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 § 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.
Claim 1 has multiple 112 rejections.
A. the phrase “total polyolefin content” is indefinite. It is unclear if the “total polyolefin content” refers to the amount of polyolefins of both or either of the liquid gaseous depolymerization product and/or the gas depolymerization product. It is also unclear if the total polyolefin content refers to the amount of polyolefins in the feedstock, or the gaseous fraction, or the gaseous depolymerization product fraction. For the purpose of this Office action, meeting any of these possible variations of claim limitations will be considered meeting the claim limitations.
B. The term hydrocarbons has no antecedent basis. Also it is unclear what the “total amount of hydrocarbons” limitation is supposed to apply to in the steps. See above. The steps include feedstock, or the gaseous fraction, or the gaseous depolymerization product fraction. For the purpose of this office action if any of these variation are found in the prior art the claim limitations will be considered to be met.
These rejections apply to all dependent claims.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “amount of hydrocarbons” lack antecedent basis, and is subject to the same 112 as found in the 112 rejections for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al (US 2019/0161683 A1).
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
Narayanaswamy discloses a process for conversion of plastic waster into olefins, see abstract.
The feedstock may be polyethylene. There may also be non-olefinic parts present. See p 29. The feedstock may be mixed forms of the same polymer, i.e. different types of polyethylene.
This is depolymerized at 500C to 750C, see p 39.
The depolymerization product contains gases (p 31, 59, 68) and liquids. The amount of the gas phase to liquid phase may be varied by technique, see p 31-33. As such the total amount of the gaseous depolymerization product may be up to 100%. The gas is separated. The amount of olefins in the separated gas may 72%, see figure 6e. There is also separation where the product is only C2-C4 olefins, see fig.1 page 1. The amount of ethylene can be 30%. The amount of carbon dioxide is 1.5%, and the amount of carbon monoxide is 0%, see figure 9A.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy et al (US 2019/0161683 A1) and Mohanty et al (US 2013/0317238 A1)
To see what Narayanaswamy teaches see above. Narayanaswamy does not state shredding of the waste plastic or palettization of the waste plastic before the process.
Mohanty teaches a depolymerization process (abstract) for polyethylene and other olefinic polymers, see p 40.
The preparation process includes making the waste plastic polymer feed into a shredded form or a pellet form, see p 41.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the waste plastic feed stream of Narayanaswamy as described in Mohanty. This makes the feed stream uniform for easier handling and provides for more uniform results during the depolymerizing process and may lower the time needed for the reaction by maximizing surface area.
Regarding the bulk density of the shredded material of the pellets, this is not specifically taught.
Since Narayanaswamy in view of Mohanty is using a similar feed in pellet and shredded form, it is expected that the bulk density will be similar as the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights