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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 16-19, in the reply filed on 3/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/26/26.
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 1-13 and 16-19 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.
Regarding claims 1-13 and 16-19, in claim 1, the recitation in (b)(i) of “the gases present in the reactor” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims; it’s unclear if this is the same or different than earlier recited “a gas-phase product”, consistency would be needed if this is so, or deleting “the” in the recitation.
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 polystrenes 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).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kiedik et al (US 5,198,591) teaches manufacturing BPA. Evans (US 5,216,149) teaches pyrolysis of plastics. Miyamoto (US 6,750,314) teaches producing polycarbonate. Narayanaswamy (US 2014/0228606) teaches waste plastics pyrolysis. Wilhelmaus (US 2021/0277202) teaches waste plastics treatments. Slivensky (US 12,031,091, etc) teaches pyrolysis of waste plastics. Gold et al (US 12,410,370) teaches pyrolysis of waste plastics.
Conclusion
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