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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18948419 filed 11/14/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 7/20/26 and 5/7/25 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 1/14/25 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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 WU ET AL. (US PG PUB 20210130700A1) in view of HUANG ET AL. (US PG PUB 20120310023A1) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as WU and HUANG.
Regarding claims 1-20:
WU teaches in the abstract - A pyrolysis method and system are provided that enhances the production of alkanes and minimizes the production of aromatics in the resulting pyrolysis oil. More particularly, the disclosed pyrolysis method and system may be configured to enhance the production of alkanes due to the use of certain pyrolysis catalysts and more intense pyrolysis conditions.
WU teaches in para [0012] FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary pyrolysis system to at least partially convert one or more recycled waste, particularly recycled plastic waste, into various useful r-products.
PNG
media_image1.png
983
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WU teaches in para[0150] Recycled waste plastics can be isolated as one type of polymer stream or may be a stream of mixed recycled waste plastics. The plastics can be any organic synthetic polymer that is solid at 25° C. at 1 atm. The plastics can be thermosetting, thermoplastic, or elastomeric plastics. Examples of plastics include high density polyethylene and copolymers thereof, low density polyethylene and copolymers thereof, polypropylene and copolymers thereof, other polyolefins, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), polyesters including polyethylene terephthalate, copolyesters and terephthalate copolyesters (e.g. containing residues of TMCD, CHDM, propylene glycol, or NPG monomers), polyethylene terephthalate, polyamides, poly(methyl methacrylate), polytetrafluoroethylene, acrylobutadienestyrene (ABS), polyurethanes, cellulosics and derivates thereof such as cellulose acetate, cellulose diacetate, cellulose triacetate, cellulose propionate, cellulose butyrate; regenerated cellulosics such as viscose and rayons, epoxy, polyamides, phenolic resins, polyacetal, polycarbonates, polyphenylene-based alloys, polypropylene and copolymers thereof, polystyrene, styrenic compounds, vinyl based compounds, styrene acrylonitrile, thermoplastic elastomers, and urea based polymers and melamine containing polymers.
WU teaches in para [0175] In an embodiment or in combination with any of the embodiments mentioned herein, the temperature in the pyrolysis reactor 118 can be adjusted to as to facilitate the production of certain end products. In an embodiment or in combination with any of the embodiments mentioned herein, the pyrolysis temperature in the pyrolysis reactor 118 can be at least 325° C.
WU teaches in para [0176] In an embodiment or in combination with any of the embodiments mentioned herein, the residence times of the pyrolysis reaction can be at least 1 in each case minutes.
WU teaches in para [0177] In an embodiment or in combination with any of the embodiments mentioned herein, the pressure within the pyrolysis reactor 118 can be maintained at a pressure of at least 0.1 in each case bar.
WU teaches in para [0178] In an embodiment or in combination with any of the embodiments mentioned herein, a pyrolysis catalyst may be introduced into the plastic feed prior to introduction into the pyrolysis reactor 118 and/or introduced directly into the pyrolysis reactor 118 to produce an r-catalytic pyoil, or an r-pyoil made by a catalytic pyrolysis process. In an embodiment or in combination with any embodiment mentioned herein or in combination with any of the embodiments mentioned herein, the catalyst can comprise: (i) a solid acid, such as a zeolite (e.g., ZSM-5, Mordenite, Beta, Ferrierite, and/or zeolite-Y); (ii) a super acid, such as sulfonated, phosphated, or fluorinated forms of zirconia, titania, alumina, silica-alumina, and/or clays; (iii) a solid base, such as metal oxides, mixed metal oxides, metal hydroxides, and/or metal carbonates, particularly those of alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, transition metals, and/or rare earth metals; (iv) hydrotalcite and other clays; (v) a metal hydride, particularly those of alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, transition metals, and/or rare earth metals; (vi) an alumina and/or a silica-alumina; (vii) a homogeneous catalyst, such as a Lewis acid, a metal tetrachloroaluminate, or an organic ionic liquid; (viii) activated carbon; or (ix) combinations thereof.
WU teaches in para [0171] While in the pyrolysis reactor 118, at least a portion of the plastic feed may be subjected to a pyrolysis reaction that produces a pyrolysis effluent comprising a pyrolysis oil (e.g., r-pyoil) and a pyrolysis gas (e.g., r-pyrolysis gas). The pyrolysis reactor 118 can be, for example, an extruder, a tubular reactor, a tank, a stirred tank reactor, a riser reactor, a fixed bed reactor, a fluidized bed reactor, a rotary kiln, a vacuum reactor, a microwave reactor, an ultrasonic or supersonic reactor, or an autoclave, a film reactor, or a combination of these reactors.
WU teaches in para [0289] The non-recycle cracker feed stream may be mostly liquid and have a vapor fraction of less than 0.25 by volume, or less than 0.25 by weight, or it may be mostly vapor and have a vapor fraction of at least 0.75 by volume, or at least 0.75 by weight, when introduced into the furnace and/or when combined with the r-pyoil containing feed. Similarly, the r-pyoil containing feed may be mostly vapor or mostly liquid when introduced into the furnace and/or when combined with the non-recycle cracker stream.
WU teaches in para [0514] Comp Ex B is repeated with 100 g of amorphous polypropylene pellets obtained from Eastman Chemical Company and sold under the trade name Eastoflex P1001.
WU teaches in para [0413] Table 1 shows the composition of r-pyoil samples by gas chromatography. The r-pyoil samples produced the material from waste high- and low-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene. Sample 4 was a lab-distilled sample in which hydrocarbons greater than C21 were removed. The boiling point curves of these materials are shown in FIGS. 13-16.
WU teaches wherein said pyrolyzing of step (b) occurs in a pyrolysis unit, wherein said pyrolysis unit comprises a fluidized bed reactor, a transported bed reactor, an ablative (vortex) reactor, an extruder reactor, a microwave reactor, a fixed bed reactor, a vacuum reactor, an autoclave reactor, a rotary kiln, or a tubular reactor. (see claim 15 of WU)
WU teaches pyrolyzing with catalysts however, WU does not explicitly disclose a solid catalyst in the process nevertheless it is within the scope of WU as taught by HUANG. HUANG teaches a solid acid catalyst see para [0115]. Lewis acid catalyst for polyethylene cracking for a pyrolysis process to convert a plastic comprising a polyolefin; also see para [0120] - catalysts in pyrolysis converts polyethylene into liquid, gas and wax to an alkene (para [0106], resulting products in the form of alkanes, alkenes and alkane dienes).
From the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by varying the claimed ranges; however, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Especially, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Moreover, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
Still, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Additionally, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant 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. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights