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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18825139 filed 9/5/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 11/5/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 9/5/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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, 2, 11, 16 and all dependent claims 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.
The term “predominantly” in claims 1, 2, 11 and 16 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominantly” 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. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WARD (US PG PUB 20160362609) in its entirety. Hereby referred to as WARD.
Regarding claims 1-20:
WARD teaches in para [0041] a pyrolysis reactor 2 and a hydrocracking unit 9. Mixed waste plastic 1 is introduced into pyrolysis reactor 2 resulting in a gas product 12 and a liquid product 5. Gas product 12 can be further separated into individual streams, like stream 13 comprising H.sub.2, CO, CO.sub.2, CH.sub.4, stream 14 comprising ethane, stream 15, comprising propane, stream 16, comprising butane and stream 17, comprising ethylene, propylene, butanes. Stream 14 can be further processed in a steam cracker, stream 15 in a propane dehydrogenation unit and stream 16 in a butane dehydrogenation unit, respectively. As mentioned before, mixed waste plastic (MWP) 1 can undergo a separation step (not shown here) for PVC removal before feeding the MWP to pyrolysis reactor 2. The segregated PVC stream can be thermally dehydrochlorinated at temperatures of up to 450 deg C. then fed to pyrolysis reactor 2.
WARD teaches in para [0042] liquid stream 5 from pyrolysis reactor 2 is separated in separation unit 4 into a stream 6 having high aromatics content and a stream 7 having a low aromatics content, wherein stream 7 having low aromatics content is sent to hydrocracker unit 9. Stream 7 is fed, together with a hydrocracker feed 3, to the inlet of hydrocracking unit 9. In hydrocracking unit 9 the mixed liquid feed thus introduced is in the presence of hydrogen (not shown) hydrocracked and converted into a gaseous product 11 and a liquid product 10, in which liquid product 10 can be further processed in different chemical processes. Gaseous product 11 will be further processed into valuable petrochemicals. Gas product 11 can be further separated into individual streams, like stream 13 comprising H2, CO, CO2, CH4, stream 14 comprising ethane, stream 15, comprising propane, stream 16, comprising butane and stream 17, comprising ethylene, propylene, butenes. Stream 14 can be further processed in a steam cracker, stream 15 in a propane dehydrogenation unit and stream 16 in a butane dehydrogenation unit. Gas product 11 can also be mixed with gas product 12, and the mixed gaseous product is further processed into valuable petrochemicals as discussed above. Examples of hydrocracker feed 3 are for example crude distillation bottoms from atmospheric distillation and/or vacuum distillation. Although unit 9 has been identified as a hydrocracking unit, unit 9 can also be a coker or a FCC unit. Examples of “valuable petrochemicals” as used herein relate to starting materials, such as for example H2, CO, CO2, CH4, ethane, propane, butanes, ethylene, propylene and butenes, but also to benzene, toluene and xylenes (BTX).
However, WARD do not teach that the pyrolysis oil has at least 35 wt.% of C8+ content hydrocarbons as claimed.
WARD as described above, teach that the pyrolysis oil comes from mixed plastic, WARD, teach separating the pyrolysis oil into various fractions, the gaseous fraction is steam cracked, the liquid fraction is cracked into desired petrochemicals, the desired petrochemicals have been taught and described. WARD teach splitting the pyrolysis liquid into aromatic and non-aromatic liquids which prior to cracking. The non-aromatic feed is mixed with a crude distillation bottoms feed or vacuum distillation feed which is the hydrocracked in a hydrocracker unit to produce aromatics. WARD further teach that if the petroleum feed includes asphaltenes there is no separation of the py-oil in into two fractions aromatic and non-aromatic, because with the straight pyrolysis stream because the aromatics in the stream will improve the overall conversion to aromatics. (see para [0047])
Regarding the limitation that the r-pyoil includes 35% by weight C8+ hydrocarbons, it appears that the separations into aromatic and non-aromatics, would provide a stream which includes C8+ hydrocarbons, because by looking at Table 2, the detailed hydrocarbon analysis of the mixed plastic pyrolysis stream is shown that Cs has a total of 35.63, the C9 component is 20.10 which appears that the C8+ pyoil of WARD, would meet applicant's limitation. It is maintained that when reading WARD for all what has been taught that applicant's invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing or the time it was made because WARD fully teaches pyrolysis of mixed plastics to produce a gaseous fraction and a py-oil, the py-oil is hydrocracked in an FCC unit. The hydrocracking of the pyrolysis oil, including adding a petroleum feed mixed with the pyrolysis oil to produce desired petrochemical has been taught. The specific content of carbon to produce a desired petrochemical or cracker feedstock which includes such as BTX with a desired purity and/or carbon fraction, has been taught and how one of ordinary skill would optimize the process. The concept of recycling the pyrolysis oils after hydrocracking back into the process has also been taught by WARD and when reading Ward for all what has been taught teaches applicant's concept of producing an olefin containing effluent wherein a hydrocarbon cracker stream is combined with a pyrolysis oil to form a combined cracker stream which is cracked in a FCC or cracking unit wherein the recycled pyoil is predominately C8+ rendering applicant's invention as a whole obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
Additionally, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Further, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. (US PG PUB 20160264874) teaches an integrated process involving the steps of pyrolysis hydrocracking hydrodealkylating and steam cracking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights