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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisamitsu (JP 3260436 B2) in view of Harandi (WO 2021/091724 A1) and Helton (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0084313).
An English-language machine translation of Hisamitsu, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation unless otherwise noted.
In paragraphs 6-7, Hisamitsu discloses a method of treating a polymer, which can be polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyamide 6, or mixtures thereof, together with a heavy hydrocarbon oil in a coker. The polymer feedstocks disclosed by Hisamitsu are plastics, and polyamide 6 (nylon 6), is nitrogen-containing. Combining the plastic feedstock with a heavy hydrocarbon oil corresponds to the first step (“mixing…”) of claim 1. In paragraph 15 Hisamitsu discloses that the combined feedstock comprises 80% of less of the plastic materials, encompassing the range recited in claim 1 for the concentration of plastic feedstock relative to the overall weight of the feedstock mixture.
In paragraphs 12-16 Hisamitsu discloses treating the mixture of the plastic feedstock and the heavy hydrocarbon oil in the coker, which produces a conversion effluent (decomposition oil), corresponding to the second step (“exposing…”) of claim 1.
In paragraphs 16-17 Hisamitsu discloses that the decomposition oil can be fractionated, for example by distillation, and that it contains a kerosene fraction. Kerosene has a boiling range of 150° to 300°, and will therefore have T10 and T90 ranges within the range recited in the third step (“separating…”) of claim 1. Fractionating the decomposition oil of Hisamitsu to obtain these fractions therefore corresponds to the third step of claim 1. Hisamitsu also discloses in paragraph 16 that the oil can be hydroprocessed (hydrorefining) and denitrified.
Hisamitsu does not disclose the inclusion of a chlorine-containing polymer in the feedstock, meeting the limitations of claim 13 for the case where the feedstock comprises 0% by weight of a chlorine-containing polymer.
The decomposition of polyamide 6 in a coker produces caprolactam, as recited in claim 18, and as acknowledged in paragraph 53 of the current specification.
In paragraph 9 Hisamitsu discloses that the coker can be a delayed coker, as recited in claim 19.
The differences between Hisamitsu and the currently presented claims are:
i) While Hisamitsu indicates that the plastic feedstock can be a mixture of a non-nitrogen plastic (polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene) and a nitrogen-containing plastic (polyamide 6), Hisamitsu does not specifically disclose the amount of nitrogen-containing plastic in this mixture, nor does Hisamitsu disclose the nitrogen contents of the fraction isolated from the coker effluent. Hisamitsu discloses that the plastic feedstock is co-processed with a heavy hydrocarbon oil, but does not disclose the T10 boiling point of the heavy hydrocarbon oil. Hisamitsu discloses in paragraph 14 that the plastic feedstock can be a pellet or powder, but does not disclose the particle size.
ii) While Hisamitsu indicates that the coker effluent contains kerosene fractions, and that the effluent can be fractionated, hydrorefined, and denitrified, Hisamitsu does not specifically disclose converting a fraction having the nitrogen content of more than 100 wppm to a jet boiling range fraction having a nitrogen content of 10 wppm or less.
iii) Hisamitsu does not disclose performing a dechlorination step meeting the limitations of claims 14-16
With respect to i), in paragraph 20 Harandi discloses using coking to co-process a feed comprising a plastic waste feedstock and a conventional coker feedstock. Harandi discloses that the amount of plastic waste in the feed can be 1.0 to 25% of the total feed, within the range recited in claim 1 for the concentration of plastic feedstock within the overall feedstock and also within the broader range taught by Hisamitsu and discussed above. Harandi discloses that the conventional coker feedstock can be a heavy oil, in accordance with Hisamitsu. In paragraphs 24-25 Harandi discloses that the feedstock can be polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene, as taught by Hisamitsu, as well as polyamide (nylon), as also taught by Hisamitsu. Harandi teaches in paragraph 25 that the amount of polyolefins in the plastic waste feed can be 50 to 1000% by weight, leaving up to 50% by weight for the remaining plastic waste components. When the plastic feedstock is a mixture of polyolefin and polyamide, the polyamide is therefore present in an amount of up to 50% by weight, encompassing the range recited in claim 1.
In paragraph 21 Harandi discloses that the conventional coker feedstock can have a T10 distillation point of 343° or more, within the range recited in claim 12.
In paragraph 30 Harandi discloses that the plastic waste can be processed to reduce the median particle size to 0.01 to 5.0 mm, well within the range recited in claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the plastic feedstock of Hisamitsu to comprise polyolefin and polyamide in the amounts taught by Harandi, since Hisamitsu teaches that the plastic feedstock can be a mixture of polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyamide 6, and Harandi teaches that a polyolefin content of at least 50% by weight (leaving up to 50% by weight for the remaining polymers such as polyamide) is suitable for a plastic feedstock to be co-processed with heavy oil in a coker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the plastic feedstock of Hisamitsu and Harandi to the coker as particles having the size taught by Harandi, as Harandi teaches in paragraph 30 that a small particle size facilitates transport of the solids and reduces the likelihood of incomplete conversion.
While Hisamitsu and Harandi do not specifically disclose the nitrogen content of the kerosene fraction obtained from the coker effluent, since the feedstock of Hisamitsu and Harandi meets the limitations of the claimed feedstock, including polyamide 6 (which has a nitrogen content of about 12.4% by weight) in an amount of up to 50%, and caprolactam, which is a nitrogen-containing decomposition product of polyamide 6, has a boiling point of 270.8° C, within the kerosene boiling range, the nitrogen content of the kerosene fraction (corresponding to the “at least one liquid product fraction” of the claims) will at least overlap the ranges recited in claims 1-6.
With respect to ii), in paragraph 1 Helton discloses a process for improving the yield and properties of jet fuel from a kerosene feed. The process includes a hydrotreating step, meeting the limitations of the hydroprocessing of the fourth step (“exposing…”) of claim 1. In paragraph 18 Helton discloses that the hydrotreatment reduces the nitrogen content to 10 wppm or less, preferably 5 wppm or less, within the range recited in the fourth step of claim 1.
In paragraph 19 Helton discloses that the hydrotreating is preferably carried out at a temperature of 300° to 380° C a pressure of 400 to 2000 psig, and an LHSV of 0.1 to 5. According to the definition set forth in paragraphs 60-61 of the current specification, the severity index ranges from 0 to 17, since a temperature of 300° C, pressure of 400 psig, and LHSV of 5 do not add contribute to the severity index, while a temperature of 380° C contributes +7, a pressure of 2000 psig contributes +6, and an LHSV of 0.1 contributes +4. The severity index of Helton therefore encompasses the range recited in claim 20.
See MPEP 2144.05(I): “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Processing the kerosene fraction of the effluent produced by the process of Hisamitsu and Harandi according to the process of Helton therefore meets the limitations of claims 1-6, 12-13, and 17-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to process the kerosene fraction of the effluent produced by the process of Hisamitsu and Harandi according to the process of Helton, since Helton teaches in paragraphs 2-6 that the production of high quality jet fuels from kerosene is desirable, and in paragraphs 14-15 and 29 teaches that the process is suitable and advantageous for converting kerosene into said jet fuels.
With respect to iii), Harandi discloses in paragraph 26 that the plastic feedstock can contain various chlorine-containing plastics in concentration ranges overlapping the range recited in claim 13, such as 0.1 to 20% by weight, meeting the limitations of claim 13 for the case where a chlorine-containing plastic feedstock is present. In paragraphs 34-35 Harandi discloses that the feedstock mixture can be heated to 200° to 325° C, overlapping the range recited for the dechlorination temperature of claim 14, prior to supplying the feedstock to the coker, and that a stripping gas can be passed through to remove HCl produced by heating the chlorine-containing polymers in the feedstock. As discussed above, the conventional coker feedstock of Harandi has a T10 distillation point of 343° C or more, higher than the 325° C upper bound of the dichlorination temperature of Harandi, meeting the limitations of claim 15. The concentration ranges disclosed for the chlorine-containing polymer relative to the plastic feedstock in paragraph 26 of Harandi include ranges having a lower bound of 1000 wppm (0.1%). Since chlorine only makes up a small part of the chlorine-containing polymer, the polymer feedstock combined in a minor amount with the conventional coker feedstock, and the dechlorination step discussed above further reduces the chlorine content of the feedstock, the lower bound of the chlorine content of the feedstock prior to supplying the feedstock to the coker will therefore be well below the 1000 wppm recited in claim 16, and the range of chlorine content of the feedstock will therefore at least overlap the range recited in claim 16.
Harandi does not specifically disclose the amount of time the feedstock mixture is heated, but "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the heating removes HCl and other entrained gases, and it would have been a matter of routine optimization to heat the feedstock mixture for a period of time sufficient to reduce the concentration of undesired gases to a preferred level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the heating step of Harandi, which functions as a dechlorination step, prior to feeding the feedstock mixture to the coker in the process of Hisamitsu, Harandi, and Helton, in order to remove chlorine from the feedstock and reduce the amount of corrosive gas supplied to the coker, as discussed in paragraph 8 of Hisamitsu. Claims 14-16 are therefore additionally rendered obvious by Hisamitsu, Harandi, and Helton, as well as claim 13 for the case where a chlorine-containing polymer is present in the plastic feedstock.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above, does not disclose or render obvious separating the coker effluent to a plurality of fractions having the claimed distillation points and hydroprocessing the plurality of fractions to form a plurality of jet boiling range fractions having the claimed nitrogen content, as in claims 7-8, separating the hydroprocessed effluent to form a jet boiling range fraction and the additional hydroprocessed fraction(s) having the high claimed T10 distillation point of 300° C or higher, as in claims 9-10, or separating coker effluent to form an additional fraction having a T10 distillation point of 300° C or higher and hydroprocessing the fraction to obtain the product fractions recited in claim 11. Helton, in paragraph 33, discloses that the hydrotreated feedstock can be separated to obtain a fuel suitable for use as a jet fuel, but does not provide any indication that a fraction with a T10 of 300° C or higher is separated or is obtainable from the hydrotreated feedstock.
Brown (U.S. Pat. No. 5,520,799) discloses a process for upgrading distillate feeds, where a feed of high heteroatom content is used to produce jet fuel, and a feed of low heteroatom content used to produce diesel fuel. However, Hisamitsu and Harandi do not disclose or render obvious separating the coker effluent into high and low heteroatom content feeds, and Brown does not disclose the nitrogen content of the jet fuel and diesel fuel products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights