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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 18-29 in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 30-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. I includes the character “XII” which is not described in the instant specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7 is incorrect in two ways.
First, Fig. 7 contains incomprehensible text. Fig. 7 recites two text sections each containing “temperature chart with an actual within triply level in in condiencetion” which is entirely unclear. Each section also has text reciting “ml vapor [or vapure] from temperature”, this text is unclear as to the meaning within the chart. The instant specification does not provide any additional information which explains the content or purpose of the text sections.
Second, Fig. 7 appears to contain two diagrams of the same condenser unit and same chart, where there are only minor differences between the condenser units. However, Fig. 7 is described in the instant specification as showing further details about Fig. 6, where Fig. 6A contains two different condensers units. Thus, it is unclear if the duplicated Figure is purposeful, and even if the duplication is purposeful, the labelling is incorrect. Each drawing sheet should only contain a single view, unless the sheet is labeled as a partial view as in Figure 6A and Fig. 6B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 24, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 18, the claim recites in the preamble “production of hydrocarbon oils”. However, while the process is recited as producing a “heavy oil fraction” and a “light oil fraction”, these fractions are not explicitly recited as “hydrocarbon” oils as in the preamble. For clarity and consistency, the Examiner suggests amending the preamble to delete “hydrocarbon” or amending the last step to recite “a heavy hydrocarbon oil fraction” and a “light hydrocarbon oil fraction”.
With regard to claim 24, the claim has a space between the last word “agitation” and the period at the end of the claim. This space is a typographical error and should be removed such that the last word is “agitation.”
With regard to claim 26, the claim recites “the non-condensable gases formed in the auger reactor.” For antecedent basis purposes, this should be “the non-condensable vapours formed in the auger reactor.”
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 18-29 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 claims 18, 23, and 28, the claims each recite “an approximate range”. The term “approximate” in claims 18, 23, and 28 is a relative term which renders each claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification does not recite that the ranges are approximate. Thus, the ranges will be interpreted as including the listed values of 450-550, 500-550, and 60-75, respectively. The Examiner suggests that deleting the term “approximate” would correct the issue.
With regard to claim 19, the claim has the following issues:
i) In lines 1-2, the claim recites “wherein the plastic raw material includes at least one second raw material…” The phrase “the plastic raw material” lacks antecedent basis. Also, it is unclear whether the phrase “the plastic raw material includes at least one second raw material” is stating that there is a single “first plastic raw material” which comprises plastic and the “at least one second raw material”, or if the phrase is intended to imply that there is at least one “second raw material” which is also processed in the process along with the “first plastic raw material”. Thus, this phrasing is indefinite.
ii) In lines 2-4, the claim recites “at least one second raw material selected from the group consisting of (i) a hydrocarbon containing raw material selected among crumb rubber, and (ii) wood chunks…” The phrasing of “a hydrocarbon containing raw material selected among” is confusing because the rest of the phrase only includes the single option of “crumb rubber”, it is unclear how the material is “selected from” a single option.
iii) In line 4, the claim recites “the combined raw material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, for i) the instant specification recites that “the first raw material component in the form of plastic” and “a second raw material component” (page 3). Thus, it appears that the intention is that there is a raw material which comprises both the first plastic raw material and the second raw material selected from the listed components. The Examiner suggests “The method of claim 18, wherein the reaction composition further comprises at least one second raw material…” For ii) the phrasing in the instant specification is “a second raw material component selected among rubber and wood” which is later specified as crumb rubber (pages 3 and 9). Thus, the Examiner suggests rewording claim 19 to recite “a second raw material selected from the group consisting of (i) crumb rubber and (ii) wood…” For iii) the “combined raw material” is a total amount of the first plastic raw material and the second raw material (page 3). Thus, the Examiner suggests “a combined raw material” or “a total amount of the first plastic raw material and the at least one second raw material.”
With regard to claim 25, the claim recites “a step of regenerating coke forming catalysts…”. There is no previous recitation of “coke forming catalysts” being present. Further, regeneration is typically used to remove coke from catalysts. Thus, it is unclear what is present in the regenerating step, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification recites that the catalyst used in the pyrolysis becomes contaminated by coke deposition and must be regenerated by burning the coke, which takes place during the char treating step (paragraph bridging pages 5-6). As such, claim 25 will be understood as reciting regeneration of coke deposited on the catalyst used in the pyrolysis, where the regeneration takes place during the char treating step. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 20-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29, 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 18, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boysen (WO 2018/014922).
With regard to claims 18 and 20, Boysen teaches a method for pyrolysis of plastic (page 3, second paragraph) comprising the following steps (see Fig 2 and corresponding pages 13-16):
a) charging a mixture of plastic feed and catalyst through an airtight feed lock 301 (claimed airlock valve) to the pyrolysis reactor (page 16, second full paragraph). The pyrolysis reactor comprises two auger reactors 105 and 107 (page 15, first paragraph) which are heated to a temperature of 420-480°C (page 8, sixth paragraph), which overlaps the range of approximately 450-550°C of instant claim 18, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
b) passing vapors from each of the auger reactors 105, 107 to condensing devices 116, 118 (claimed at least two substeps instant claim 20) (page 14, second full paragraph) where the products of the condensing devices include heavy fuel oil 121, light fuel oil 122, and fuel gases (claimed non-condensable vapors) 123 (page 14, last paragraph). As there are no additional feeds to the condensing devices, the vapors from the auger reactors include the claimed “oil vapours and non-condensable vapours” which are then separately obtained from the condensers in Boysen.
With regard to claim 26, Boysen teaches the non-condensed fuel gas (claimed non-condensable gas) is cleaned and burned as fuel for the pyrolysis reactors (claimed heating the reactors at least partially by heat produced by a burner charged with the non-condensable gases) (page 19, first full paragraph).
Claims 19, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boysen (WO 2018/014922) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Van Thorre et al. (US 2014/0208638).
With regard to claims 19, 22, and 29, Boysen teaches the method above comprising a catalyst. Boysen further teaches that the feed to the pyrolysis reactor can also include tires along with the plastic (page 6, next to last paragraph).
Boysen does not specifically teach the tires are in the form of tire crumb and that the catalyst is a zeolite.
Van Thorre teaches a method for pyrolysis of plastics and tire crumb (page 9, claim 11) in a pyrolysis reactor comprising an auger (paragraph [0060]). Van Thorre further teaches adding a zeolite catalyst to the mixture of tire crumb and plastic before charging the mixture through an airlock into the reactor comprising the auger (paragraph [0066]). Van Thorre further teaches that the zeolite catalyst is effective at controlling the product produced by the reaction (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use tire in the form of tire crumb and zeolite as the catalyst (instant claim 22) in the process of Boysen, because Boysen teaches mixture of plastics and tires with a catalyst, but does not teach tire crumb or zeolite catalysts specifically, and Van Thorre teaches that tire in the form of tire crumb is known to be used in pyrolysis with plastics in an auger reactor and that zeolite catalysts are effective at controlling the product produced by the reaction (paragraph [0044]).
Boysen in view of Van Thorre is silent regarding the specific amount of each component in the mixture. However, when faced with a composition of two components, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that it would be obvious to try using equal parts, which is an amount of 50 wt% tire crumb and 50 wt% plastics, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try a combination of equal parts tire crumb and plastics without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. The amount of 50 wt% tire crumb is within the ranges of greater than 15% by weight of instant claim 19 and of no less than 30% by weight of instant claim 29.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boysen (WO 2018/014922) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Bitting et al. (US 2023/0072869).
With regard to claim 21, Boysen teaches that the feed can be a single feed such as tire shreds or roofing pelt or plastic (page 3, second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select only plastic, as this is one of a finite number of options taught by Boysen and does not require undue experimentation to select. Thus, Boysen renders obvious the feed not combined with a second material as claimed. Boysen also teaches that the catalyst comprises metal (page 16, second full paragraph).
Boysen does not specifically teach the catalyst can be alumina as the metal.
Bitting teaches a process for pyrolysis of plastic (paragraph [0004]). Bitting further teaches the pyrolysis can be performed in an screw (auger) reactor (paragraph [0103]) and with a catalyst which can be alumina (paragraph [0120]). Thus, Bitting teaches that alumina is a known metal catalyst for pyrolysis of plastics in an auger reactor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use alumina as the metal catalyst of Boysen, because each of Boysen and Bitting teach pyrolysis of plastics in an auger reactor in the presence of a catalyst and Bitting teaches the alumina is a known and preferred catalyst for the pyrolysis reaction (paragraph [0120]).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boysen (WO 2018/014922) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Heiskanen et al. (US 2018/0057753).
With regard to claims 23 and 25, Boysen teaches the catalytic pyrolysis above where solid is discharged from the pyrolysis reactor.
Boysen does not specifically teach combustion of char and regeneration of the catalyst.
Heiskanen teaches a method for catalytic pyrolysis (paragraph [0128]) of plastics (paragraph [0030]). Heiskanen further teaches that the catalytic pyrolysis produces char, and the char and the catalyst (instant claim 25) are conveyed to a char burner operated at low temperatures of at most 650°C in order to produce flue gases (paragraph [0130]) which comprise carbon monoxide (paragraph [0115]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that flue gas conventionally also comprises hydrogen. The range of at most 650°C overlaps the range of 500-550°C of instant claim 23, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boysen (WO 2018/014922) in view of Heiskanen et al. (US 2018/0057753) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Araùjo Carreira (US 2021/0308644).
With regard to claim 24, Boysen in view of Heiskanen teaches the method above comprising the char burner.
Boysen in view of Heiskanen does not specifically teach the char burner comprises an auger for agitation.
Araùjo Carreira teaches a pyrolysis plant for processing tire crumb (paragraph [0001]). Araùjo Carreira teaches that the plant comprises a char burner which comprises a screw (auger) which rotates (agitates) the char as it moves through the burner (paragraphs [0062]-[0064]). Thus, it is known to use a screw (auger) in a char burner to agitate the char.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the screw (auger) of Araùjo Carreira in the process of Boysen in view of Heiskanen, because each of Heiskanen and Araùjo Carreira teach pyrolysis of tires in a reactor and a char burner, and Araùjo Carreira teaches that the char burner can comprise a screw (auger) to agitate the char as it moves through the burner.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boysen (WO 2018/014922) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Green (US 6,048,374).
With regard to claims 27 and 28, Boysen teaches the process above, where the first condenser which obtains the high boiling oil is operated at a temperature of about 100-105°C (page 18, second paragraph) and the second condenser which obtains low boiling oil is operated at a temperature below the temperature of the first condenser (about 100-105°C) (page 19, first paragraph). The temperature of about 100-105°C overlaps the temperature of about 100°C of instant claim 27, rendering the temperature prima facie obvious. The temperature of less than about 100-105°C overlaps the range of 60-75°C of instant claim 28, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Boysen fails to teach the condensers are water cooled.
Green teaches a process for pyrolysis of plastics (column 3, lines 21-25) in multiple auger reactors (column 8, lines 51-52). Green further teaches that the process comprises condensing the liquid products in condensing units which are water cooled (column 7, line 64-column 8, line 5), Thus, Green teaches that it is known to cool condensers for pyrolysis oils from plastics with water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a first condenser cooled with boiling water and a second condenser cooled with warm water, as claimed, because Boysen teaches the condensers operating at temperatures which overlap the claimed temperatures, Green is silent regarding how the cooling is achieved, Green teaches that it is known to use water-cooled condensers to obtain pyrolysis oils, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that at the temperatures claimed the water in the first condenser would be boiling and the water in the second condenser would be warm, as claimed.
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