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 Objections
Claims 1, 8, 15, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claims 1 and 15, claim 1 recites in steps 1, b, and g and claim 15 recites in line 8 “an hourly space velocity”. There are multiple types of space velocity, however, the instant specification defines space velocity in this application as regarding the volume of components (page 19, lines 12-14). Thus, for clarity, the Examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 15 to recite “volume hourly space velocity”.
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites “in which the separation stage c) comprises the following stages c1)…c2)…to obtain a gaseous effluent, a first aqueous effluent, and a hydrocarbon effluent.” These should be “the gaseous effluent, the first aqueous effluent, and the hydrocarbon effluent” for antecedent basis and consistency with claim 1 which already recites that these three effluents are obtained in step c).
With regard to claim 16, the claim recites “at least one metal from group VIB…alone or as a mixture.” This recitation of “alone or as a mixture” is redundant with the language of “at least one metal” and thus the recitation of “alone or as a mixture” should be removed.
With regard to claim 18, the claim recites “the total weight” in line 2. This should be “a total weight” for antecedent basis purposes.
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 1-18 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 1, step c), the claim recites “fed with the hydrotreated effluent…and optionally with the hydrocracked effluent…and an aqueous solution…” It is unclear from this phrasing whether or not the recitation of “an aqueous solution” is also optional along with the hydrocracked effluent, or if it is required as part of the feed. Also, the recitation of “the hydrocracked effluent” lacks antecedent basis because the recitation of step g) which produces the hydrocracked effluent comes after this step c).
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the aqueous solution is required (see instant specification page 29, lines 1-5). Appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 1, steps d) and e), the steps recite “the H2S contained in the first aqueous effluent” and “the NH3 contained in the second aqueous effluent”, respectively. The recitations lack antecedent basis because the aqueous effluents are not previously recited as comprising H2S and NH3.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the claim is intended to require that NH3 and H2S be present such that they can be separated as claimed (instant specification page 3). Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites in steps c1) and c2) “substantially identical”. The phrase “substantially identical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” 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, while the phrasing of “substantially identical” is explained further in the instant specification (page 31, lines 1-5), the recitation is not considered to be a definition as required because it includes at least 3 ranges which can be considered as meaning substantially identical. The Examiner will use the broadest range of within 0 to 15 MPa of the original value (instant specification page 31, lines 1-5) herein. Appropriate correction to recite the desired numerical range within the claim instead of the language of “substantially identical” is respectfully requested.
With regard to claim 15, the claim recites “The process according to claim 1, which additionally comprises a second hydrocracking stage g’)…being fed with at least a part of the first hydrocracked effluent resulting from the first hydrocracking stage g)…” However, claim 1 recites that first hydrocracking stage g) is optional. Thus, it is unclear whether claim 15 is intending to require the first hydrocracking stage, such that the effluent can then be fed to required second hydrocracking stage g’), or if the second hydrocracking stage g’) is also optional because the first hydrocracking stage g) is optional and thus the feed to the second stage is only optionally provided. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that claim 15 requires the first hydrocracking stage and the second hydrocracking stage. Appropriate clarification and amendment are respectfully requested.
With regard to claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-18, the claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bordynuik et al. (US 2015/0001061).
With regard to claim 17, the claim recites “A product obtained by the process according to claim 1.” The product will determine patentability. “[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.” (see MPEP 2113(I)). Claim 1 recites only four required steps, b), c), d), and e). Of these required steps, only the “hydrocarbon effluent” from step c) would be considered a product. Thus, any hydrocarbon effluent is considered to be a product of claim 1. Bordynuik teaches a diesel product (hydrocarbon effluent) produced from plastics (Bordynuik claim 14). This is considered to be equivalent to the product of claim 17, absent any evidence that the process to produce the hydrocarbon effluent makes a critical difference in the composition of the diesel.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gutierrez et al. (WO 2014/001632).
With regard to claim 17, the claim recites “A product obtained by the process according to claim 1.” The product will determine patentability. “[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.” (see MPEP 2113(I)). Claim 1 recites only four required steps, b), c), d), and e). Of these required steps, only the “hydrocarbon effluent” from step c) would be considered a product. Thus, any hydrocarbon effluent is considered to be a product of claim 1. Gutierrez teaches a hydrocarbon mixture produced from plastics (page 15, lines 28-39). This is considered to be equivalent to the product of claim 17, absent any evidence that the process to produce the hydrocarbon effluent makes a critical difference in the composition of the diesel.
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 1, 4-7, 9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez et al. (WO 2014/001632) in view of Adam et al. (WO 2021/204820) and Farrell (US 4,424,115).
With regard to claims 1 and 4, Gutierrez teaches a method for converting biomass including plastic (page 8, lines 21-24) comprising the following steps (the steps recited below are labeled with the letter of the corresponding claim step):
b) passing pyrolysis oil from plastics (page 8, lines 22-23) to a hydroprocessing step comprising at least one hydroprocessing catalyst in the presence of hydrogen to produce an effluent (page 11, lines 22-26), where the hydroprocessing reactor includes removal of heteroatoms and hydrodearomatization (claimed hydrotreatment instant specification page 23, lines 9-11) (page 11, lines 27-28). The hydroprocessing reaction is conducted at a temperature of 250 to 450°C (page 14, lines 13-14), which overlaps the range of 250 to 430°C of instant claim 1 step b), rendering the range prima facie obvious. The pressure is 10 to 250 bar (1 to 25 MPa) (page 14, lines 14-15), which overlaps the range of 1 to 10 MPa of instant claim 1 step b), rendering the range prima facie obvious. The LHSV is 0.1 to 10 hr-1 (page 14, line 16), which is identical to the range of 0.1 to 10 h-1 of instant claim 1 step b).
c) passing the effluent from the hydroprocessing (claimed hydrotreating) step to a separation step along with an aqueous scrubbing solution to obtain a scrubbed gas product (claimed gaseous effluent) and a hydrocarbon mixture (claimed hydrocarbon effluent) (page 15, lines 28-39). Gutierrez does not explicitly teach the separation step produces a first aqueous effluent. However, Gutierrez teaches that the scrubbing removes impurities such as H2S (page 15, lines 30-34), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the scrubber produces an aqueous effluent comprising the impurities including H2S that have been removed from the gas product. As such, the claimed first aqueous effluent is implicitly disclosed by Gutierrez.
f) (instant claim 4) passing the hydrocarbon mixture (claimed hydrocarbon effluent) to a fractionation step to obtain a light hydrocarbon fraction (claimed gaseous fraction), naphtha fraction (claimed first hydrocarbon cut) distilling from 40-210°C and a heavy fraction (claimed second hydrocarbon cut) having an initial boiling point of about 370°C (page 15, line 36-page 16, line 14). The naphtha boiling range of 40-210°C overlaps the range of less than or equal to 175°C of instant claim 1, step f) and renders the range prima facie obvious. The initial boiling point of about 370°C is within the range of greater than 175°C of instant claim 1, step f).
Gutierrez fails to teach i) that the hydroprocessing effluent also comprises ammonia (NH3) which is removed into the first aqueous effluent and ii) claimed steps d) and e) of separation of H2S from the first aqueous effluent and separation of NH3 from the remaining aqueous effluent after separation of H2S.
With regard to i), Gutierrez teaches hydroprocessing of pyrolysis oil from pyrolysis of plastics (page 8, lines 22-23 and page 11, lines 22-26) and removing impurities including H2S from the hydroprocessed oil by scrubbing (page 15, lines 28-39). Adam teaches pyrolysis of waste plastics followed by hydroprocessing produces an oil, followed by washing the with a water solution to remove hydrogen sulfide and ammonia (page 14, lines 34-36). The feeds and conditions of Gutierrez and Adam are compared in the Table below.
Gutierrez
Adam
Feed
Pyrolysis oil from biomass including waste plastic
(page 8, lines 21-24)
Pyrolysis oil from pyrolysis of waste plastics (page 1, lines 5-8)
Pyrolysis conditions
Temperature: 300-900°C
Residence time: 0.1 to 30 days (page 7, lines 14-18)
Temperature: 250-750°C (page 28, lines 10-15)
Residence time: silent
Hydroprocessing conditions
Catalyst: Group VIB or VIII on a support (page 12, lines 5-10)
Temperature: 250-450°C
Pressure: 10 to 250 bar
LHSV: 0.1 to 10 hr-1 (page 14, lines 13-16)
Catalyst: Group VIB or VIII on a support (page 13, lines 10-15)
Temperature: 200-350°C
Pressure: 10 to 90 bar
LHSV 1 to 10 h-1 (page 13, lines 1-9)
Separation
Includes scrubbing with aqueous solution to remove impurities (page 15, lines 28-39)
Includes washing with water solution to remove impurities (page 14, lines 34-36)
As can be seen in the Table, Gutierrez and Adam each teach similar pyrolysis of waste plastic at similar temperature, hydroprocessing obtained pyrolysis oil at similar conditions and in the presence of a similar catalyst to obtain a hydroprocessed effluent, and then contacting the hydroprocessing effluent with an aqueous solution to remove impurities including H2S. Additionally, Adam teaches that the hydroprocessed effluent also includes NH3, which is also removed by the aqueous solution during washing. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the hydroprocessed effluent of Gutierrez also comprises NH3 which is removed by the washing with the aqueous solution into the aqueous effluent, as claimed and as taught by Adam, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to ii), Gutierrez in view of Adam fails to teach any further processing of the aqueous effluent comprising H2S and NH3 produced in the separation step.
Farrell teaches that it is known to obtain a hydrocarbon effluent comprising NH3 and H2S from many reactions including hydrotreatment of hydrocarbons (column 1, lines 19-27). Farrell further teaches that the typical process of removing the NH3 and H2S comprises scrubbing with water to obtain an aqueous solution of NH3 and H2S (claimed first aqueous effluent), followed by:
d) stripping the aqueous solution in a first step to obtain H2S vapors and an aqueous solution comprising NH3 (claimed second aqueous effluent), and
e) stripping the aqueous solution comprising NH3 in a second step to obtain an NH3 vapor stream and a purified water stream (claimed third aqueous effluent) (column 1, lines 31-19 and column 2, lines 1-14).
Farrell further teaches that the typical process described above works well for recovering NH3 and H2S from effluent streams other than effluent streams from shale oil hydrotreating which is unfeasible in the typical system due to the difficult removal of H2S (column 2, lines 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the typical sour water processing steps recited by Farrell to the process of Gutierrez and Adam, because Gutierrez in view of Adam teaches producing an aqueous effluent comprising NH3 and H2S (sour water) from washing a hydroprocessed effluent, Gutierrez in view of Adam is silent regarding further processing of the aqueous effluent (sour water), and Farrell teaches that a typical process of recovering NH3 and H2S from sour water comprises the claimed steps of separation of H2S and separation of NH3 sequentially, and that the typical process described above works well for treating hydrocarbon effluents that are not from shale oil hydroprocessing (column 2, lines 17-19).
With regard to claim 5, Gutierrez is silent regarding a hydrocracking step after the separation step c).
Adam further teaches that the hydrotreating process comprises hydrocracking the product after washing (claimed separation step c) (page 14, lines 35-36) where the hydrocracking takes place in a fixed bed (n=1) reactor (page 45, claim 15) at a temperature of 350-430°C, a pressure of 30-180 bar (3-18 MPa), a LHSV of 0.5 to 4 h-1, and in the presence of hydrogen (page 14, lines 35-37). These are within the ranges of 250-450°C, 1.5 to 20 MPa, and 0.1 to 10 h-1 of instant claim 5. Adam teaches that the hydrocracking reduces the final boiling point of the product, thus producing additional desirable hydrocarbons in the fuel range (page 33, Embodiment 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of hydrocracking to the process of Gutierrez, because Gutierrez and Adam each teach separation of a hydrotreated effluent by washing with water along with obtaining desired fuel range hydrocarbons, and Adam teaches that adding the hydrocracking step after the washing reduces the final boiling point of the product, thus producing additional desirable hydrocarbons in the fuel range (page 33, Embodiment 13).
With regard to claim 6, Farrell teaches that the H2S stripper is operated at a temperature of 60 to 400°F (15 to 204°C) and a pressure of 100 to 400 psi (0.69 to 2.76 MPa) (column 5, lines 22-24). These overlap the ranges of 0.5 to 1 MPa and 80-150°C of instant claim 6, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 7, Farrell teaches that the NH3 stripper is operated at a temperature of 220-330°F (104 to 165°C) and a pressure of 50 to 100 psi (0.34 to 0.68 MPa) (column 5, lines 45-47). These overlap the ranges of 80 to 150°C and 0.1 to 0.5 MPa, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 9, Gutierrez teaches an optional pretreatment of the pyrolysis oil before hydroprocessing (page 19, lines 14-16) where the optional pretreatment comprises contacting with an aqueous media (claimed stage of scrubbing by means of an aqueous solution) (page 19, lines 21-22).
With regard to claim 12, Gutierrez teaches sulfiding the hydroprocessing (hydrotreating step b) catalyst by adding sulphur to the feed material (injecting sulfur upstream step b) as claimed) (page 12, lines 20-21).
With regard to claim 13, Gutierrez teaches the prehydrogenation catalyst comprises a Group VIII and Group VIB metal on an alumina or silica support (page 21, lines 32-35).
With regard to claim 14, Gutierrez teaches that the hydroprocessing (claimed hydrotreating) catalyst comprises a Group VII or Group VIB metal on a support which is silica, alumina, or mixtures thereof (page 12, lines 6-7 and 17-18).
With regard to claim 15, Gutierrez in view of Adam teaches the process above. Adam further teaches that after the hydrocracking step, the effluent comprises a reduced final boiling point and is separated such that a portion of the effluent is sent to a steam cracker (page 15, lines 1-2).
Adam is silent regarding what happens to the other portion having the higher boiling point. However, Gutierrez teaches that heavier hydrocarbons can be recycled back into the process (page 16, lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recycle the heavier boiling point fraction from the hydrocracking back to the hydrocracking in order to obtain additional hydrocarbons having the desired lower boiling point.
The recycling is equivalent to passing a portion of the first hydrocracking effluent to a second hydrocracking unit having a temperature of 350-430°C, a pressure of 30-180 bar (3-18 MPa), a LHSV of 0.5 to 4 h-1, and in the presence of hydrogen (Adam page 14, lines 35-37). These are within the ranges of 250-450°C, 1.5 to 20 MPa, and 0.1 to 10 h-1 of instant claim 15.
With regard to claim 16, Adam is silent regarding the hydrocracking catalyst. Gutierrez teaches that the hydroprocessing (hydrotreating) catalyst is also suitable for hydrocracking (page 11, lines 25-28) where the hydroprocessing catalyst is NiW/zeolite (claimed Group VIII metal which is Ni and Group VIB metal which is W on a zeolite support) (page 13, line 20).
With regard to claim 17, Gutierrez teaches a variety of hydrocarbon products from the fractionation step, including gasoline, naphtha, and diesel (page 15, line 36-page 16, line 14). Any and all of these are considered equivalent to the claimed product which is obtained via the process according to claim 1. Also the language “A product obtained by the process according to claim 1” is product-by-process language. The product will determine patentability. “[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.” (see MPEP 2113(I)). Thus, claim 17 merely requires a product, which is taught by Gutierrez (page 16, lines 5-14).
With regard to claim 18, Gutierrez teaches a similar process for treating a similar plastic pyrolysis oil with similar steps at similar conditions to produce a similar product (see above). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the product of Gutierrez has similar properties as the claimed product, namely a total content of metal of less than or equal to 10 ppm, a content of iron of less than or equal to 200 ppb, a content of silicon of less than or equal to 5 ppm, a sulfur content of less than or equal to 100 ppm, a nitrogen content of less than or equal to 100 ppm, a chlorine content of less than or equal to 10 ppm by weight, and a mercury content of less than or equal to 5 ppb by weight, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez et al. (WO 2014/001632) in view of Adam et al. (WO 2021/204820) and Farrell (US 4,424,115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaell (US 3,405,056).
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Gutierrez in view of Farrell teaches the method above, where the process obtains an NH3 vapor stream and an H2S vapor stream. Gutierrez further teaches that the hydroprocessing also includes hydrocracking (page 11, lines 27-28).
Gutierrez in view of Farrell does not teach recycling the H2S vapor stream (instant claim 2) and NH3 vapor stream (instant claim 11) to the hydrocracking (claimed step g).
Vaell teaches a method for hydrocracking of hydrocarbons using Group VIII metal zeolite catalysts (column 1, lines 13-15). Vaell further teaches that the feed to the hydrocracking includes both ammonia and H2S in the vapor form (column 4, lines 71-75) and that including both ammonia and H2S provides the desired product quality and yield distribution (column 2, lines 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recycle the H2S and NH3 vapor streams recovered from the process of Gutierrez in view of Farrell, because each of Gutierrez and Vaell teaches hydrocracking of hydrocarbons over a similar Group VIII metal on a support to produce products including fuels, Vaell teaches that including H2S and NH3 vapor in the feed provides the desired product quality and yield distribution, and using the recycle streams would be economic in order to avoid buying fresh NH3 and H2S feeds.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez et al. (WO 2014/001632) in view of Adam et al. (WO 2021/204820) and Farrell (US 4,424,115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koseoglu et al. (US 2023/0013013).
With regard to claim 3, Gutierrez further teaches that the process comprises a prehydrogenation step (page 25, lines 11-17). The prehydrogenation step comprises passing a pyrolysis oil 70 to a prehydrogenation (hydrogenation) reactor 500 in the presence of at least one hydrogenation catalyst bed and hydrogen 80 to produce an effluent 160 (page 25, lines 11-17). The prehydrogenation conditions include a temperature of 50 to 350°C and a pressure of 10 to 300 bar (1 to 30 MPa) (page 21, lines 24-26). These overlaps the ranges of between 140 and 400°C and 1 to 10 MPa absolute of instant claim 1 step a), rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Gutierrez is silent with regard to i) that the hydrogenation is in a fixed bed reactor and ii) the hourly space velocity of the hydrogenation step.
With regard to i), Koseoglu teaches a process for hydrotreating of plastic pyrolysis oils (Abstract) comprising a second hydrotreating to remove mono-olefins (claimed hydrogenation) (Abstract). Koseoglu further teaches that the second hydrotreating (claimed hydrogenation) reactor can be a fixed bed reactor (n=1) comprising a hydrogenation catalyst (paragraph [0044]). Thus, Koseoglu teaches that it is known to perform hydrogenation of plastic pyrolysis oils in a fixed bed reactor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a fixed bed reactor in the process of Gutierrez because Gutierrez and Koseoglu each teach hydrogenation of pyrolysis oils in the presence of a hydrogenation catalyst, Gutierrez is silent regarding the reactor type for the hydrogenation, and Koseoglu teaches that fixed bed reactors are known and suitable for hydrogenation (paragraph [0044]).
With regard to ii), space velocity is a well-known process parameter which affects the conversion of the reaction, and can be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of the success of having a suitable space velocity for the conversion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the hourly space velocity to between 0.1 and 10 h-1, as claimed, through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Alternatively with regard to ii), Koseoglu teaches a process for hydrotreating of plastic pyrolysis oils (Abstract) comprising a second hydrotreating to remove mono-olefins (claimed hydrogenation) (Abstract). Koseoglu further teaches that the second hydrotreating (claimed hydrogenation) reactor is operated at a temperature of 250-330°C (paragraph [0046]), a pressure of 10 to 25 bar (1 to 2.5 MPa (paragraph [0047]), and a LHSV of 1 to 5 h-1 (paragraph [0048]). These are similar to the temperature of 50 to 350°C and pressure of 10 to 300 bar (1 to 30 MPa) of Gutierrez and the claimed temperature and pressure. The LHSV of Koseoglu is within the range of 0.1 to 10 h-1 of instant claim 1. Thus, Koseoglu teaches a known and suitable LHSV for the hydrogenation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the LHSV of Koseoglu in the process of Gutierrez, because each of Gutierrez and Koseoglu teaches hydrogenation of plastic pyrolysis oils at similar conditions of temperature and pressure, Gutierrez is silent regarding the LHSV, and Koseoglu teaches that 1 to 5 h-1 is a suitable LHSV for the hydrogenation reaction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez et al. (WO 2014/001632) in view of Adam et al. (WO 2021/204820) and Farrell (US 4,424,115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalnes et al. (US 5,969,201).
With regard to claim 8, Gutierrez teaches the separation comprises two steps,
c1) a first step which separates the product stream into a liquid stream and a light gas stream, followed by
c2) a second step which contacts the light gas with an aqueous stream to separate a gaseous effluent and a light hydrocarbon product (page 15, lines 28-39). Gutierrez does not explicitly teach the separation produces an aqueous solution. However, it is understood that the scrubber produces an aqueous solution comprising the impurities including H2S that have been removed from the gas product, thus the aqueous solution is implicitly disclosed by Gutierrez.
Gutierrez is silent regarding the conditions of the separation steps. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to similar separations to determine suitable conditions.
Kalnes teaches a process for treating plastic pyrolysis oil (Abstract). Kalnes teaches that the process comprises sending a hydrodemetallized at about 950 psi (6.55 MPa) (claimed hydrotreated instant specification page 23, lines 9-11) effluent through
c1) a first hot separator at a temperature of about 500°F (260°C) and a pressure of about 850 psi (5.86 MPa) to obtain a vapor stream and a liquid stream,
c2) contacting the vapor stream with an aqueous solution in a cold separator at a temperature of about 100°F (37°C) and a pressure of 850 psi (5.86 MPa) to obtain a gas stream, a spent aqueous solution, and a hydrocarbon stream (column 7, line 64-column 8, line 16).
These temperatures are within the ranges of 250 to 450°C of step c1) and 20 to 200°C of step c2), the pressure of step c1) is within 0 to 15 MPa of the pressure of the demetallization step (substantially identical as defined in the instant specification page 31, lines 1-5), and the pressure of step c2) is substantially identical to the pressure of step c1), as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the conditions of Kalnes in the process of Gutierrez, because each of Gutierrez and Kalnes teaches hydrotreating of plastic pyrolysis oil followed by two steps of separating using an aqueous solution in the second step, Gutierrez is silent regarding the conditions, and Kalnes teaches suitable conditions for the separation (column 7, line 64-column 8, line 16).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutierrez et al. (WO 2014/001632) in view of Adam et al. (WO 2021/204820) and Farrell (US 4,424,115) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2019/0161683, cited on IDS of 10/28/2024).
With regard to claim 10, Gutierrez teaches the process above, where the process produces a product comprising a naphtha range stream (first hydrocarbon cut from stage f)).
Gutierrez does not explicitly teach passing the naphtha range stream to steam cracking.
Narayanaswamy teaches a method for producing hydrocarbons from plastic (paragraph [0001]). Narayanaswamy teaches that the process includes pyrolysis of the plastics to produce a pyrolysis oil (paragraph [0001]), hydroprocessing the pyrolysis
oil to produce a stream having a reduced amount of olefins and aromatics (paragraph [0060]), distillation by boiling points (fractionation) of the effluent from the hydroprocessing unit to recover a treated stream comprising C5-C8 hydrocarbons (naphtha range stream (paragraph [0071]), and steam cracking the treated feed (naphtha range stream) (paragraph [0076]) at a temperature of 850°C (paragraph [0197]). This is within the range of 700-900°C of instant claim 10. Narayanaswamy does not explicitly teach the pressure of the steam cracking, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude the pressure is about ambient pressure (0.1 MPa-g), absent any evidence to the contrary. This is within the range of 0.05 to 0.3 MPa of instant claim 10. Narayanaswamy further teaches that integrating steam cracking with the pyrolysis maximizes production of light gas olefins (paragraph [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of steam cracking the naphtha range stream to the process of Gutierrez, because Gutierrez teaches that the hydroprocessing and separating produces a naphtha range product stream, and Narayanaswamy teaches that steam cracking the naphtha range stream adds value to the process by maximizing production of light gas olefins (paragraph [0113]).
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights