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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, filed on 11/14/2024, are under consideration. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are independent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Broqueville (US 5,569,801).
For claim 1, de Broqueville teaches a method to convert waste plastic (Abstract) comprising:
Heating waste plastic and dissolution medium (solvent) to form solution of soluble polymers as well as insoluble solids/components (Col 3 lines 13-47);
Separating the soluble component from the insoluble component (Col 3 lines 35-42);
Contacting the dissolved polymeric material with a catalyst to produce lower molecular weight product effluent (Col 4 lines 8-37);
Separating the solvent, as well as well as heavier/uncracked components, from the reactor effluent for recycling in the dissolution step (Fig. 1 labels 80 and 95, and Col 4 lines 44-62). The recycled solvent is combined with waste plastic feed and the mixture is heated (Col 3 lines 50-51).
de Broqueville teaches the solvent comprises light or heavy cycle oils having boiling temperatures of above 180°C and up to 350°C and includes mono and bicyclic aromatics (Col 3 lines 13-24). LCO/HCO both comprise alkylated bi/tri aromatics that necessarily have C12+ hydrocarbons. Also, dissolved uncracked polymers are also expected to have more than 12 carbons, which are also recycled to the dissolution unit (Col 5 lines 15-18). In general, C12+ hydrocarbons have a boiling point of at least 216°C. The overlap of carbon numbers between the prior art and instant claim establishes a prima facie case of obviousness since the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”—see MPEP 2144.05.I.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, the removal of water or oxygen from the products are considered obvious and routine steps to clean up the products for further use as fuels or petrochemical intermediates.
For claim 3, de Broqueville teaches the dissolution temperature of 120-350°C (Col 3 lines 25-29). This temperature overlaps the claimed temperature of 250°C or less.
Regarding claims 4-6, de Broqueville teaches the waste plastic feed comprises polyethylene and polypropylene (polyoelfins) as well as less than 10% PVC (about 8 wt%, Example 1 at Col 5 lines 45-65). Note that PVC is considered the claimed halogen-containing polymer of pending claim 6.
For claim 7, the example shows about 8% PVC which comprises about 57 wt% chlorine (about 4.5 wt% or 45,000 ppm). It should be noted that this amount is not required and thus, the prior art process encompasses feeds with less PVC such as less than 36,000 ppm halogen.
For claim 8, it is expected that the insoluble components of de Broqueville are component other than polyolefin because the polyolefin is dissolvable.
For claim 9, de Broqueville teaches LCO or HCO solvent for dissolution which are petroleum-based material.
For claims 10-11, de Broqueville teaches using acidic zeolite for depolymerizing the plastics (Col 4 lines 21-24 and Col 1 lines 57-60).
For claim 12, de Broqueville does not discussus the depolymerization conditions. However, the mixture of solvent and dissolved plastic is heated up to 350 or 400 °C (Col 5 lines 3-44) which encompasses the claimed temperature of 200-300°C. Also, the pressure seems to be atmospheric/autogeneous which is at least 101 kPa.
Regarding claim 13, it is expected that the product of de Broqueville meets the claimed amount since the prior art process and the claimed process are similar in terms of feed, dissolution solvent and temperature, as well as method steps: "The fact that appellant 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."—see MPEP 2145 II.
Regarding claims 14-15, the separation of products is considered obvious and routine steps since the different fraction/products include products with different utility.
For claim 16, de Broqueville teaches a method to convert waste plastic (Abstract) comprising:
Heating waste plastic and dissolution medium (solvent) to form solution of soluble polymers as well as insoluble solids/components (Col 3 lines 13-47). The dissolution temperature is 120-350°C (Col 3 lines 25-29) which overlaps the claimed temperature of 100-200 °C.
Separating the soluble component from the insoluble component (Col 3 lines 35-42) which is considered solid-liquid separation ;
Contacting the dissolved polymeric material with a catalyst under depolymerization conditions to produce lower molecular weight product effluent (Col 4 lines 8-37);
The lighter fractions are separated (Fig. 1 label 65 and Col lines 57-58) and separating the solvent, as well as well as heavier/uncracked components, from the reactor effluent for recycling in the dissolution step (Fig. 1 labels 80 and 95, and Col 4 lines 44-62). The recycled solvent is combined with waste plastic feed and the mixture is heated (Col 3 lines 50-51).
de Broqueville teaches the solvent comprises light or heavy cycle oils having boiling temperatures of above 180°C and up to 350°C and includes mono and bicyclic aromatics (Col 3 lines 13-24). LCO/HCO both comprise alkylated bi/tri aromatics that necessarily have C12+ hydrocarbons. Also, dissolved uncracked polymers are also expected to have more than 12 carbons, which are also recycled to the dissolution unit (Col 5 lines 15-18). In general, C12+ hydrocarbons have a boiling point of at least 216°C. The overlap of carbon numbers between the prior art and instant claim establishes a prima facie case of obviousness since the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”—see MPEP 2144.05.I.
It is expected that the product of de Broqueville meets the claimed amount since the prior art process and the claimed process are similar in terms of feed, dissolution solvent and temperature, as well as method steps: "The fact that appellant 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."—see MPEP 2145 II.
For claim 17, de Broqueville teaches the plant for converting plastic (Fig. 1 above) comprising:
Dissolution unit that heats the waste plastic and solvent, and a first separation unit to separate the heated mixture into top layer solids (label 105), settled solids (label 100), dissolved polymers in the solvent. A depolymerization reactor, a second separation unit to separate the depolymerization products (labels 360 and 370), and a line that transfers solvent (C12+ hydrocarbon) from the second separation unit to the dissolution unit (lines 95 and 80).
Claims 18-20 are also obvious since separating various products are considered routine steps since the different fraction/products include products with different utility.
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