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 18889556 filed 9/19/24.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 4/10/26 and 12/11/24 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 9/19/24 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. (US PG PUB 20190161683) in its entirety. Hereby referred to as NARAYANASWAMY.
Regarding claims 1-15:
NARAYANASWAMY in the abstract A process for processing plastic waste comprising converting plastic waste to hydrocarbon liquid and a first C1-4 gas; contacting hydrocarbon liquid with a first hydroprocessing catalyst in hydroprocessing unit to yield a second C1-4 gas and a first hydrocarbon product comprising C5+ liquid hydrocarbons; introducing the first hydrocarbon product to a first separating unit to produce treated hydrocarbon stream comprising C5-8 hydrocarbons and a first heavies stream comprising C9+ hydrocarbons; contacting the first heavies stream with a second hydroprocessing catalyst in hydrodealkylating unit to yield a second hydrocarbon product comprising C5+ liquid hydrocarbons and a third C1-4 gas; conveying the second hydrocarbon product to the first separating unit; feeding treated hydrocarbon stream to steam cracker to produce steam cracker product; separating steam cracker product into olefin gas, saturated hydrocarbons gas, aromatics, and a second heavies stream; and conveying the second heavies stream to hydroprocessing unit.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in para [0110] as will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, and with the help of this disclosure, the mixed plastics processing system 100 is configured to recycle heavy streams, such as streams containing C9+ hydrocarbons, almost to extinction, in order to maximize recovery of C6 to C8 aromatic hydrocarbons in the range of C6+ recovered hydrocarbons.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in para [0051] examples of olefins which may be present in hydrocarbon liquid stream 21 include, but are not limited to, C2 to C10 olefins and combinations thereof. Where hydrogen is introduced to the pyrolysis unit 10, due to hydrogenation reactions in the pyrolysis unit 10, the olefins can be present in the hydrocarbon liquid stream 21 in an amount of less than 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the hydrocarbon liquid stream 21.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in para [0135] the yield of light gas olefins, i.e., the sum of yields of ethylene, propylene and butylenes was 32.69 wt. %. [0190] Gas steam cracking of a feed consisting of 16.75 wt. % ethane and para [0207] methane—7.67%.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in para [0045] the first C1 to C4 gas stream 22 can comprise C1 to C4 hydrocarbons, H2, inert gases (e.g., nitrogen (N2), argon, helium, steam, CO2, CO), HCl, and the like, or combinations thereof.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in para [0107] at least a portion of the steam cracker product stream 51 and/or at least a portion of the treated C1 to C4 gas stream 81 can be introduced to the second separating unit 70 to produce an olefin gas stream 71, a saturated hydrocarbons gas stream 72, an aromatics stream 73, and a second heavies’ stream 74; wherein the olefin gas stream 71 comprises ethylene, propylene, butylenes, butadiene, or combinations thereof
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in para [0103] steam cracker 50 generally has feed specification requirements, e.g., requires a dechlorinated feed with low chloride content, a low olefin content and with a specific boiling end point or boiling point distribution.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in FIG.3A EXAMPLE 2B has a liquid product pressure at 20 barg = 290 psig, with temperatures from 61.4-297C. NARAYANASWAMY teaches in FIG.6A the product comprising 0.49-1.64wt% of heavy component. Also, see NARAYANASWAMY teachings in para [0111], [0138]-[0146], and FIG.1.
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.
Further, "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.
“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.”)
Furthermore, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the product of NARAYANASWAMY would result in the recovery of a recycle pyrolysis gas with calculated weight ratios, as these results would be a mere calculation based on the evidence disclosed in NARAYANASWAMY. See MPEP 2112.02 (I). If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the product conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Further, 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)
In addition, an intended result of a product 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 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.
In conclusion, no non-obviousness is seen in any of the concentration’s differences because NARAYANASWAMY provides the skilled artisan with the knowledge to produce said product
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