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 .
The amendments filed 8/11/26 overcome the rejections set forth under 35 USC 112(b) in the office action mailed 5/11/26. A new ground of rejection under 35 USC 112(b), necessitated by the amendments, is set forth below. The rejections set forth under 35 USC 103 in the office action mailed 5/11/26 are maintained below, and the discussions of the rejections have been updated as necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is 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.
In amended claim 5, “selected from one or more of” should be “selected from the group consisting of” in order to properly define the members of the Markush group.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timken (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0301209) in view of Ino (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2003/006168).
In Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 30-49 Timken discloses a system and method for processing mixed plastic waste, where a mixture of polyethylene and polypropylene (PE/PP) 21, along with small amounts of other plastics, are passed to a pyrolysis unit 23, meeting the limitations of the inlet stream and plastic pyrolysis unit of claim 1. It is noted that while claim 1 has been amended to recite “unsorted” mixed plastics, the composition of unsorted mixed plastics can vary, and the application does not contain any definition of “unsorted mixed plastics” that distinguishes over the plastic waste feedstock of Timken. In particular, paragraph 28 of the current specification discloses that the plastic feedstock can comprise polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyethylene terephthalate. Paragraph 33 of Timken indicates that the feedstock of the reference can include polystyrene and polyethylene terephthalate, as well as other polymers, as long as the contents are limited within certain ranges. The “unsorted mixed plastics” of amended claim 1 therefore do not distinguish the claim over Timken.
The pyrolysis oil produced from the pyrolysis unit contains a naphtha/diesel fraction 25 and a heavy fraction 26, and is passed to a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit 28, meeting the limitations of the catalytic cracking feed stream of claim 1, and requiring that the inlet of the FCC unit be in fluid communication with the outlet of the pyrolysis unit, corresponding to the catalytic cracking feed stream inlet and plastic pyrolysis oil outlet of claim 1. The FCC unit produces product streams 29 through 33, corresponding to the product stream of claim 1. While Timken does not specifically disclose the boiling points of the naphtha, diesel, and heavy fractions of the pyrolysis oil, Timken discloses in Table 1 that the pyrolysis oil has fractions that boil within all the ranges recited in claim 1 (36° C = 96.8° F, 180° C = 356° F, 370° C = 698° F), and by definition the naphtha, diesel, and vacuum gas oil (heavy) fractions boil within the ranges recited in claim 1.
In paragraph 74 and Figure 2 Timken discloses feeding “the entire pyrolysis feedstock” to the FCC unit, meeting the limitations of amended claim 1 regarding providing the pyrolysis oil provided directly from the plastic pyrolysis unit without removing metal constituents.
In paragraphs 76-78 (including Table 6) Timken discloses cofeeding the pyrolysis oil to the FCC unit along with vacuum gas oil, which is a conventional FCC feedstock (“Vacuum gas oil (VGO) is the typical feed for FCC”, paragraph 76 of Timken), meeting the limitations of claim 5. While Timken discloses in paragraph 73 that “some pyrolysis oils” having high levels of impurities such as metals can be feed to an FCC feed treater unit prior to the FCC unit, this is not a required step, and Timken’s teaching that the treater unit removes “the bulk of the impurities” indicates that some impurities, including metal, can be present in the FCC feedstock. In Table 1 Timken further indicates that the pyrolysis oils comprise metals such as iron. In Example 7 (paragraphs 76-80) Timken discloses feeding Samples A and C of Table 1, which contain metal, to the FCC unit.
The difference between Timken and the currently presented claims is that Timken does not specifically disclose that the FCC unit comprises a fluidized bed reactor and a catalyst regenerator as recited in claim 1, nor does Timken specifically disclose the details of the FCC unit recited in the dependent claims. Timken does disclose in paragraph 38 that FCC uses a high activity zeolite catalyst.
Ino, in paragraph 7, discloses FCC units having a downer reaction zone and a regenerator, where the catalyst is kept in a fluidized state, corresponding to the fluidized bed reactor and the catalyst regenerator of claim 1. In paragraph 27 and Figure 1 Ino discloses that the regenerated catalyst and the feed are passed to a mixing zone, where the inlets of the mixing zone meet the limitations of the catalyst inlet and the catalytic cracking feed stream inlet of claim 1, and where the catalyst circulates from the regenerator to the reactor and back to the regenerator, also as recited in claim 1.
As noted above, the reactor of Ino is a downer, as recited in claim 3.
In paragraph 35 Ino discloses that a catalyst mixture comprising a base cracking catalyst and an additive is used in the FCC unit, as recited in claim 6. Ino further discloses in paragraph 35 hat the cracking catalyst comprises a USY (ultra stable Y-type) catalyst, as recited in claim 7. In paragraph 41 Ino discloses that the catalyst additive can be various shape-selective zeolites recited in claims 8-9. In paragraphs 41 and 43 Ino discloses that that the amount of shape-selective zeolite in the FCC catalyst additive and the amount of FCC catalyst additive in the FCC catalyst mixture can be in the ranges recited in claim 10.
The use of the FCC unit of Ino as the FCC unit in the system of Timken therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-2 and 4-5, and the use of the catalyst mixture of Ino as the catalyst in the FCC unit further meets the limitations of claims 6-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the FCC unit of Ino as the FCC unit in the system of Timken, including the use of the catalyst mixture of Ino as the catalyst in the FCC unit, , since Ino teaches in paragraphs 2, 10 and 52 that the FCC unit and the catalyst mixture lead to increased yield of light-fraction olefins, such as the ethylene desired in the process of paragraphs 9 and 11 of Timken.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timken (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0301209) in view of Koseoglu (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2017/017430).
In Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 30-49 Timken discloses a system and method for processing mixed plastic waste, where a mixture of polyethylene and polypropylene (PE/PP) 21, along with small amounts of other plastics, are passed to a pyrolysis unit 23, meeting the limitations of the inlet stream and plastic pyrolysis unit of claim 1. It is noted that while claim 1 has been amended to recite “unsorted” mixed plastics, the composition of unsorted mixed plastics can vary, and the application does not contain any definition of “unsorted mixed plastics” that distinguishes over the plastic waste feedstock of Timken. In particular, paragraph 28 of the current specification discloses that the plastic feedstock can comprise polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyethylene terephthalate. Paragraph 33 of Timken indicates that the feedstock of the reference can include polystyrene and polyethylene terephthalate, as well as other polymers, as long as the contents are limited within certain ranges. The “unsorted mixed plastics” of amended claim 1 therefore do not distinguish the claim over Timken.
The pyrolysis oil produced from the pyrolysis unit contains a naphtha/diesel fraction 25 and a heavy fraction 26, and is passed to a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit 28, meeting the limitations of the catalytic cracking feed stream of claim 1, and requiring that the inlet of the FCC unit be in fluid communication with the outlet of the pyrolysis unit, corresponding to the catalytic cracking feed stream inlet and plastic pyrolysis oil outlet of claim 1. The FCC unit produces product streams 29 through 33, corresponding to the product stream of claim 1. While Timken does not specifically disclose the boiling points of the naphtha, diesel, and heavy fractions of the pyrolysis oil, Timken discloses in Table 1 that the pyrolysis oil has fractions that boil within all the ranges recited in claim 1 (36° C = 96.8° F, 180° C = 356° F, 370° C = 698° F), and by definition the naphtha, diesel, and vacuum gas oil (heavy) fractions boil within the ranges recited in claim 1.
In paragraphs 73-74 Timken discloses that the pyrolysis oil can be fed to a treater unit to remove impurities such as metals before feeding to the FCC unit, meeting the limitations of the demetallization unit of claim 4. In paragraphs 76-78 (including Table 6) Timken discloses cofeeding the pyrolysis oil to the FCC unit along with vacuum gas oil, which is a conventional FCC feedstock (“Vacuum gas oil (VGO) is the typical feed for FCC”, paragraph 76 of Timken), meeting the limitations of claim 5.
The difference between Timken and the currently presented claims is that Timken does not specifically disclose that the FCC unit comprises a fluidized bed reactor and a catalyst regenerator as recited in claim 1, nor does Timken specifically disclose the details of the FCC unit recited in the dependent claims. Timken does disclose in paragraph 38 that FCC uses a high activity zeolite catalyst.
Koseoglu, in paragraph 7, discloses FCC units including fluidized bed reactors, as recited in claim 1, noting that the “comprising” language of the claim allows for multiple fluidized bed reactors, and a catalyst regenerator, also as recited in claim 1. The first reactor of Koseoglu comprises a catalyst inlet, as recited in claim 1, as well as a feedstock inlet (light fuel fraction inlet), corresponding to the catalytic cracking feed stream inlet of claim 1. The catalyst regenerator is in fluid communication with the catalyst inlet and may circulate from the regenerator to the fluidized bed reactors, as recited in claim 1.
In paragraphs 11-12 and Figures 1-2, discloses riser and downer FCC reactor units, as recited in claims 2-3.
In paragraph 40 Koseoglu discloses that an FCC catalyst mixture including an FCC base cracking catalyst and an FCC catalyst additive can be used in the FCC unit, as recited in claim 6. In paragraph 42 Koseoglu discloses that the catalyst additive can be various shape-selective zeolites recited in claims 8-9. In paragraphs 42 and 44 Koseoglu discloses that that the amount of shape-selective zeolite in the FCC catalyst additive and the amount of FCC catalyst additive in the FCC catalyst mixture can be in the ranges recited in claim 10.
The use of the FCC unit of Koseoglu as the FCC unit in the system of Timken therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-5, and the use of the catalyst mixture of Koseoglu as the catalyst in the FCC unit further meets the limitations of claims 6 and 8-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the FCC unit of Koseoglu as the FCC unit in the system of Timken, since Koseoglu teaches that it is a suitable unit for fluid catalytic cracking, and to provide cracking of both the pyrolysis oil of Timken and a heavy co-feed, noting that Koseoglu defines in paragraph 17 a heavy fuel fraction as any fraction that has a higher average boiling point than the lighter fuel fraction, and therefore Koseoglu does not preclude combining the pyrolysis oil of Timken with a vacuum gas oil prior to feeding to the FCC unit, as contemplated by Timken, while providing further vacuum gas oil to the second reactor of Koseoglu. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the catalyst mixture of Koseoglu as the catalyst in the FCC unit, since Koseoglu teaches that it is a suitable catalyst mixture for the FCC unit, and further teaches in paragraph 40 that the catalyst mixture promotes formation of olefins.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timken in view of Koseoglu as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Ino.
The discussions of Timken, Koseoglu, and Ino in paragraphs 4-5 above are incorporated here by reference. Timken and Koseoglu disclose a system meeting the limitations of claim 6, and Koseoglu discloses in paragraph 41 that the base cracking catalyst can be a Y-zeolite, but does not specifically disclose ultra stable Y-type (USY) catalysts. Ino, as discussed in paragraph 7 above, discloses a combination of USY catalysts with the same catalyst additives disclosed by Koseoglu. The use of the USY catalysts of Ino as the Y-zeolite catalyst in the catalyst mixture of Koseoglu therefore meets the limitations of claim 7, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Ino teaches that they use of the catalyst mixture comprising the USY catalysts and the shape-selective zeolite catalyst additives leads to increased yields of light olefins.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Timken discloses that pyrolysis products with high impurity levels are preferentially fed to an FCC feed treater unit before the FCC unit, while the claims require that the plastic pyrolysis oil be provided directly from a plastic pyrolysis unit without removing the at least one metallic constituent from the plastic pyrolysis oil. However, as discussed in the above rejections, Timken discloses in paragraph 74 and Figure 2, as well as the examples, that the pyrolysis oil can be fed directly to the FCC unit, and that the pyrolysis oil fed to the FCC unit can be metal-containing. Applicant argues that Table 1 of Timken discloses the presence of metals at “trace levels” and therefore does not meet the claim limitation requiring the plastic pyrolysis oil to comprise at least one metallic constituent. The claims, however, do not recite any minimum concentrations for the at least one metallic constituent, and the only disclosure of metal concentrations in the current application, in Tables 2 and 3A of the specification, are at the parts per million or parts per billion levels, similar to that of Timken. There is therefore no support for the position that “comprising at least one metallic constituent” requires metal concentrations higher than those disclosed by Timken.
Applicant also argues that Timken uses sorted plastics as a feedstock, while the claims have been amended to recite an unsorted mixed plastic feedstock. As discussed in the rejections, neither the claim nor the specification defines unsorted mixed plastic in compositional terms that distinguish the claims over Timken, noting that the current specification discloses that the mixed plastics can be a mixture of polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyethylene terephthalate also disclosed by Timken.
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 JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
