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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021211529.
WO teaches a chemical recycling process comprising providing a liquefied waste plastic in a melt tank; introducing at least a portion of said liquefied waste plastic into an upflow pyrolysis film reactor comprising a plurality of stationary film-generating structures; flowing at least a portion of said liquefied waste plastic upwardly along said stationary film-generating structures to thereby pyrolyze said liquefied waste plastic and
form a pyrolysis effluent comprising a pyrolysis gas; separating the pyrolysis effluent stream into a pyrolysis residue stream, a pyrolysis oil stream and a pyrolysis gas stream; and introducing at least a portion of the pyrolysis stream into the melt tank to serve as a dissolution solvent for liquefying at least the waste plastic (see claims 1, 5-7; paragraphs [0011], [0305], [0309]; figure 15).
In an embodiment or in combination with any embodiment mentioned in WO, the heater (not shown in FIG. 5) of the liquification system 40 can take the form of internal heat exchange coils located in the melt tank 312, a jacketing on the outside of the melt tank 312, a heat tracing on the outside of the melt tank 312, and/or electrical heating elements on the outside of the melt tank 312. Additionally, or alternatively, as shown in FIG. 5, the heater of the liquification system 40 can include an external heat exchanger 340 that receives a stream of liquified plastic 171 from the melt tank 312, heats it, and returns at least a portion of the heated liquified plastic stream 173 to the melt tank 312 (see para 0242).
The pyrolysis oil may predominantly comprise hydrocarbons having from 4 to 30 carbon atoms per molecule (e.g., C4 to C30 hydrocarbons). The pyrolysis oil may have a C4-C30 hydrocarbon content of at least 55, at least 60, at least 65, at least 70, at least 75, at least 80, at least 85, at least 90, or at least 95 weight percent based on the total weight of the pyrolysis oil stream (see para 0355). The pyrolysis oil may have a C5-C12 hydrocarbon content of at least 5, at least 10, at least 15, at least 20, at least 25, at least 30, at least 35, at least 40, at least 45, at least 50, or at least 55 weight percent based on the total weight of the pyrolysis oil. Additionally, or alternatively, the pyrolysis oil may have a C5-C12 hydrocarbon content of not more than 95 weight percent (see para 0357).
WO differs from the claims in that it does not specifically teach separating at least a portion of the pyrolysis effluent stream in a distillation column. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because WO teaches that such a separation method is easily selected by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill considering that suitable processes used in the separation zone can include distillation (see para 0471). Also, it would be reasonable to expect that the pyrolysis oil stream would have a temperature in the range of 200 to 400 C when exiting the distillation column because WO is distilling the same materials as the present invention.
With respect to the temperatures of the streams, it would be reasonable to expect that the temperature of the pyrolysis oils stream to have the claimed temperatures because WO is pyrolyzing the same materials.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Ree (US 20180010050).
Van Der Ree teaches a method and system for transferring plastic waste into a fuel in a process. Van Der Ree teaches melting the plastic waste in two heating devices (3) and (4), wherein a recycle stream derived from the cracking reactor (5) and purified in a separator system (8, 9) is admixed with the molten plastic waste from the heating device (3). The mixed plastic stream is further heated in the second heating device (4), and from there is guided into the cracking reactor (5), where the plastic materials are cracked, and by means of subsequent distillation are separated into diesel and low boilers (see abstract).
The reusable plastic materials, which are optionally and preferably already partially melted, are supplied to a first heating device in which they are (further) melted at a temperature of 300° C. to 380° C. The melted reusable plastic materials together with the recycle stream which have been pumped out of the cracking reactor are supplied to a second heating device, in which they are further heated to temperatures of 380° C to 400° C (pyrolysis). The melted reusable plastic materials together with already formed hydrocarbon-containing vapors are supplied from the second heating device to the cracking reactor, in which the melted reusable plastic materials are further cracked at approximately 400° C, wherein the gaseous hydrocarbons are supplied to a partial condenser in which long-chain hydrocarbons condense, preferably a condenser, upstream from which a packed column is connected, and are returned to the cracking reactor. Short-chain hydrocarbons exit from the cracking reactor and are supplied to a distillation unit in which they are fractionated into a gaseous fraction and a liquid fraction, the liquid fraction being stripped off as diesel product, and the gaseous fraction being led through a cooler in which it is split into light boilers (C5-C7) which are stored, and uncondensed gases (C1-C4) which are preferably used as fuel for heating the thermal oil. High-energy pitch- and tar-like substances that have not assumed the gaseous state, and excess carbon that results during the thermolytic cracking of polymers, together with the recycle stream are pumped out of the cracking reactor and separated into the recycle stream and the residue by means of a separator device, and the recycle stream between the first heating device and the second heating device is admixed with the melted reusable plastic materials, and the residue is led into a collection tank (see para 0020-0025; 0111-0115). Van Der Ree meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Van Der Ree does not specifically teach the order of the steps as set forth in claim 1. However, election of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
With respect to the temperatures of the streams, it would be reasonable to expect that the temperature of the pyrolysis oils stream to have the claimed temperatures because Van Der Ree is pyrolyzing the same materials.
Claims 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach or suggest further introducing at least a portion of the enriched C5+ hydrocarbon stream back into the distillation column.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18847292/20260720
Prosecution Insights