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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18860316 filed 10/25/24.
Claims 14-22 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 10/25/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/25/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
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. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADAM ET AL. (WO2021204817A1; 10/14/2021) and as evidence by WEISS (FR3114597A1; 4/01/2022) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as ADAM and WEISS.
Regarding claims 14-22:
ADAM teaches with regards to the hydrocarbon stream; it can contain a first diluent. In that case, said hydrocarbon stream contains at least 10 wt% of pyrolysis plastic oil. In a preferred embodiment, said hydrocarbon stream presents a bromine number of at most 150 g Br2/ 100g, preferably at most 100 g Br2/ 100g even more preferably at most 80 g Br2/ 100g, the most preferred at most 50 g Br2/ 100g as measured according to ASTM D1159. In a preferred embodiment, said hydrocarbon stream contains at least 25 wt % of pyrolysis plastic oil, preferably at least 50 wt% of pyrolysis plastic oil, even more preferably 75 wt % of pyrolysis plastic oil, in the most preferred embodiment at least 90 wt % of pyrolysis plastic oil. It is also possible to use pure pyrolysis plastic oil. In this latter case, the hydrocarbon stream is only pyrolysis plastic oil. The other component of said hydrocarbon stream may include any diluent able to limit the temperature increase at the first and/or second hydrotreating step. The diluent used for the first hydrotreating step (first diluent) can be the same or different as the diluent used for the second hydrotreating step. In other words, a diluent shall contain low amount, acceptable by a steam cracker or neither any olefins nor any diene. For instance, part of the purified hydrocarbon stream may be recycled and used as diluent. A naphtha can also be used as diluent. The use of naphtha as diluent is particularly advantaging. Indeed, in a preferred embodiment, the purified hydrocarbon stream is further sent to a steam cracker mixed together with a naphtha. The use of naphtha as diluent avoids further step of separation of the diluent. The effluent obtained at the end of the inventive process can then preferably be directly sent to the steam cracker. In a preferred embodiment, the pyrolysis plastic oil is diluted into naphtha having a boiling range from 15 to 250°C, preferably 38 to 150°C, as measured with method ASTM D2887 to form the hydrocarbon stream at a concentration of 50 wt %, preferably 75 wt% of pyrolysis plastic oil is diluted in naphtha, even more preferably 90 wt % of pyrolysis plastic oil is diluted in the naphtha. (see pg 18 ln 5-28)
ADAM teaches with regards to the first hydrotreating step, it consists mainly in the hydrogenation phase to saturate the conjugated diene and alkynes into mainly olefins. Depending on the composition of the hydrocarbon stream, the first step hydrotreating is performed either in liquid phase or in trickle bed mode. This step is well known in steam cracking unit as 1.sup.st step hydrogenation of pyrolysis gasoline. The first hydrotreating step will hydrogenate the diene and in particularly the conjugated diene and acetylenic bonds. The first hydrotreating step will lead to a decrease the diene value. The decrease of the diene value observed between the inlet and the outlet of the first hydrotreating step should be of at least 10% preferably at least 25 % as measured according to UOP 326.
ADAM teaches with regards to the second hydrotreating step, it consists in a step at a temperature higher than 200°C, in presence of hydrogen with well-known catalysts to hydrogenate the olefins and to convert sulfur, nitrogen components into respectively H2S and NH3. Depending on the composition of the stream entering this second hydrotreating step, it is either performed in gas phase or the reactor operates in trickle bed mode. This step can have also a metal trap function, a cracking function, a de-aromatization function depending of the characteristic of the catalyst and the used operating condition. This step can be performed in one reactor with different layers of catalysts or several reactors in series depending of the function sought.
ADAM teaches said second hydrotreating step is performed over at least one catalyst that presents both (i) an hydrotreating function, and (ii) a trap function. In that case, the preferred operating conditions advantageously be the following: the preferred inlet temperature is of at least 200°C and at most 500°C; the preferred LHSV is between 1 to 10h- 1 , preferably 2 to 4h-1 ; the preferred pressure ranges from 10 to 90 barg in presence of H2; the ratio H2/hydrocarbon ranges from 200 NL/L to 900 NL/L, preferably in the presence of at least 0.005 wt %, preferably 0.05 wt % even more preferably 0.5 wt% of sulphur, being preferably H2S or organic sulfur compounds, in the stream. The use of such catalyst is particularly advantaging because it allows to simultaneously perform the hydrotreating reaction and to trap impurities like silicon that may still be present in the stream.
ADAM teaches in a waste plastic pyrolyzer, mixed plastics (e.g., waste plastics) are placed in pyrolysis unit or pyrolyzer. In the pyrolysis unit, the waste plastic is converted via pyrolysis to a pyrolysis product, wherein the pyrolysis product comprises a gas phase (e.g., pyrolysis gases, such as C1 to C4 gases, hydrogen (H2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02) mainly) and a liquid phase being pyrolysis plastic oil. The plastic waste may include post-consumer waste plastics, such as mixed plastic waste. Mixed plastics can comprise non-chlorinated plastics (e.g., polyolefins, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, copolymers, etc.), chlorinated plastics (e.g., polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), etc.), and the like, or mixtures thereof. Generally, waste plastics comprise long chain molecules or polymer hydrocarbons. Waste plastics may also include used tires.
ADAM teaches that the pyrolysis unit may be any suitable vessel configured to convert waste plastics into gas phase and liquid phase products (e.g., simultaneously). The vessel may be configured for gas phase, liquid phase, vapor-liquid phase, gas-solid phase, liquid-solid phase, or slurry phase operation. The vessel may contain one or more beds of inert material or pyrolysis catalyst comprising sand, zeolite, alumina, a catalytic cracking catalyst, or combinations thereof. Generally, the pyrolysis catalyst is capable of transferring heat to the components subjected to the pyrolysis process in the pyrolysis unit. Alternatively, the pyrolysis unit can be operated without any catalyst (e.g., pure thermal pyrolysis). The pyrolysis unit may be operated adiabatically, isothermally, nonadiabatically, non-isothermally, or combinations thereof. The pyrolysis reactions of this disclosure may be carried out in a single stage or in multiple stages. For example, the pyrolysis unit can be two reactor vessels fluidly connected in series. (see pg 23 ln 19- pg 28 ln 11)
Although ADAM does not disclose a crystallization step prior to the hydrotreatment step, which makes it possible to reduce, in a single step, the olefin and heteroatom content in the composition before it enters the hydrotreatment step, it is evident by WEISS teachings wherein separating olefins and alkanes by crystallizing specific mixtures, said mixtures having to contain C10-C20 hydrocarbons among which the carbon number does not differ by more than 5, the crystallization being carried out in liquid CO2 (see claim 1 of WEISS).
As for the removal of heteroatoms at the same time as olefins, it is an optional feature therefore the rejection above also includes these limitations as not being required.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Again, WEISS is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights