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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action for application 18/851511 filed 09/26/2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim amendments have introduced typographical errors that should be corrected. 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 1-15 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.
Parent claim 1 teaches (iii) separating the collected gaseous fraction, thereby obtaining a gaseous and a liquid depolymerization product in comprising higher than 60%wt of gaseous depolymerization product, based on total polyolefin content, the gaseous depolymerization product the equal to or higher than 65%wt of C2-C4 olefins, based on the total amount of hydrocarbons.
It is unclear what is higher than 60% wt of gaseous depolymerization product. It has been construed that the collected gaseous fraction comprises higher than 60%wt of gaseous depolymerization product.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESCHENBACHER et al. (Boron-Modified Mesoporous ZSM-5 for the Conversion of Pyrolysis Vapors from LDPE and Mixed Polyolefins: Maximizing the C2–C4 Olefin Yield with Minimal Carbon Footprint).
ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 14619 an integrated process for pyrolysis, liquid upgrading and steam cracking.
Regarding claim 1, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 14620 that the process comprises using a single shot micropyrolyzer system in which a bottom catalytic reactor is used at temperatures between 550-700C. The process is taught in the abstract to be performed with catalysts that narrowed the products toward a distribution that had high selectivity toward C2-C4 olefins. The process produces pyrolysis vapors that are then treated. The feedstock is taught on page 14619 to comprise virgin polyethylene or mixed polyolefin.
( (i) depolymerizing, at a temperature ranging from 400 to 700°C, in the presence of a catalyst, a plastic waste feedstock comprising
(a) more than 80% wt of polyolefins and
(b) less than 7.0 wt.% of non-polyolefin organic based on the total weight of the dry weight polymeric fraction of the waste material feedstock, thereby generating a gaseous fraction;
The process produces pyrolysis vapors that are then treated.
(ii) collecting the gaseous fraction generated; during and
The pyrolysis temperature is taught in page 14620 to be set to avoid condensation of heavy vapor-phase waxes.
The product would be expected to comprise higher than 60 wt% of gaseous polymerization product.
Direct upgrading of polyolefin pyrolysis vapors over a catalyst is taught on page 14619.
Given that the polyolefin pyrolysis vapors are upgraded, any amount of liquid condensate would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to be removed prior to upgrading.
The catalyst is taught on page 14620 to comprise Boron-Incorporated Mesoporous HZSM-5.
Table 3 on page 14624 teaches yields of different HZSM-5 based catalysts and includes B/Meso-Z med Si/Al which includes 86.3% C2-C4 olefins.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(iii) separating the collected gaseous fraction, thereby obtaining a gaseous and a liquid depolymerization product in comprising higher than 60%wt of gaseous depolymerization product, based on total polyolefin content, the gaseous depolymerization product the equal to or higher than 65%wt of C2-C4 olefins, based on the total amount of hydrocarbons.
Regarding claim 2, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 14621 the feed may be virgin polyethylene. ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 141619 the feed includes MPO pellets. The MPO pellets comprise 75% polyethylene and 16wt% of polypropylene.
Both virgin polyethylene and the MPO pellets comprise greater than 85% polyolefins.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, virgin polyethylene would be expected to consist of polyethylene.
Regarding claim 4, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 141619 the feed includes MPO pellets. The MPO pellets comprise 75% polyethylene and 16wt% of polypropylene. The weight ratio between polyethylene and polypropylene would be greater than 2.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach an example on page 141619 the feed includes MPO pellets with 5% nonpolymers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 141619 the feed includes MPO pellets and LDPE pellets.
Although the bulk density of the pellets is not explicitly discussed, pellets by function would have been compressed or densified to form the pellets. Furthermore, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach that the LDPE pellets which are low density polyethylene.
Given that ESCHENBACHER et al. do not teach any limitations on the bulk density of the pellets that may be used as the feed, one of ordinary skill in the art would employ a LDPE pellet will a bulk density between 300 to 700 g/l with reasonable evidence to the contrary.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 141619 the feed may include virgin LPDE which would be expected to have substantially no volatiles. (less than 4% total volatiles)
The method of measuring the total volatiles would be expected to change the actual amount of total volatiles in a virgin LPDE which would not be expected to comprise substantially volatiles.
Regarding claims 8-9, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach in page 14620 the pyrolysis temperature is set to avoid condensation of heavy vapor-phase waxes. The pyrolysis product would be expected to be primarily vapors.
The product would be expected to comprise higher than 70 and 75 wt% of gaseous polymerization product.
Regarding claims 10-12, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach Table 3 on page 14624 an example with B/Meso-Z med Si/Al which includes 86.3% C2-C4 olefins.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 14619 a catalyst with Si/Al. (aluminosilicates)
Regarding claims 13 and 15, ESCHENBACHER et al. teach on page 14620 that boric acid is applied to the catalyst by dissolving the boric acid in a solution and then impregnating the catalyst with the solution.
The claim states the limitation “deposited on a particulate non-porous support with the aid of a coating agent.”
The method in which the acidic compound is deposited would not be expected to change the deposition of the acidic compound absent evidence to the contrary.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights