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 18/862760 filed on 11/03/2024.
Claims 13-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered
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 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 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 14 recites the limitation "the separation step (iii)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recited a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation.
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, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “from 10/90 v/v to 10/90 v/v” and the claim also recites “20/80 v/v to 80/20 v/v” as well as “from 40/60 v/v to 60/40 v/v” as well as “from 45/55 v/v to 55/45 v/v,” which are the narrower statements 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "step (ii-1) or (ii-2) in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recited a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation.
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, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “temperature of 200 to 450 C” and the claim also recites “200 to 340 C”, 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. Claim 18 also recites the broad recitation “absolute pressure of 20 to 140 bar” and the claim also recites “30 to 100 bar,” 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.
Claim 19 recited a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation.
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, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “temperature of 80 to 250 C” and the claim also recites “130 to 190 C”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 19 also recites the broad recitation “absolute pressure of 5 to 60 bar” and the claim also recites “20 to 30 bar,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 19 also recites the broad recitation “temperature of 300 to 450°C” and the claim also recites “200 to 340°C”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 19 also recites the broad recitation “absolute pressure of 20 to 140 bar” and the claim also recites “30 to 100 bar,” 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.
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 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) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DERKS (USPGPUB 2022/0403264) and ADAM (WO 2021 204817).
The process comprises feeding a liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream and a first solvent stream into a first column. At least a portion of the aliphatic hydrocarbons is recovered by liquid-liquid extraction of aromatic hydrocarbons and/or polar components with organic solvent.
The liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream is taught in paragraph 45 of DERKS to be a liquid product produced from pyrolysis of plastic waste.
The liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream is taught on page 10 to comprise heteroatom containing organic compounds that include oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and/or a halogen.
The liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream is taught on page 7 an exemplary range of 5 to 50 carbon atoms. The amount of paraffinic compounds and olefinic compounds are each taught to be present in an amount of at least 20 wt %, or at least 40 wt% or at least 60 wt%.
It would be obvious that the liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream employed in DERKS may comprise at least 50% m/m paraffins and olefins in C5-C150 as well as aromatic and heteroatoms selected from oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, silicon, a metal, and/or a halogen.
DERKS teaches paraffins and olefins with carbon numbers that overlap those that are presently claimed and in amounts that overlap those that are presently claimed.
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).
The process that DERKS teaches comprises mixing the liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream with a solvent resulting in a liquid mixture, and then cooling the liquid mixture to a temperature of between +5 to -30°C to obtain wax crystals and then separating wax crystals from the cooled liquid mixture to produce a wax comprising aliphatic hydrocarbons and a dewaxed liquid mixture comprising solvent, heteroatom containing polar components and optionally aromatic hydrocarbons.
The solvent that is employed in DERKS is taught in lines 1-21 on page 11.
The solvents that may be employed include ketone.
Depending on the initial temperature, cooling to a temperature of temperature of between +5 to -30°C to obtain wax crystals would require a reduction of temperature of 10 to 60°C. One example that DERKS teaches in lines 21-32 of page 16 where the mixture starts at room temperature. Room temperature is about 20-22°C.
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).
DERKS teaches in paragraph 10 recovery of aliphatic hydrocarbons in the form of wax crystals from a liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream. Aliphatic hydrocarbons comprise the paraffins and the olefins (alkanes and alkenes).
However, DERKS further teaches in lines 1-12 of page 14 that the aliphatic hydrocarbons may be sent to a steam cracker without further treatment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the aliphatic hydrocarbons present comprise primarily paraffins.
ADAM teaches a process for the purification of waste plastic-based oil that produces olefins and aromatics as well.
ADAM teaches on page 6 that the alkanes can be used as steam cracker feed. However, ADAM further teaches that a steam cracker is very sensitive to the presence of olefins and dienes.
ADAM teaches on page 7 a first hydrotreating step followed by a second hydrotreating step. The two hydrotreating steps are taught on page 9 to result in a concentration of olefins of less than 5 wt%.
The motivation to apply multiple processes to treat olefins (alkenes) can be found in lines 17-35 of page 26 of ADAM et al.
ADAM teaches that depending on the severity of the initial pyrolysis process to form pyrolysis oil, some olefins and diolefins cannot be easily recovered and hydrotreatment is required.
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.
Regarding claim 14, the solvent employed in DERKS in the separation step is taught in lines 25-33 on page 12 to be recyclable to the separation step.
Regarding claim 15, ratio of liquid hydrocarbon feedstock to solvent is taught in lines 22-26 on page 11 to be from 1:0.5 to 1:5.
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 16, modified DERKS teaches a process in which a solid paraffinic product is collected along with a liquid effluent.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same process to the liquid effluent and collecting a second solid product and combining it with solid product separated.
The motivation to do so would be to improve the yield by forming more wax crystals from unsolidified paraffins present in the liquid effluent.
Regarding claim 17, DERKS teaches in lines 27-33 on page 11 that any type of separation for the separation of the solid wax crystals from the liquid mixture may be employed, including filtration.
Regarding claim 18, ADAM teaches in reference claim 1 and on pages 23, and 29-30, a second hydrotreating step of at least 200°C at a pressure from 10 to 90 barg and in the presence of a catalyst.
Regarding claim 19, ADAM teaches in reference claim 1 and on pages 23, and 29-30, a first hydrotreating step of at most 225°C at a pressure from 10 to 90 barg and a second hydrotreating step of at least 200°C at a pressure from 10 to 90 barg and in the presence of catalysts.
Regarding claim 20, DERKS teaches on page 1 the liquid hydrocarbon feedstock is produced from the pyrolysis of waste plastic and includes gaseous and liquid product streams. Some amount of unpyrolyzed waste plastic would remain and be present in a solid phase.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GOUW (U.S. 3767724) teaches extractive crystallization method for the separation of mixtures of alkenes and alkanes. GOUW teaches that an effective fractional crystallization can be carried out with liquid carbon dioxide to promote a solid phase fraction rich in alkanes and a liquid phase fraction rich in alkenes.
LANGE et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0177786) teach recovery of aliphatic hydrocarbons from a liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream. The liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream comprises aliphatic hydrocarbons and additionally comprises aromatic hydrocarbons and/or polar components.
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