including formation of gases and char (see results P339-344), and concludes that under gradual heating APP from the polycarbonate chain decomposes by hydrolysis of carbonate groups and APP accelerates disproportionation of BPA segments (see conclusion, P344-345).
However, due to the lab scale nature of Bozi, Bozi is silent to the continuous process wherein the char, pyrolysis residue, is discharged from the reactor.
Crawford teaches a method for recycling of waste plastics by pyrolysis (title, abstract), Crawford teaches waste plastic feed 14, of many possible types having impurities [0010], is provided to pretreating section 20 and then fed to pyrolysis reactor 12, where solid residue is recovered 18 and separated gas transfer line 16 removes pyrolysate to quench system 22 and subsequent separation system to recover product 38 from the gas of the pyrolysis reactor (Fig 1, [0009-0033]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bozi from a laboratory scale to an industrial scale as taught by Crawford, for treating waste plastics of known varieties as taught by Crawford, and obtain continuous output streams of pyrolysis residue and gases to be further treated as taught by Crawford motivated to increase the process of Bozi to larger scales.
Regarding claim 2 and 17, the pyrolysis temperature ranges taught by Bozi are substantially overlapping with the claimed ranges which is held to be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, in modified Bozi, optimizing the superficial gas velocity is a question of scale routine to the skilled artisan and would be obvious to optimize the ranges claimed through routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 18, in modified Bozi, Bozi has substantially taught the polycarbonates as claimed including BPA.
Regarding claims 6-9, in modified Bozi, Bozi has substantially taught the phosphorous compounds as claimed.
Regarding claims 10-11, in modified Bozi, Bozi has substantially taught high impact polystyrenes present in the feed (P338, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, in modified Bozi, Bozi has substantially taught the compounds are present as a mixture which when using waste plastics would be granular.
Regarding claim 13, in modified Bozi, Bozi has substantially taught filler, i.e. resins and others (P338, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, in modified Bozi, Bozi has taught the feed of TBBA, TBP and APP in the PC feeds (therefore having expected similar formal oxidation states as claimed) are pyroylyzed at from 550-700 C in a flash pyrolysis reactor, with helium as carrier gas, i.e. low O2 present, where the pyrolysis gases are analyzed for compositions in GC/MS, which is held at 300C at 10C/min change, and the temperature of the gas, i.e. pyrolysate, transfer line and source of mass spectrometer was 280 and 200 C, respectively (See 2. Experimental, P338-339).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozi et al "Thermal decomposition of flame retarded polycarbonates", JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS, ELSEVIER BV, NL, vol. 79, no. 1-2, 19 April 2007 (2007-04-19), pages 337-345) taken in combination with Crawford et al (US 2022/018121) as applied above and further in combination with either of Slivensky (US 12,031,091) and/or Narayanaswamy et al (US 2014/00228606).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bozi teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Bozi does not teach wherein said pyrolysis feedstock introduced in step (a) also comprises at least one catalyst from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, chromium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, combinations of aluminum oxide with magnesium oxide and/or calcium oxide, aluminosilicates, silicon aluminum phosphates, silicalite, spinels, and clays.
Slivensky teaches a method for producing pyrolysis oil from recycled wastes, i.e. plastics (title, abstract), recycled wastes may include polycarbonates (C23:L33-54), Slivensky teaches introducing with the plastic feed a pyrolysis catalyst, including alumina, silica alumina, metal oxides, etc (See Fig 2, C29:L12-33).
Narayanaswamy teaches conversion of plastics to products in pyrolysis (title, abstract), Narayanaswamy teaches in pyrolysis reactor 52 plastic feed, that can be polycarbonates, can be mixed with a catalyst, including ZSM-5 aluminasilicate, introduced into pyrolysis reactor 52, and converted to products that are fractionated and separated (Fig 4, [0070-0079,0116-0118]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the inventions to modify the process of Bozi to incorporate a catalyst to the pyrolysis process because catalysts were well-known to facilitate reactions, including pyrolysis reactions, and as taught by Slivensky and/or Narayanaswamy were routinely incorporated into pyrolysis of waste plastics including polycarbonates to facilitate the pyrolysis process and obtain desired compounds.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights