DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application with preliminary amendment filed 1/10/2025.
Claims 15-28 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphreys (WO 2016/197180).
With respect to claim 15, Humphreys (WO 2016/197180) teaches processing of oil derived from waste plastics (Feedstocks include bio-oil, pg 18; bio-oil includes oil derived from plastic material, pg. 15). The process includes treating a mixture of the oil and an aqueous solvent at a temperature of more than 370°C and at a pressure of more than 20 bar for a suitable time period (page 2, embodiment 1) depressurizing the mixture to obtain an upgraded product (page 2, embodiment 1). The aqueous solvent includes additive catalyst selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide (page, embodiment 13).
“After depressurization the mixture of reaction products is separated into four main phases being a gas or vapour phase, an oil phase, a water phase and a solid phase. The oil phase contains the desired cracked oil products that can be separated from the water and solid phases by physical means widely known in the art for example centrifugation, decantation, filtration, and distillation,” i.e. in a separator.
The art teaches “water may be recycled from the product of the process. For example, a portion water present following completion of the reaction may be taken off as a side stream and recycled into the slurry.”
With respect to claims 16, 19 and 26, Humphreys is silent regarding subjecting the aqueous phase to a treatment to form an organics-rich stream and an organics-depleted stream, wherein the organic-depleted stream is recycled back to the HT processing.
However, Humphreys teaches a number of means which are widely known in the art” for separation. Humphreys also teaches concentration of water soluble components via evaporation. The use of more than one separation means in series is a well-known practice to achieve increased separation of the components, as is the recycle of feed components to be recovered in the product stream. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separation stage of Humphreys by adding a second separation means for recovering remaining organic components for recovering, including through recycle, and clarified water for recycle.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Humphreys teaches recovering the aqueous phase for recycling, but is silent regarding the amount. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to maximize the recycle of the water reactant, considering impurities and hydroxide concentration, including between 1 and 90% or 5 to 85% as claimed.
With respect to claim 20, Humphreys teaches adding hydroxide to the aqueous stream. It would have been obvious to add it to the recycled, fresh, or mixed aqueous portion as one of limited options for achieving the solution without new or unexpected results.
With respect to claim 22, Humphreys teaches wherein the hydroxide is added in an aqueous solution with the amount of 0.1-10 wt. % based on the non-aqueous reactant, page 54, and teaches an aqueous to non-aqueous which overlaps the claimed rang eof 0.5-10%.
With respect to claim 21, Humphreys is silent regarding the pH of the aqueous stream before mixing, but teaches the same concentration of hydroxide, thus the pH is expected to be within or overlapping the claimed range.
With respect to claim 23, Humphreys teaches a mixing ratio (water-oil-ratio) between the aqueous solution and a LWP-based feedstock in the heat treatment is in a range of from 0.1 to 1.4 by weight, and/or in a range of 0.2 to 1.0, and/or 0.2 to 0.7.
With respect to claim 24, Humphreys teaches “methods of the present invention may be under conditions of continuous flow.” Page 36.
With respect to claim 25, Humphreys teaches initial quick cooling to 150-200 C and then may cool to ambident temperatures during depressurization. Page 36. The cooling temperatures overlap the claimed range. After the initial cooling to 150C, it would have been within the skill of one in the art to cool to a desired temperature for storage or downstream processing without obtaining new or unexpected results.
With respect to claims 27-28, Humphreys teaches carrying out the HT processing at a temperature of above 370C, which falls within or overlaps the claimed ranges. Page 33.
Claim(s) 15-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neste Oyj (WO 2021105327) in view of Bennett (US 20140303421).
With respect to claim 15, Neste Oyj (WO 2021105327) teaches treating a LPW oil comprising: producing LPW with pyrolysis or other means, page 22, and pretreating with an aqueous medium containing a dissolved basic substance such as hydroxide. Page 19. The hydroxides are in a concentration of at least 0.3 wt. % or at least 1.5 wt. %. Page 19. The pretreatment is preferably carried out at a temperature of 150C or more to promote reactive extraction and faster, more efficient treatment. Page 19. The water phase is removed from the organic phase using, e.g. decanting and centrifuging. Page 32, example 2. Neste is silent regarding recycling at least a part of the aqueous phase back to the HT processing.
Bennett (US 20140303421) teaches processing synthetic crudes. The synthetic crude may include waste plastic liquids. Par. [0022]. The oil is contacted with an alkaline aqueous solution exhibiting a pH of about 8 or above and can be prepared, for example, by dissolving a caustic amendment, such as a water soluble base, in an aqueous carrier. Bennett teaches subjecting the mixed stream to phase separation to recovery a conditioned synthetic crude oil and an aqueous phase 260. Par. [0026]-[0030]. The aqueous phase is subject to further separation and then recirculated back to start of the process. Par. [0035]-[0036]. The pH of the conditioned stream (returned aqueous stream) may be monitored and controlled. Par. [0040]. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle a portion of the aqueous phase from Neste back to the mixing step in the HT process as taught by Bennett because both are directed to treating pyrolysis oil with aqueous hydroxide solution, recycling aqueous reactant would minimize waste treatment and minimize the cost of raw material requirements, and would have been combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 16, Neste teaches separation of the aqueous and organic phases. Bennett teaches further separation of aqueous phase. It would have been within the skill to recycle recovered organics to the start of the process to increase recovery.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximizes the aqueous recirculation stream to minimize waste and raw product requirements, including in the range as claimed.
With respect to claim 19, Neste teaches wherein the separation may include a series of separation steps, including evaporation step. Page 17.
With respect to claim 20, Neste teaches adding fresh hydroxide. It would have been obvious to add fresh hydroxide in the combined process in an amount required to achieve the overall concentration after recycle.
With respect to claims 21-22, Neste teaches adding hydroxides are in a concentration of at least 0.3 wt. % or at least 1.5 wt. %. Page 19. The pH is preferable more than 7. Page 19.
With respect to claim 23, Neste teaches a water to oil ratio of 1:10 to 9:1. Page 18.
With respect to claim 24, Neste teaches or else would render obvious a continuous process.
With respect to claim 25, Neste is silent regarding the separation temperature. However, Bennett teaches cooling prior to separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to cool the temperature to below 150C to stop reaction and improve phase separation.
With respect to claim 27-28, Neste teaches a reaction temperature of 150C or more to promote reactive extraction and faster, more efficient treatment. Page 19.
With respect to claim 26, Neste teaches multiple separation steps including filtration. Bennett teaches added filtration on the aqueous stream. It would have been obvious to recycle the permeate to recover any valuable hydrocarbons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights