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.
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.
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 12 recites the broad recitation 50 mesh or smaller and the claim also recites 100 mesh or smaller 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.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2022/0380685 A1) and Iversen (US 2014/0099691 A1). The examiner notes “p” designates “paragraph”.
Wu teaches a process and system for making hydrocarbon (abstract).
The Feedstock has many potential sources (p 182-183, 191). See pages 15-16 for on how the recycled content can be from multiple suppliers or a single supplier. In particular p 211-218 and 225. This feedstock precursor is shipped to the process plant (p 236). Multiple types of recycled material may be combined to make the feedstock, see 243. A recycled portion of the pyoil is combined in the feedstock. See p 264-270.
The final form of feedstock can be a combination of any number of varied sources. This includes unused materials (p 275) and processed and shaped material (p 277).
Specific embodiments with specific amount of different wastes are taught. Up to 6 kinds of feed material may be used, see p 292. This teaches each different type of feedstock can be 20-99% of the total blended feedstock, meeting the limitations of claims 12-14.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
These feedstocks can be sourced from multiple sources. Since such a wide variety of starting feedstocks may be combined in a variety of processed and unprocessed shapes, using multiple parallel lines would provide an intended blend with a desired consistency is an obvious variant. In the alternative it is the position of the examiner that the using multiple parallel lines to make a preferred or wanted blend of feed stock for an even an intended pyrolysis is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art and would have been obvious, consult In re Boesch and Slaney (205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
All the feeds may be particulates and shaped, see p 277.
The feeds may be controlled by a valve to control flow, see p 263.
The possible feed includes:
A. Oils including pyrolysis oils and products (See above), vegetable oils and processed lubricants, see p 274, 290. This meets the limitations of claims 6, 11 and 18.
B. MSW as taught in claim 10, see p 291
C. Paper products, cellulose products, wood and the like. This includes biowaste. See p 282-283. This meets the limitations of claim 5.
D. polymers including low- and high-density polyethylene and the other polymers of claim 7, see p 279. This includes the butadiene and styrene-butadiene of claim 9. This also especially includes tires, see p 281.
E. Textiles and fabrics as found in claim 8, see p 284-291. Note that this section specifically includes use of a high shearing method to break down the textiles.
F. Industrial or post-industrial waste and equipment, used and unused, meeting the limitations of claim 16. See 275-278 and 291.
The feed stock undergoes fixed bed cracking (p 300, be 322). This meets the claim limitations of claim 17.
Both mixing and shredding is taught or all feedstocks, see p 278, 298. Mixing and shearing and grinding are all taught, see p 298.
Regarding claim 12 and some of the feedstock having a particle size of about 50 mesh or smaller, the particle size of the feedstock may be reduced by 75% or more. The starting material may already be shreds or small pellets. This overlaps the claimed range.
A catalyst precursor may be placed into the feed before pyrolysis, see p 307. The oils this mixes with may be the oils of claim 18, see above. Given that industrial equipment and wood and whole textiles and tires and other “sturdy” materials in their whole state may be used, a shearing device used would have to be a high shear mixer as required in claim 2.
Wu does not specifically state the use of static inline mixers but use of such is heavily implied as method known in the art may be used for mixing and there is a large variety of possible feedstock shapes, sizes and states (including liquid).
Iversen teaches pyrolysis to make hydrocarbons, see abstract. The feed streams use static inline mixers for shredded plastics, see p 276. The feedstocks are used plastics and biomass waste, see p 53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the static inline mixers of Iversen to mix and homogenize the feedstocks of Wu. This is already heavily implied as a method of mixing by Wu, and this has the advantage of effectively mixing the shredded or process feedstock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 at 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 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights