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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 and 03/19/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-10, filed 09/26/2024, are under consideration.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Here, claim 3 is missing; misnumbered claims 4-10 should be renumbered 3-9.
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 1-2 and 4-10 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 1 is indefinite because: i) it does not connect the “clean liquid fuel product” in the preamble to the claimed method; it is not clear where and how this fuel product is obtained; ii) it recites “the reactor effluent” in steps d) and e) which lacks antecedent basis; these recitation should refer to “the hydrogenated effluent”; iii) it recites “the effluent” in step h) which lacks antecedent basis; this should refer to effluent from cold high pressure separator; iv) it recites “hydro treated product” in step i) which is not connected to any of the claimed steps, it is not clear how this product fits with claimed method; this product is interpreted as effluent from the reactor in step c; and v) it recites “the feed” in step i) which lacks antecedent basis; this should refer to the hydrocarbon effluent stream as claimed in step a).
Claim 5 does not introduce any additional step(s) to the claimed invention and is considered indefinite.
Claim 9 is a system claim and only recites method steps and thus, it fails to connect or further limit claim 8.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss et al. (WO 2023/099304 A1, published 06/08/2023).
For claim 1, Weiss teaches method and apparatus for treating effluent from plastic pyrolysis to recover fuels (pg. 2, Technical Area) the method and apparatus comprising:
Pre-treatment stage for pretreating the pyrolysis oil to remove impurities (pg. 5-6, Pretreatment section; relating to claimed step a).
A hydrogenation step in hydrogenation reactor at temperatures of 135-400 °C and pressure of 1-10 MPa (10-100 b bars; pg. 6-7, Hydrogenation section; relating to claimed step c). Also, the hydrogenated stream is then hydrotreated in hydrotreatment reactor with recycled hydrogen at pressures similar to hydrogenation and at temperature of 250-430 °C (pg. 7-8, hydrotreatment section).
The hydrogenated/hydrotreated effluent is passed to separation including Hot High-Pressure separator (HHPS, pg. 9, Separation step c) and Cold High-Pressure separator (CHPS, pg. 10, Separation step d)-this disclosure reads on claimed step d).
The hot high-pressure separator operates at similar pressure and temperature (about 200-450°C), and recycle hydrogen is provided to liquid effluent from the HHPS (last paragraph of Separation step c) as relating to claimed step e. The gaseous effluent from the HHPS is passed with aqueous solution to be washed and separated in the CHPS (first paragraph of Separation step d on pg. 10; as relating to claimed step f). The aqueous effluent from CHPS includes salts (ammonium, pg. 10; as relating to claimed step h). The effluent is passed to separation of various components including distillation (pg. 11, Step e, 5th paragraph; as relating to claimed step h).
Weiss further teaches recycling a portion of the effluent from hydrotreating to the feed (upstream of step a which is hydrogenation, Abstract). This reads on the claimed “recycling a portion of hydro treated product to the feed”. Regarding the claimed “to reduce concentration of diolefins”, it should be noted that any dilution (of the feed with recycled stream) does provide dilution. Also, Weiss acknowledges the presence of diolefins in the pyrolysis oil (pg. 3 last paragraph) which are removed during treatment with hydrogen (pg. 6, step a, 2nd paragraph, and pg. 9 step c, 4th paragraph) wherein the recycled stream rate helps with temperature control of the diolefin hydrogenation (i.e. dilute).
Regarding the limitation “drum” in claimed step b) and i), is interpreted as holding tank or equipment related feeding the pyrolysis oil. It is noted that Weiss does not explicitly suggest feed drum. However, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used “drum” for the feed to facilitate uniform outflow, to normalize feed flow inconsistency, and to offer buffer between the steps of pretreatment and hydrogenation/hydrotreatment.
Finally, the instant claim recites “effluent from hydrothermal liquification of plastic waste” in the preamble. However, this limitation does not add any steps to the claimed method since the hydrothermal liquefaction is external to steps a)-i) in pending claim 1: “a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention”—see MPEP 2111.02.
For claim 2, Weiss teaches the feed is plastic pyrolysis oil.
For claim 4, Weiss teaches the reactor for hydrogenation and hydrotreatment is hydrogen atmosphere reactor.
For claim 5, Weiss teaches the product is suitable for cracker (step f on pg. 11 and step g on pg. 14).
For claim 6-7, the mixing and settling seems trivial and obvious as discussed above.
For claim 8, Weiss teaches apparatus for treating effluent from plastic pyrolysis to recover fuels (pg. 2, Technical Area) the apparatus comprising: contaminant removal unit (pretreatment on pg. 5), a feed drum (as modified in claim 1 rejection), a reactor (hydrogenation and/or hydrotreatment), a separator consists of HHPS and CHPS, and a stripping unit for removing sour water and off gas from the liquid product/fuel (pg. 10, step d, 6th paragraph and pg. 11, step e, 4th paragraph).
For claim 9, the recycling of a portion of the liquid fuel product from separator to the feed drum, which reduces concentration of diolefins, is disclosed by Weiss as discussed in claim 1 rejection above.
For claim 10, the addition of mixer and settler seems trivial and obvious as part of the pretreatment of Weiss.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights