DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12-15, 17, 28, 29, 31-35, 37, 38, and 40 are preliminarily amended. Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18-27, 30, 36, 39, and 41-62 are preliminarily cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12-15, 17, 28, 29, 31-35, 37, 38, and 40 are pending for examination below.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the water is supercritical…” This should be “wherein the heated and pressurized water is supercritical…” for antecedent basis purposes.
With regard to claim 29, the claim recites in lines 2 and 5 “at least at least 30 wt%”. This is a typographical error and should be corrected to “at least 30 wt%”. Also, in line 5, the claim recites “a minimum of 40 wt%”. This lacks consistency with the remainder of the ranges which are all “at least” phrasing, and should be amended to “at least 40 wt%” if retained.
Appropriate corrections are 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 13, 28, and 29 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.
With regard to claim 13, the claim recites “substantially perpendicular”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, the specification does define substantially for a composition as meaning more than 50 wt% (page 11, first sentence). Thus, for purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that substantially perpendicular is within 45° (or 50% of the angle) of perpendicular. Appropriate clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 28, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “plastics”, and the claim also recites multiple specific plastics including polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, etc. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner suggests that the instant specification indicates that the more general term “plastics” could be used to refer to waste plastics or end of life plastics as a general mixture, rather than the specific polymer components in the plastic (see page 15, last three paragraphs). Thus, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “waste plastics” or “end of life plastics” instead of “plastics.
With regard to claim 29, the claim recites “wherein the water and the melt stream combined comprises; (i) at least 30 wt%....of the polymeric material; or at least 30 wt%, a minimum of 40 wt% of the polymeric material and up to 60 wt% of the water.” This phrasing is entirely unclear as to what is required and what is optional. While there is a recitation of (i), there is no recitation of (ii), and thus it is unclear where (i) stops. Further, the entire phrasing after “the polymeric material;” in line 4 is unclear as to whether at least 30 wt% or a minimum of 40 wt% is what is required. Additionally, it is unclear whether the amount of “up to 60 wt% of the water” is associated with all the ranges of at least 30 wt%, at least 35 wt%,…at least 98 wt%, at least 30 wt%, and a minimum of 40 wt% polymeric material, or if it is only associated with the “a minimum of 40 wt%”, or only associated with the “at least 30 wt% a minimum of 40 wt%”. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the has two requirements, at least one of which must be used. The first is what is recited in lines 2-4 before the semicolon, which is “(i) at least 30 wt%...or at least 98 wt% polymeric material;”. The second is the recitations after the semicolon, “at least 30 wt%, a minimum 40 wt% of the polymeric material and up to 60 wt% of the water.” Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 7, 12-15, 17, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humphreys et al. (US 2020/0071619) as evidenced by Stamixco (GX Static Mixer Product Bulletin).
With regard to claims 1, 12, 13, 32, Humphreys teaches a method for production of biofuel from polymeric materials (paragraph [0002]) comprising the following steps:
a) extruding polymeric material in an extruder (instant claim 32) to produce a melt stream (paragraph [0010]) where the melt stream is under pressure and heat (paragraph [0024]). The polymeric material is plastics (claimed synthetic polymers) (paragraph [0008]).
b) providing a separate stream of aqueous solvent (paragraph [0010]) where the aqueous solvent is water or steam that is pressurized and heated (paragraph [0228]).
c) injecting the aqueous solvent from a manifold comprising multiple injection points (apertures) into the melt stream to from a reaction mixture (paragraph [0150]), wherein the injection points are located inside the melt stream (Figure 4).
d) passing the reaction mixture to a series of spool pipes comprising inserts which promote mixing (claimed mixing device facilitating further mixing) (paragraph [0377]). The mixing device comprises a Stamixco X grid static mixer (paragraph [0377]). Stamixco evidences that the GX (X grid) static mixer comprises at least 4 mixing elements (page 2, Table 1) having the following structure (exemplified with 8 mixing elements, page 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
159
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each mixing element is a grid (claimed lattice module) which is rotated at an angle of 90° (instant claims 12 and 13) from the adjacent ones (page 1, second column, first paragraph).
e) passing the mixture from the spool pipes to a heater and then to the reactor (paragraph [0377], Figure 4), where the reactor is operated at a temperature and pressure to produce a product (paragraphs [0223]-[0225]).
With regard to claim 3, the water is supercritical when injected (paragraph [0216]).
With regard to claim 4, the water is injected across a cross section of the melt stream (paragraph [0308], Figure 4).
With regard to claim 7, the injection device comprises two injection pipes 4 spanning a partial cross section and which are oriented at different angles in the melt stream relative to each other (Figure 4).
With regard to claims 14 and 15, Stamixco evidences the mixing elements as shown above (Stamixco page 3). The individual mixing elements comprises 3 lattice sheets not rotated relative to adjacent sheets.
With regard to claim 17, Stamixco evidences that the sheets are separated by a spacer component as shown above (Stamixco page 3).
With regard to claim 28, the polymer in the melt stream comprises Polyethylene (PE), Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polypropylene (PP), Polyester, Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), poly(lactic acid) PLA, Poly (vinyl chloride) (PVC), Polystyrene (PS), Polyamide, Nylon, Nylon 6, Nylon 6,6, Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS), Poly(Ethylene vinyl alcohol) (E/VAL), Poly(Melamine formaldehyde) (MF), Poly(Phenol-formaldehyde) (PF), Epoxies, Polyacetal, (Acetal), Polyacrylates (Acrylic), Polyacrylonitrile (PAN), Polyamide-imide (PAI), Polyaryletherketone (PAEK), Polybutadiene (PBD), Polybutylene (PB), Polycarbonate (PC), Polydicyclopentadiene (PDCP), Polyketone (PK), polycondensate, Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), Polyetherimide (PEI), Polyethersulfone (PES), Polyethylenechlorinates, (PEC), Polyimide, (PI), Polymethylpentene (PMP), Poly(phenylene Oxide) (PPO), Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS), Polyphthalamide, (PTA), Polysulfone (PSU), Polyurethane, (PU), Poly(vinylidene chloride) (PVDC), Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) PTFE, Poly(fluoroxy alkane) PFA, Poly(siloxanes), silicones, thermosplastics, plastics, and mixtures thereof (paragraphs [0155]-[0156]).
With regard to claim 29, the reaction mixture comprises at least 98 wt% of the polymeric material (paragraph [0029]).
With regard to claim 31, the melt stream exits the extruder (claimed prior to injecting water) at a temperature of between 200 and 300°C and a pressure of between 100 and 300 bar (paragraph [0024]). These are within the range of 200-350°C and identical to the range of 100 to 300 bar of instant claim 31.
With regard to claim 35, the reaction mixture is further heated in a heater 12 after exiting the spool pipes and before entering the reactor (claimed indirect heater downstream of mixing device) (paragraph [0377]). Humphreys further teaches that after the reactor is a pressure let down device (claimed heating prior to a pressure let down device) (paragraph [0381]).
With regard to claim 37, the reaction temperature is 380 to 500°C and the pressure is 200 to 300 bar (paragraph [0037]), which is within the ranges of 300-500°C and 100 to 350 bar of instant claim 37.
With regard to claim 38, the method is performed under conditions of continuous flow (paragraph [0247]).
With regard to claim 40, the flow rate of the plastic exiting the extruder and in the mixing piece is exemplified at 2530 kg/h (Table 18), which is within the range of between 1000 and 15000 kg/h of instant claim 40.
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.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys et al. (US 2020/0071619) as evidenced by Stamixco (GX Static Mixer Product Bulletin).
With regard to claim 33, the water is supercritical water at a temperature of 375-600°C (paragraph [0220]). While Humphreys does not explicitly teach the pressure, in order to be supercritical, the water must be above the critical pressure of 220 bar. Thus, the range of greater than 220 bar is implicitly taught by Humphreys. The ranges of Humphreys overlap the ranges of 500-700°C and 221 to 300 bar of instant claim 33, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 34, the reaction mixture after mixing water and melt material has a temperature of at least 350°C and a pressure of at least 230 bar (paragraphs [0312] and [0315]). These overlap the ranges of 200-550°C, 300-500°C, 350-550°C or 400-500°C and the range 100 to 300 bar of instant claim 34 part (i), rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys et al. (US 2020/0071619) as evidenced by Stamixco (GX Static Mixer Product Bulletin) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Grosz-Roell et al. (US 4,919,541).
With regard to claim 9, Humphreys teaches the process above, where the steam is injected into the melt stream.
Humphreys does not teach the injection is done using sparge pipes.
Grosz-Roell teaches a method for heating a liquid stream by injecting a heated gas such as steam (Abstract). Grosz-Roell further teaches that direct contact heaters inject steam directly into the liquid by sparging steam through holes 20 in pipe 14 (sparger pipe) (column 8, lines 17-18). Grosz-Roell additionally teaches that the advantages of the direct contact sparging include rapid mixing and heating without the need of maintenance of many parts and in a low cost, compact, and effective design (column 9, lines 23-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a sparger pipe in the process of Humphreys because Humphreys teaches injecting steam but does not specify how, and Grosz-Roell teaches that direct contact by sparging steam is effective to heat the stream and provides a low cost, compact, and effective design (column 9, lines 23-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights