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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 are pending. This is the first Office Action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the hydrocracking catalyst” in line 4 appears to refer to “at least one hydrocracking catalyst” in lines 2-3. Accordingly, the limitation of line 4 should be amended to state “the at least one hydrocracking catalyst.”
Appropriate correction is 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 15-17, 19, and 21 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 15 is indefinite for reciting both a broad limitation “from 200 to 500 °C” and a narrower limitation “preferably from 300 to 450 °C.” 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). The claim is 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. For the purpose of examination, the narrower limitation will not be given patentable.
Claim 16 is indefinite for reciting a broad limitation “from 1 to 200 bar” and also a narrower limitation “preferably from 5 to 100 bar.” For the purpose of examination, the narrower limitation will not be given patentable.
Claim 17 is indefinite for reciting a broad limitation “C1-C20 hydrocarbon” and also a narrower limitation “preferably C1-C20 alkanes.” For the purpose of examination, the narrower limitation will not be given patentable.
Claim 19 is indefinite for reciting a broad limitation “a liquid product stream” and also a narrower limitation “preferably C4-C20 alkanes.” For the purpose of examination, the narrower limitation will not be given patentable.
Claim 21 is indefinite for reciting a broad limitation “C4-C12 hydrocarbons” and also a narrower limitation “preferably C4-C12 alkanes.” For the purpose of examination, the narrower limitation will not be given patentable.
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.
Claims 1-14, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mihan et al. (WO 2022/157265 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mihan discloses a process for the hydrodepolymerization of polymeric waste material, the process comprising:
contacting a carbon-containing feedstock (“polymeric waste material”) and a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrocracking catalyst to produce an alkane-containing product stream (“the hydrodepolymerization product obtained by the hydrodepolymerization process of the present disclosure is characterized by a low content of olefinic components”) ([0033], [0092]);
wherein the hydrocracking catalyst comprises at least one transition metal (“at least one of Fe, Mo, W, Ti, Ni, Cr, V, Co, Zr and mixtures thereof”) supported on an oxide-containing support (“SiO2, AlzO3, AIPO4 and Al/Si mixed oxide”) ([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Mihan discloses that contacting (“mixing”) of the feedstock with the hydrocracking catalyst and hydrogen results in a reaction (“hydrodepolymerization”) ([0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Mihan discloses a process for the hydrodepolymerization of polymeric waste material, the process comprising:
reacting a polymer-based feedstock (“polymeric waste material”) with a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrocracking catalyst, in a one-step hydrocracking reaction, to depolymerize the polymer-based feedstock and form an alkane-containing product stream (“the hydrodepolymerization product obtained by the hydrodepolymerization process of the present disclosure is characterized by a low content of olefinic components”) ([0033], [0088], [0092]);
wherein the hydrocracking catalyst comprises at least one transition metal (“at least one of Fe, Mo, W, Ti, Ni, Cr, V, Co, Zr and mixtures thereof”) supported on an oxide-containing support (“SiO2, AlzO3, AIPO4 and Al/Si mixed oxide”) ([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Mihan teaches that the hydrodepolymerization is a one-step process that can be operated in one vessel ([0033], [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, the process of Mihan does not require pyrolysis of the polymer-based feedstock ([0033], [0036]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Mihan teaches that suitable metals for the hydrocracking catalyst include Fe (Group VIII), Mo (Group VI), W (Group VI), Ni (Group X), and Co (Group IX) ([0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Mihan teaches that the hydrocracking catalyst may comprise two transition metals supported on the oxide-containing support ([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Mihan teaches that the metal component of the hydrocracking catalyst may be Ni, Co, NiMo, or NiW, ([0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Mihan teaches that suitable materials for the support include aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), and aluminosilicate ([0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Mihan teaches that suitable materials for the support include aluminosilicate in the form of zeolites ([0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Mihan teaches that the feedstock may be a polymer-based feedstock ([0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Mihan teaches or suggests that the feedstock may be a petroleum-based virgin resin, bio-based resin, recycled resin, or a combination thereof ([0036]-[0037], [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, Mihan teaches or suggests that the feedstock may be a post-consumer resin (“plastic waste material”) or a post-industrial resin (“cracker oil residues”) ([0036]).
Regarding claim 20, Mihan teaches producing an alkane-containing product stream (“the hydrodepolymerization product obtained by the hydrodepolymerization process of the present disclosure is characterized by a low content of olefinic components”) ([0033], [0092]).
Alternatively, the claimed limitation is a product-by-process. Accordingly, any alkane-containing mixture obtainable from known methods in the prior art is considered to read on the limitation of claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, Mihan teaches a system comprising ([0033]):
a reactor receiving the carbon-containing feedstock, a hydrogen stream and at least one hydrocracking catalyst, wherein the reactor is configured to convert the carbon-containing feedstock into an alkane-containing product stream,
wherein the hydrocracking catalyst comprises at least one transition metal or transition metal sulfide supported on an oxide-containing support.
Regarding claim 23, Mihan teaches that the hydrodepolymerization can be operated in one vessel ([0033], [0078]).
Regarding claim 24, Mihan does not require a pyrolysis unit in the system ([0033], [0036]).
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.
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 15-18, 21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihan et al. (WO 2022/157265 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mihan teaches the process of claim 2, as discussed above.
Mihan teaches that the process may be operated at a temperature from 200 to 850°C ([0074]). The claimed range of “200 to 500 °C” falls within the temperature range taught by Mihan and is considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
Regarding claim 16, Mihan teaches that the process may be operated at a hydrogen pressure from 20 to 500 bar ([0080]). The claimed range of “from 1 to 200 bar” overlaps the pressure range taught by Mihan and is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Mihan teaches that the product stream has a boiling range from 30 to 650°C ([0088]), which corresponds to hydrocarbons that at least partially overlap the claimed limitation “C1-C20 hydrocarbons.”
Regarding claim 18, Mihan teaches that the feedstock may be plastics dissolved in a solvent ([0036]), which reasonably suggests a step of pre-mixing plastics with a solvent medium prior to the reaction steps.
Regarding claim 21, Mihan teaches obtaining a heavy naphtha fraction mainly containing C6 to C12 hydrocarbons obtained by distillation of the reaction product ([0088]). This fraction is considered to meet the limitation “at least 50% by weight of C4-C12 hydrocarbon.”
Regarding claim 25, Mihan discloses a process for the hydrodepolymerization of polymeric waste material, the process comprising:
providing a catalyst comprising at least one transition metal (“at least one of Fe, Mo, W, Ti, Ni, Cr, V, Co, Zr and mixtures thereof”) supported on a catalytic support, such as a silica-alumina mixture ([0051]-[0052]);
carrying out the hydrodepolymerization at a temperature from 200 to 850°C ([0074]); and
reacting a polymer-based feedstock (“polymeric waste material”) and a hydrogen stream in the presence of the catalyst to generate an alkane-containing product stream (“the hydrodepolymerization product obtained by the hydrodepolymerization process of the present disclosure is characterized by a low content of olefinic components”) ([0033], [0092]).
The application of a silica-alumina mixed oxide would naturally require “selecting a molar ratio between aluminum oxide and a silicon oxide.”
The operation of the reaction at the suggested temperature range would inherently require “selecting a temperature” in said temperature range. Furthermore, the claimed range of “200 to 500 °C” falls within the temperature range taught by Mihan and is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 26, Mihan discloses a process for the hydrodepolymerization of polymeric waste material, the process comprising:
reacting a polymer-based feedstock (“polymeric waste material”) and a hydrogen stream in the presence of a hydrocracking catalyst, in a one-step hydrocracking reaction, to depolymerize the polymer-based feedstock and form a reaction product, from which a heavy naphtha fraction mainly containing C6 to C12 hydrocarbons can be separated ([0032]),
wherein:
the hydrocracking catalyst comprises at least one transition metal (“at least one of Fe, Mo, W, Ti, Ni, Cr, V, Co, Zr and mixtures thereof”) supported on an oxide-containing support such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3”) ([0051]-[0052]); and
the reaction temperature ranges from from 200 to 850°C ([0074]). The claimed range of “300-450 °C” falls within the temperature range taught by Mihan and is considered prima facie obvious.
Mihan does not explicitly teach that the heavy naphtha contains no more than 5% by weight of unsaturated hydrocarbons. However, Mihan discloses that the content of olefinic compounds in the hydrodepolymerization product is preferably no more than 1 mol%. Accordingly, it would be obvious to conclude that the heavy naphtha fraction separated from the hydrodepolymerization product also contains a low content of olefins, such as no more than 1 mol%, which renders obvious the claimed range of no more than 5% by weight.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihan et al. (WO 2022/157265 A1), as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Schucker et al. (US 2024/0218257 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Mihan teaches that the feedstock may be plastics dissolved in a solvent ([0036]).
Mihan does not specify the material used for the solvent.
However, Schucker teaches a step of catalytically depolymerizing plastic materials at an elevated temperature in the presence of a high boiling point solvent, such as a carbon black oil, a heavy cat cycle oil, a vacuum gas oil, or a hydrocarbon fraction with a boiling point ranging from about 300°C to about 565°C ([0086], [0090]). Schucker further teaches recovering the solvent and returning it to the depolymerization step ([0089]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mihan by employing a liquid hydrocarbon, obtained from the depolymerization reaction, as taught by Schucker, because (i) Mihan teaches that the feedstock may be plastics dissolved in a solvent and that the reaction products include liquid hydrocarbons having a boiling range from 30 to 650°C ([0036], [0088]), (ii) Schucker teaches using a liquid hydrocarbon with a boiling point ranging from about 300°C to about 565°C in a depolymerization step, wherein the liquid hydrocarbon solvent is recycled, and (iii) this involves application of a known solvent material useful for depolymerization to yield predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Y Chong whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights