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 Objections
Claims 29, 36, and 44-45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 29, “HC1” should be “HCl”.
In line 4 of claim 36, “optionally of the metal poor” should be “optionally the metal-poor”.
In line 6 of claim 44, “for obtaining” should be “to obtain”.
In line 1 of claim 45, “on a system” should be “in a system”.
Appropriate correction is 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 26-33 and 35-45 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.
In claim 26, 29, and their dependent claims it is unclear whether “vessel (reactor)” indicates that the vessel must be a reactor or whether the reactor is an optional type of vessel. The examiner recommends that the claims be amended to consistently use either the term “vessel” or the term “reactor”.
Claims 26, 29, 35, and their dependent claims recite hydrotreating a metal-rich plastic waste or metal waste to produce a product mixture including hydrogen gas. However, hydrotreating generally refers to a process of reacting organic compounds with hydrogen, not a process that produces hydrogen. While applicant may be their own lexicographer, the specification does not clearly redefine hydrotreating in a manner that sets forth a clear definition of the term. See MPEP 2173.05(a). Applicant should consider whether the cited claims are actually directed to hydrothermal liquefaction, as recited in claims 38, 41, and 43.
In claims 26, 33, 35-36, 38 and its dependent claims, it is not clear what metal content is required to qualify as a “metal-rich” plastic waste. Page 11 of the specification states that typically the ratio of plastic to metal is 3:1 to 15:1, but “typically” does not carry the force of a definition.
Claim 27 recites “the two or more reactors”, but there is no antecedent basis for “two or more reactors”. Claim 26, from which claim 27 depends, recites a system comprising a first reactor and a second reactor, but does not recite “two or more” reactors.
Claim 29 recites “thermally treating the metal-free plastic waste to produce a heated molten plastic mass and gaseous products”. The claim is drawn to a system, so it is unclear how this method step relates to the system. The examiner recommends that the claim be amended to recite that one of the reactors is configured to carry out this step.
In claim 29 it is also unclear what is meant by “which might contain PVC for pretreating by melting, degassing, and/or neutralizing the acidity caused by the emitted chlorine gas that will be converted into HCl in the hydrogen atmosphere”. It is not clear whether it is the metal-free plastic waste or the hydrogen gas which might contain PVC, it is unclear whether it is the plastic waste, the hydrogen gas, or just the PVC that is “for pretreating”, and it is unclear where the “emitted chlorine gas” comes from as there is no antecedent basis for “the emitted chlorine gas”. The examiner recommends that the claim use clearer language reflective of that used on page 12 of the specification, such as “wherein the unsorted metal-free plastic waste optionally comprises PVC, and wherein the unsorted plastic waste may be pretreated by melting, degassing, and/or neutralizing chlorine gas emitted from the plastic waste”.
In claim 36 and its dependent claims it is unclear what metal content is required to qualify as a “metal-poor” plastic waste.
In claim 37 it is not clear what is meant by “wherein the hydrogen gas production is achievable separately from the generation of molten plastic mass and gaseous products”, since claim 36, from which claim 37 depends, recites hydrogen gas, molten plastic mass, and gaseous products all as products of the thermal reaction of metal-rich plastic waste and water.
In claim 39 it is not clear what amount of salt qualifies water as “salt-rich water”.
In claims 41 and 43, it is unclear what qualifies as “hydrothermal liquification conditions”. It is also noted that the reaction is generally known as “hydrothermal liquefaction”.
Claim 44 recites “A process according to claim 36 for the recovery of hydrogen gas and distillates from plastic waste” but neither claim 36 nor claim 44 recite distillates. If the distillates being referred to are the “fuels and/or petrochemicals” produced in the last step of claim 36, the examiner recommends that the final step of claim 36 be amended to recite “reacting the metal-free plastic waste at least in the presence of the hydrogen gas to produce distillates selected from the group consisting or fuels, petrochemicals, and combinations thereof.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 27-30, 41, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27 recites a system wherein one reactor is configured to convert plastic waste to a molten plastic and gaseous products, and another reactor is configured to convert metal waste and water to hydrogen gas; this is a different system than that described in claim 26, from which claim 27 depends, where one reactor is configured to convert a metal-rich plastic waste to hydrogen gas, a heated decomposed gaseous materials, and the other reactor converts plastic waste to distillates. Claim 27 therefore fails to further limit claim 26.
Claim 28 recites a second vessel that can be configured to receive a single stream of hydrogen has and optionally also heated molten plastic and gaseous products. Claim 26, from which claim 28 depends (via claim 27) recites a second vessel configured for receiving at least an amount of hydrogen gas. All embodiments of claim 26 will therefore also fall within the scope of claim 28 since the single stream does not require any components other than hydrogen gas. Claim 28 therefore fails to further limit claim 26.
Claim 29 recites a system according to 26, but whereas the first reactor of claim 26 is configured to receive metal-rich plastic waste and to produce hydrogen gas, a heated decomposed plastic mass, and gaseous materials, the first reactor in claim 29 is configured for receiving metal-rich plastic or metal waste (not recited in claim 26), and to hydrotreat the metal in the presence of water to generate hydrogen gas, without any recitation of other products. Claim 29 further recites a second reactor where a metal-free plastic waste (also not recited in claim 26) is treated to produce a heated molten plastic mass and gaseous products. Claim 29 therefore fails to further limit claim 26.
Claim 30 recites that the system of claim 26 is associated with two independent streams of metal and plastic wastes, but no metal waste is recited in claim 26, only a metal-rich plastic waste. Claim 30 therefore fails to further limit claim 26 since no vessel in claim 26 is configured to receive or process a metal waste.
More generally, claims 27 and 29-30 appear to be drawn to a different embodiment than claim 26 rather than further limiting claim 26. Applicant should ensure that any amended claims have unity with the invention originally claimed. See MPEP 1893.03(d) and 821.03.
Claim 41 requires the hydrogen gas of claim 36 to be generated under hydrothermal liquification conditions. However, since the corresponding step of claim 36 recites reacting the metal-rich plastic waste with water to produce the hydrogen gas as well as other products, claim 36 already recites a hydrothermal liquification reaction, which implies hydrothermal liquification conditions. Claim 41 therefore fails to further limit claim 36.
Claim 43 requires the fuels and petrochemicals of claim 36 to be generated under hydrothermal liquification conditions. However, the corresponding step of claim 36 discloses reacting the metal-free plastic waste in the presence of hydrogen gas to produce the fuels and petrochemicals, whereas a hydrothermal liquification reaction involves reacting with water. Claim 43 therefore fails to further limit claim 36 since the fuels and petrochemicals of claim 36 are not generated by hydrothermal liquification.
Claim 44 recites a step (a) of thermally treating a metal-rich plastic waste in the presence of water to obtain “at least hydrogen gas and steam”. However, the claim 36, from which claim 44 depends, recites a corresponding first step which also produces metal-poor or metal-free molten plastic mass and gaseous products; claim 44 therefore fails to further limit claim 36 by not requiring metal-free molten plastic mass and gaseous products in step (a).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20200062448 A).
An English-language machine translation of Kim, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translation. The rejection also makes reference to the figures available in the original Korean reference.
In paragraphs 31-33 and Figure 1, Kim discloses a system comprising a first reactor 100 into which a combustible material is introduced, and a second reactor 200 which is maintained at a higher temperature than the first reactor. In paragraph 35 Kim discloses that the combustible materials can be a variety of products including plastic. In paragraphs 52-53 Kim discloses that a first gas is generated by the thermal decomposition of the combustible material in the first reactor, and discloses in paragraphs 54-56 that the first gas can be supplied to the second reactor via the purification device 300, condensation device 400, and wind box 250. In paragraphs 53, 57-58 Kim discloses that the first gas, an oxidizing agent, and thermal decomposition residue from the first reactor are reacted in the second reactor to generate a second gas, which is then supplied to the first reactor via the gas control supply device 500.
The system of Kim therefore meets the limitations of claim 34, since either reactor is capable of generating hydrogen gas as part of the gas product, either reactor is capable of performing thermochemical decomposition on the combustible material or the thermal decomposition residue, and the reactors are in communication to allow for transfer of hydrogen gas and other gaseous products from one reactor to the other, while molten plastic mass (thermal decomposition residue) can also be passed from the first reactor of Kim to the second reactor. Claim 34 is therefore anticipated by Kim.
Claim 34 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cartolano (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0362248).
In Figure 5 and paragraphs 31 and 53 Cartolano discloses a system where a contaminated, coke-forming feed is processed in a pyrolysis reactor, and the vapors are sent to a Plas-TCat reactor where they are combined with a polymer feed. Since a pyrolysis reactor is capable of generating hydrogen as part of the vapors, the pyrolysis reactor of Cartolano meets the limitations of the hydrogen gas generator of claim 34. The Plas-TCat reactor is a catalytic pyrolysis reactor, which meets the limitations of the thermochemical decomposition reactor of claim 34. The passing of the vapors between the pyrolysis reactor and the Plas-TCat reactor meets the limitations of claim 34 requiring that the reactors be in communication to allow transfer of hydrogen gas and/or gaseous products. Claim 34 is therefore anticipated by Cartolano.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-33 and 35-45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d), set forth in this Office action, if the claims are amended in a non-broadening manner.
The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the specific system or plant of claims 26-33 and 35, or the process of claims 36-45. The Kim reference discussed in the above rejection discloses passing the second gas produced in the second reactor to a heat exchanger, where the thermal energy is recovered and the gas is supplied to the first reactor. Kim does not disclose or provide any motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system a heat transfer unit configured to receive heat from the first reactor and transfer the heat to the second reactor; Kim instead passes a heating medium between the two reactors without the use of a heat exchanger. The system of Kim also does not disclose a reactor corresponding to the second reactor of claims 26 and 35, which must be configured and operable for receiving a plastic waste (separate from the “heated decomposed plastic mass”), and configured to produce distillates; the second reactor of Kim instead takes the thermal decomposition residue from the first reactor and external oxidizing gas, and produces gases instead of distillates. Kim also does not provide any reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal-rich plastic waste as the feed, as required in claim 35. Finally, Kim does not disclose the feedstocks or fuel/petrochemical products recited in claim 36 and its dependent claims.
Cartolano, also discussed above, also does not disclose a reactor configured for hydrotreatment, and does not disclose a heat exchanger between the reactors.
Zhao (CN 106635115 A), an English-language machine translation of which has been attached, discloses in paragraph 28 of the translation a system including two hydrothermal reactors, where the two reactors are connected by a heat exchanger. The system of Zhao converts mixed plastic waste to fuel oils. However, Zhao does not teach reactors configured to pass hydrogen gas from the first reactor to the second reactor, as required in claim 26 and its dependent claims, and as required in the method of claim 36 and its dependent claims. Zhao also does not disclose the specific metal-rich and metal-free feedstocks of claim 36, nor does Zhao indicate that the reactors and reactions produce the product mixtures recited in the first reactor of claim 26 and first step of claim 36. Zhao discloses reacting the mixed plastic waste with an alkaline aqueous solution, and does not disclose producing hydrogen gas.
The International Search Report lists two X references other than the Cartolano reference discussed above. The preliminary amendment filed 4/28/25 introduces new limitations to many of the claims relative to the claim set considered in the International Search. Da Igreja (U.S. Pat. No. 10,544,936) does not specifically disclose reactors configured for “hydrotreating” a plastic waste; the first reactor of Da Igreja comprises inlets for the waste feed (101) and an inert gas (109), but does not disclose reactors configured to react the waste with water, or a method of doing so. Da Igreja instead discloses a reactor configured to heat the waste feed in an inert atmosphere. De Filippis (CA 2816195 A) is cumulative to the Kim and Cartolano references cited above regarding claim 34, but does not disclose the heat exchanger of claims 26 and 35, and does not disclose a metal-free plastic waste in the thermochemical decomposition reactor, as recited in claim 36.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights