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 § 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara et al. (WO 2011/077419 A1) in view of Jo et al. (WO 2023/068842 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McNamara discloses a system for producing refined hydrocarbons from waste plastics comprising an extruder (4) for melting/pretreating waste plastics; pyrolysis chambers (6) receiving the melted plastics and producing pyrolysis gases; contactors (7) receiving the pyrolysis gases; pipe (12) connecting each contactor and pyrolysis chamber such that heavier/long-chain hydrocarbons condensed in the contactor flow back through pipe (12) into the pyrolysis chamber for further thermal degradation; and downstream atmospheric and vacuum distillation columns (20, 26) for obtaining fuel products (McNamara, Fig. 1 and pp. 5-7; see particularly the disclosure that pyrolysis gases rise through pipe 12 into contactor 7, heavier chains condense on baffle plates 13 and run back for further pyrolysis).
McNamara therefore teaches the claimed pretreatment device, pyrolysis reactor, condensate-return connection pipe, and distillation device, but does not expressly characterize contactor (7) as a “hot filter.”
Jo teaches producing waste-plastic pyrolysis gas by introducing waste plastics into a pyrolysis reactor at 400–550°C and directly introducing the resulting pyrolysis gas into a hot filter filled with a neutralizing agent to produce pyrolysis oil (Jo, WO 2023/068842 A1, claim 1; see also description of the pyrolysis and lightening processes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the hot-filter treatment taught by Jo as the pyrolysis-gas treatment device in the system of McNamara to remove impurities from and/or upgrade the hot pyrolysis gas before downstream product recovery, thereby obtaining treated pyrolysis oil suitable for subsequent refining.
Regarding claim 2, McNamara in view of Jo teaches the system of claim 1. Jo further teaches a hot filter filled with particulate treatment material, but does not expressly teach that the particulate material is in the form of beads.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particulate material of the hot filter of McNamara as modified by Jo in the form of beads, since bead-shaped particulate material would provide a packed bed having interstitial spaces permitting passage of the pyrolysis gas while providing surface area for contact between the pyrolysis gas and the particulate treatment material.
Regarding claim 3, Jo further teaches that the material of the hot filter comprises aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃). Accordingly, Jo teaches the claimed beads including at least one selected from silica sand (SiO₂) and aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃).
Regarding claim 4, McNamara in view of Jo teaches the system of claim 1. Jo further teaches operating the hot filter at a high temperature (see Jo: ¶[6] and ¶[34]), but does not expressly disclose at least two heaters provided outside the hot filter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two or more heaters outside the hot filter of McNamara as modified by Jo in order to supply heat to and maintain the hot filter at its desired high operating temperature, since the number and placement of heaters necessary to maintain the operating temperature of the hot filter would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights