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 .
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.
Claims 6 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
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 6 recites the broad recitation of temperature of 50 to 350oC, and the claim also recites 50 to 250 , 90 to 200 and 90 to 190oC, and also period of 0.1 second to 2 hours, 1 minute to 1 hour, 1 minute to 20 minutes and 1 minute to 16 minutes, 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.
Similarly, claim 12 recites the broad recitation of temperature of 200 to 450oC, and the claim also recites 200 to 340oC; and pressure 20 to 140 bars and preferably 30 to 100 bars, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 recites, “…..wherein the purified composition of step (c ) or the hydrotreated purified composition of step (d) is (f) used as such…….”. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, where there is no step hydrotreating step (d) or step (f).
Claim 15 depends on claim 1 and recites different optional steps (A), (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I) and (J), which do not further limit the base claim 1.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al (Extractive desulfurization of pyrolysis-tire oil with deep eutectic solvent using hydrodynamic cavitation; Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021)-28-59268-59276 (Supplied by the IDS)) and Katasonova et al (Extraction methods for removing sulfur and its compounds from crude oil and petroleum products; Russian Journal of Applied Chemistry, 2021, Vol. 94. No.4, pp 411-439).
With respect to claims 1 and 4,
Jovanovic et al disclose purification of pyrolysis-tire oil in the following steps:
providing tire (plastic) oil containing over 1% sulfur (heteroatom) (Page 59268, column 2, paragraph 2);
treating the pyrolysis-tire oil with hydrodynamic cavitation in presence of deep eutectic solvent (Abstract) at a temperature of 298 to 338 K (25 to 65C) and separating the reaction mixture for analysis and determining the degree of desulfurization (DDS) (c2 and c1) (Page 59271column 1, paragraph 1 and Equation (3)).
Jovanovic et al do not specifically disclose using a basic compound. However, Jovanovic et al disclose use of hydrodesulfurization, extractive desulfurization, oxidative desulfurization, adsorption desulfurization and bio-desulfurization (page 59268, column 2, bottom paragraph). Emphasis added.
Katasonova et al also disclose removal of sulfur from petroleum products using hydrotreating, bio- and oxidative desulfurization, extraction, including supercritical extraction, adsorption, ionic liquids and eutectic mixtures (Abstract, page 424, column 1, bottom paragraph, page 428column 2, bottom paragraph). Emphasis added. Katasonova et al further disclose details of extractive desulfurization using acids and bases with details of extraction using NaOH (page 424, column 1, bottom paragraph-Page 425, column 1, first 2 paragraphs).
Disclosures of Jovanovic et al and Katasonova et al clearly indicate that extraction of sulfur with eutectic mixtures and NaOH are equivalent processes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claims to substitute deep eutectic solvent of Jovanovic et al by a basic compound as suggested by Katasonova et al because alkali treatment is an attractive desulfurization procedure because of the cheapness of chemicals and ease of implementation and high cost of new solvents (Katasonova et al, page 424, column 1, bottom paragraph; page 432, column 2, paragraph 2).
It is to be noted here that Jovanovic et al use pyrolysis-tire oil in their investigation and have also described using eutectic solvent on crude oil (page 59269, column 1, paragraph 2). This indicates that source of feed does not affect the desulfurization process (Also see Applicant’s Specification: page 10-11).
With respect to claims 2, 3 Jovanovic et al disclose mass ratio of solvent to pyrolysis oil = 1-10 (Abstract). Katasonova et al also disclose the use of a 5% NaOH solution at the extractant to crude oil ratio of 20:1 (Page 424, column 2, paragraph 1).
With respect to claim 5, Jovanovic et al disclose operating the hydrodynamic cavitation device in a close-loop mode, sending back totally in step (b) (Fig. 2) and finally separating the mixture ((Page 59271, column 1, paragraph 1).
With respect to claim 6, Jovanovic et al disclose hydrodynamic cavitation temperature of 298 to 338K (25 to 65C) and a time of 40 min in one experiment (page 59274, column 1, paragraph 3).
With respect to claims 7-9, Jovanovic et al disclose taking out samples of the reaction mixture and separating the contents for analysis (Page 59271, column 1, paragraph 1). Taking the samples for analysis also indicates that the samples must have been washed/cleaned and separated by known techniques including as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, Jovanovic et al disclose, “Mechanical effect of cavitation includes processes of turbulence generation within reaction system, mass transfer improvement, homogenization of reaction mixture, improvement in solid phase dispersion, microjet occurrence, and shock wave impact” (page 59269, column 2, paragraph 2). This clearly indicates that one with ordinary skill in the art would use filtration, decantation, and necessary techniques to produce a clear and more homogeneous mixture before hydrodynamic cavitation.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanovic et al and Katasonova et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Odjo et al (UK Patent Application GB 2590525).
With respect to claim 11, Jovanovic et al disclose, “The traditional industrial process sulfur removal from fuel oils is hydrodesulfurization (HDS), which is effective both for organosulfur compounds and other categories of organic compounds” (page 59268, column 2, paragraph 3). Jovanovic et al also disclose, “The application of hydrodynamic cavitation leads to the intensification of chemical reactions due to reaction time reduction, increase in the reaction yield, use of less forcing conditions as compared to the conventional routes,……..” (Page 59269, column 1, bottom paragraph).
The disclosure of Jovanovic clearly indicates the synergistic effect of combined hydrodesulfurization and hydrodynamic cavitation.
Odjo et al disclose production of commercial grade ultra-low sulfur diesel from mixed plastics pyrolysis oil (Title).
Odjo et al further disclose catalytic hydrotreating to provide hydrotreated purified commercial grade fuel (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Odjo process as downstream steps in Jovanovic invention for an integrated process to produce commercial grade ultra-low sulfur fuel from waste tire pyrolysis oil.
With respect to claims 12-15, the modified Jovanovic disclosure about limitations of claim 1 has already been discussed above. Jovanovic et al do not appear to disclose the details of hydrotreating and downstream processing.
Odjo et al disclose hydrotreating/hydrocracking of feed streams at a temperature 260-425oC and pressure of 35-200 bar in a hydrogen-rich atmosphere in presence of a suitable catalyst as Nickel-Molybdenum or Cobalt-Molybdenum in a catalytic reactor (Page 5, lines 11-28).
Odjo et al also disclose, “The pyrolysis oil hydro-upgrading operation has the effects of olefin saturation, hydrodesulfuration, hydrodenitrification, hydodeoxygenation, hydrodemetalation or hydrodemetalisation, hydrodearomatisation, decylisation and cracking and isomerization to varying degrees, depending on the severity of the treatments” Page 3, lines 19-22). Odjo et al add to disclose production of ultra-low sulfur fuels (page 9, lines 22-28). This clearly indicates that the products from hydrotreating unit must have been washed to eliminate inorganic compounds including hydosulfide and ammonia.
Odjo et al further disclose, “The pyrolysis oil hydro-upgrading section 32 comprises a hybrid fluid catalytic cracking unit 34 and a hydrotreating unit 38…….. The hydrotreating unit outlet stream 44 is fed to a distillation column 46 so as to obtain a flue gas stream 48 which is used as a fuel to power the pyrolysis oil hydro-upgrading section 32, an ultra-low Sulphur naphtha stream 50, an ultra-low Sulphur diesel stream 52 and an ultra-low Sulphur fuel oil stream 54” (page 9, lines 16-28).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine modified Jovanovic invention (Fig. 2, with modification of replacing deep eutectic solvent by NaOH solution) as the upstream installation with Odjo invention (Fig. 1, Hydrotreating unit 38 and distillation column 46) as the downstream installation to fabricate a compact and integrated installation to produce ultra-low sulfur fuels from waste-plastic pyrolysis oil using hydrodynamic cavitation followed by hydrotreating and purification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Method for upgrading heavy hydrocarbon oil, Kozyuk et al, US 2012/0181216 A1.
Methods and systems for reducing fuel oil viscosity and flux requirement, Hanks et al, WO 2015167860 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights