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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lange et al. (WO 2020/212315 A1)
Lange discloses a chemical recycling process in which waste plastic is thermally pyrolyzed to produce a pyrolysis oil, the pyrolysis oil is subjected to liquid-liquid solvent extraction to produce a raffinate and an extract, the raffinate is depleted in aromatic hydrocarbons and conjugated aliphatic compounds having two or more carbon-carbon double bonds (dienes) relative to the pyrolysis oil, the extract is enriched in those compounds, and the raffinate is introduced into a steam cracker for olefin production (see Fig. 1; pp. 3–11).
Claim 1
Lange discloses thermally pyrolyzing waste plastic to produce a pyrolysis oil stream; separating the pyrolysis oil stream into a raffinate stream and an extract stream, wherein the raffinate is depleted in aromatics and dienes and the extract is enriched in aromatics and dienes relative to the pyrolysis oil stream; and introducing the raffinate into a steam cracker (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; page 3, lines 7-32; page 4, line 21 through page 9 line 17; page 7, lines 20-26; page 8, lines 3-17; page 11, lines 1-11, page 14, lines 17-32, page 20, line 8 through page 21, line 3; page 21, line 30 through page 23 line 3).
Claim 2
Lange discloses recovering the aromatic- and diene-containing extract as a separate product stream following solvent extraction for subsequent recovery and utilization (Fig. 1; pp. 11).
Claim 6
For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 5, Lange anticipates the limitation that the raffinate comprises not more than 20 wt.% total diolefins.
Claim 8
Lange expressly teaches that the separation step comprises solvent extraction (Fig. 1; abstract; page 9, lines 12-17)
Claim 10
Lange discloses thermally pyrolyzing waste plastic to produce a pyrolysis effluent, condensing the pyrolysis effluent to form a pyrolysis oil stream, separating the pyrolysis oil by solvent extraction into a raffinate and an extract, combining the raffinate with cracker feed, cracking the combined feed in a steam cracker, compressing the cracked product, and separating hydrocarbon streams downstream of the cracker (see abstract; Figs. 1-3; page 3, lines 7-32; page 4, line 21 through page 9 line 17; page 7, lines 20-26; page 8, lines 3-17; page 11, lines 1-11, page 14, lines 17-32, page 20, line 8 through page 21, line 3; page 21, line 30 through page 23 line 3).
Claim 11
Lange expressly teaches that the raffinate is depleted in aromatics and dienes relative to the pyrolysis oil and that the extract is enriched in aromatics and dienes relative to the pyrolysis oil.
Claim 12
Lange expressly teaches solvent extraction.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 4, 5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. The process of Lange is discussed above.
Claim 4
Lange does not explicitly teach that fuels are produced with a portion of aromatic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Lange by producing a fuel from aromatic because it is well known that fuels such as jet fuel, gasoline and diesel comprised diesel. Therefore, utilizing aromatic from the process of Lange to produce fuels is within the level of one of skill in the art.
Claim 5
Lange does not expressly disclose that the combined total of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, styrene, and diolefins is 20 wt.% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the extraction process such that the combined concentration of these residual aromatic compounds and diolefins in the raffinate is 20 wt.% or less because the concentrations of these species are result-effective variables governed by extraction efficiency, solvent selection, solvent-to-feed ratio, extraction stages, and operating conditions, and optimization of such variables to obtain a desired raffinate composition would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7
Lange teaches solvent extraction of plastic-derived pyrolysis oil to produce:
a raffinate depleted in aromatic hydrocarbons and dienes; and
an extract containing and enriched in aromatic hydrocarbons and dienes.
Lange further identifies the dienes as conjugated aliphatic compounds having two or
more carbon-carbon double bonds and teaches recovery of aromatic hydrocarbons and dienes
in the extract stream.
Lange does not expressly disclose that the extract contains:
at least 20 wt.% of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, and styrene; and
not more than 20 wt.% of cyclopentadiene, dicyclopentadiene, pentadiene, hexadiene, cyclohexadiene, and derivatives thereof.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the solvent type, solvent-to-feed ratio, extraction temperature, number of extraction stages, and extent of solvent removal to obtain the claimed extract composition. Lange already teaches selectively concentrating aromatics and dienes in the extract, and the relative concentrations of the extracted components are predictable result-effective variables governed by feed composition, solvent selectivity, phase equilibrium, and solvent recovery. Routine optimization to maximize recovery of valuable aromatics while controlling the concentration of reactive dienes would have yielded the claimed ranges absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Claim 14 Lange teaches that the pyrolysis oil produced from waste plastics contains aromatic hydrocarbons prior to solvent extraction. Lange does not expressly disclose that the pyrolysis oil comprises at least 10 wt.% benzene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the pyrolysis process under conditions that produce the claimed benzene concentration because the composition of the pyrolysis oil is a recognized result-effective variable that depends upon feedstock composition and pyrolysis operating conditions, including temperature, residence time, and reactor design. Optimization of these known variables to obtain a desired benzene concentration would have been routine experimentation. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. in view of Chomyn et al. (US 3,696,160). The process of Lange is as discussed above. Lange does not expressly disclose producing one or more hydrocarbons utilizing at least a portion of the recovered diolefins.
Chomyn teaches selectively hydrogenating diolefins to produce the corresponding mono-olefins. In particular, Chomyn teaches the selective conversion of C4 diolefins, such as butadiene, to mono-olefins (butenes), while minimizing further hydrogenation of the mono-olefins to paraffins. See abstract; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to subject at least a portion of Lange's recovered diolefins to the hydrogenation process taught by Chomyn because selective hydrogenation of conjugated diolefins to mono-olefins was a well-known downstream upgrading process for converting reactive diolefins into more stable and commercially valuable hydrocarbon products.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2016/0264874 A1). The process of Lange is discussed above. Lange does not expressly disclose that thermal pyrolysis occurs in the substantial absence of catalyst material at a temperature of at least 625°C or, more generally, in the substantial absence of catalyst material. Narayanaswamy teaches thermal pyrolysis at temperatures of about 450–750°C, including temperatures of at least 625°C, and further teaches that the pyrolysis reactor may operate with or without catalyst material ([0017]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lange by employing the pyrolysis conditions taught by Narayanaswamy because pyrolysis temperature and catalyst usage are recognized operating variables for controlling pyrolysis product distribution. Claim 9 Narayanaswamy teaches thermal pyrolysis at temperatures encompassing at least 625°C ([0017]). Claim 13 Narayanaswamy teaches that the pyrolysis may be carried out with or without a catalyst ([0018]–[0019]).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. in view of Kelley (US 5,274,029). Lange discloses thermally pyrolyzing waste plastic to produce a pyrolysis oil stream; separating the pyrolysis oil stream by liquid-liquid extraction into a raffinate stream and an extract stream enriched in aromatic hydrocarbons and conjugated aliphatic compounds having two or more carbon-carbon double bonds (dienes); combining the raffinate with a cracker feed; and cracking the combined feed in a cracker furnace. Lange further teaches that styrene is an example of an aromatic hydrocarbon in the pyrolysis oil and that the recovered aromatic- and diene-containing stream may be recovered separately. Lange does not expressly disclose subjecting the extract stream to a chemical process to synthesize a chemical derivative and/or polymer. Kelley teaches subjecting styrene monomer to polymerization to produce polystyrene and other styrene-based polymers and copolymers (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to subject at least a portion of Lange's styrene-containing extract stream to the polymerization process taught by Kelley because styrene is a well-known petrochemical monomer conventionally polymerized to produce commercially valuable polymers, thereby increasing the value of the recovered extract.
Claim 16 Lange expressly discloses a pyrolysis-oil feed containing at least 10 wt.% conjugated dienes, which encompasses at least 5 wt.% total diolefins. Claim 17 Lange does not expressly disclose that the pyrolysis facility and the cracker facility are co-located. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to co-locate the pyrolysis facility with the cracker facility because the raffinate produced by the pyrolysis process is used as feed to the cracker furnace. Co-locating the facilities would have predictably reduced transportation and handling of the intermediate stream, reduced capital and operating costs, simplified process integration, facilitated utility integration, and improved overall process efficiency. The particular physical arrangement of process units within an industrial complex is considered a matter of routine engineering design choice absent a showing of unexpected results. Claim 18 See claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights