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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are preliminarily cancelled.
Claims 16-30 are pending for examination below.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 24, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, the last line, recites “wherein the solid residue includes the alumina reacted with silicon.” This should be “alumina reacted with silicon” for antecedent basis purposes, as there is no previous recitation of reacting the alumina with the silicon.
Claim 24 recites “carried out a first pyrolysis step…” This should be “carrying out” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 28 has the following issues:
-In line 1, the claim recites “comprising”. This should be “further comprising” for clarity, because claim 28 is adding steps to the process.
-In line 4, the claim recites “devolatilising,” The comma should be deleted as unnecessary.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 17, 18, 22, 27, and 28, 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).
Claim 17 recites the broad recitation “0.2 to 40.0 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites” 0.5 to 35.0 wt.-%”, “1.0 to 30.0 wt.- %”, “1.5 to 25.0 wt.-%”, “2.0 to 20.0 wt.-%”, “2.5 to 15.0 wt.-%”, “3.0 to 13.0 wt.- %”, “4.0 to 12.0 wt.-%”, “5.0 to 11.0 wt.-%”, “5.5 to 10.0 wt.-%”, and “6.0 to 9.0 wt.-%” which are the narrower statements 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.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation “50°C to 280°C, and the claim also recites “60°C to 270°C”, “80°C to 260°C”, “100°C to 250°C”, “110°C to 250°C”, “120°C to 250°C”, “130°C to 240°C”, “140°C to 230°C”, and “150°C to 220°C” which are the narrower statements 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.
Claim 22 recites the broad recitation “above 50 m2/g”, and the claim also recites “50 m2/g to 500 m2/g”, “above 100 m2/g”, “150 m2/g or more”, “100 to 300 m2/g, and “150 to 300 m2/g” which are the narrower statements 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.
Claim 27 recites the broad recitation “0.2 to 40.0 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites” 0.5 to 35.0 wt.-%”, “1.0 to 30.0 wt.- %”, “1.5 to 25.0 wt.-%”, “2.0 to 20.0 wt.-%”, “2.5 to 15.0 wt.-%”, “3.0 to 13.0 wt.- %”, “4.0 to 12.0 wt.-%”, “5.0 to 11.0 wt.-%”, “5.5 to 10.0 wt.-%”, and “6.0 to 9.0 wt.-%” which are the narrower statements 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.
Claim 28 recites the broad recitation “175°C to 280°C”, and the claim also recites “180°C to 270°C”, “185°C to 265°C”, “190°C to 260°C”, “200°C to 255°C”, and “210°C to 250°C” which are the narrower statements 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.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the claims 17, 18, 22, 27, and 28 above are only limited to the broadest recitation in each claim, which is “0.2 to 40 wt%”, “50 to 280°C”, “above 50 m2/g”, “0.2 to 40 wt%” and “175 to 280°C”, respectively
Claim 24 recites carrying out “a first pyrolysis step in an absence of a pyrolysis catalyst and at least one subsequent pyrolysis step in a presence of a pyrolysis catalyst”. There is no nexus between claim 16 and claim 24, as there is no recitation of what is fed to or produced from the pyrolysis steps in claim 24. It is unclear whether the “first” and “subsequent” pyrolysis steps in claim 24 are intended to limit the already recited pyrolysing step of claim 16, or if the steps in claim 24 are additional pyrolysis steps before or after the pyrolysing step of claim 16.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that claim 24 is intended to limit the already recited pyrolysis of claim 16, by reciting that the pyrolyzing in claim 16 takes place in at least two steps, a first non-catalytic step and at least one subsequent catalytic step. This is based on the instant specification page 24, first full paragraph, which recites that the pyrolysis step is carried out in at least two steps including the non-catalytic and catalytic steps listed in claim 24. Appropriate clarification and correction is respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 16-20, 23, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) and Streiff et al. (US 2018/0371325).
With regard to claim 16, Ullom teaches a method for conversion of polymer waste to hydrocarbons (paragraph [0001]) comprising the following steps:
a) adding a heteroatom scavenger to a raw material to form a mixture (paragraph [0068]) where the raw material is mixed polymeric waste including plastics (paragraph [0034]) and the heteroatom scavenger is a finely divided (solid) mineral-based additive comprising an oxide of a transition metal (paragraph [0068]). The instant specification defines granules as “encompassing all kinds of powders, grains, agglomerates and the like and is not limited to a specific shape.” As such, the finely divided (solid) mineral-based additive is considered to be formed as granules, as claimed.
b) passing the mixture of mixed polymeric waste and heteroatom scavenger through multiple distinct zones without separation to a pyrolysis zone 5 (claimed pyrolysis reactor) (paragraph [0082] and Figure 1).
c) pyrolyzing the mixture of polymeric waste and heteroatom scavenger to obtain a product vapor and residual solids (paragraphs [0082] and [0086])
d) condensing the vapor product to produce oil products (paragraph [0093])
Ullom fails to teach i) that the plastic includes organic silicon; ii) that the transition metal oxide is alumina; an iii) that the residual solids include the alumina reacted with silicon.
With regard to i), Ullom teaches that the material is mixed polymeric waste including plastics (paragraph [0034]) and plasticizers and additives (paragraph [0038]), but does not specifically teach that the plastics and/or plasticizers and additives include organic silicon.
Li teaches a process for treating waste plastics to remove impurities (Abstract). Li further teaches that waste plastics are complex and contain a large amount of heteroatoms, and that a primary impurity is Si which comes from additives mainly including silicone (organic silicon) (paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the mixed plastic waste of Ullom includes silicones (organic silicon), as claimed, because each of Ullom and Li teaches a process for removing heteroatoms from waste plastics, and Li teaches that silicone (organic silicon) is very prevalent in waste plastics.
With regard to ii), Streiff teaches a method for conversion of mixed plastics into hydrocarbons (Abstract) comprising a step of scavenging heteroatoms which are released during the polymer decomposition, wherein the scavenger is alumina (paragraph [0066]). Thus, Streiff teaches that it is known to use alumina (transition metal oxide) as a scavenger for heteroatoms produced by decomposition of mixed plastics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use alumina as the transition metal oxide of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Streiff teaches conversion of mixed waste plastics to hydrocarbons and the use of a heteroatom scavenger during the conversion, and Streiff teaches that alumina is a specific useful heteroatom scavenger.
With regard to iii), Ullom in view of Li and Streiff teaches the method above comprising scavenging heteroatoms from mixed plastic waste comprising silicone (organic silicon) with alumina. Streiff further teaches that the conversion produces solid which can be the reaction product of an additive with the heteroatoms produced during the reaction (paragraph [0067]). Additionally Ullom teaches that the pyrolysis takes place at a temperature of 365-488°C (paragraph [0082]) and the instant specification recites that the pyrolysis takes place at a temperature of 300-850°C (page 27, first full paragraph).
Therefore, while Ullom in view of Li and Streiff does not specifically teach that the solids include the alumina reacted with silicon, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the process of Ullom in view of De Bruin and Streiff would produce the same result of the alumina reacted with the silicon, because Ullom in view of Li and Streiff teaches the same step of pyrolysis of silicone-containing mixed plastic waste in the presence of alumina at similar overlapping temperatures, and Streiff teaches that the solid product from the reactor can include additive reacted with scavenged heteroatoms, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 17, Ullom teaches that the amount of heteroatom scavenger (claimed alumina) is 0 to 20 wt% (paragraph [0069]). This overlaps the range of 0.2 to 40 wt% of instant claim 17, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 18, 19, and 28, Ullom teaches that the heteroatom scavenger (claimed alumina) is added and heated in a raw material melt zone 3 (claimed melting the waste plastic instant claim 19) prior to the pyrolysis step in zone 5, where zone 3 is at a temperature of 220-572°F (104-300°C) (paragraph [0073]), which overlaps the ranges of 50 to 280°C of instant claim 18 and 175 to 280°C of instant claim 28, rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Ullom does not specifically teach that at least a portion of the silicon compounds are devolatilized in the melt zone as in instant claim 28. However, Ullom in view of Li and Streiff teaches the same step of heating organic silicon containing waste plastics in the presence of alumina at an overlapping temperature. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a similar result of devolatilising at least a part of the organic silicon compounds, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 20, Ullom teaches the melting and adding of heteroatom scavenger takes place in an extruder (paragraph [0073]).
With regard to claim 23, Ullom teaches that the melted plastics including the heteroatom scavenger are then passed to a destabilization zone 4 and a pyrolysis zone 5, where the destabilization zone also includes cracking and some production of hydrocarbons (paragraphs [0077], [0079], and [0080]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that cracking is a reaction during pyrolysis. Thus, the destabilization zone of Ullom is consider to be equivalent to a first pyrolysis step, as claimed,
With regard to claims 25 and 26, Ullom teaches that the heteroatom scavenger can be one or more selected from transition metal oxides and alkaline earth oxides (paragraph [0044]). The list of alkaline earth metals is a finite list of 6 metals, one of which is calcium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to also use calcium oxide with the transition metal oxide of Ullom as the heteroatom scavenger, because Ullom teaches at least one of transition metal oxides and alkaline earth oxides, and selecting calcium from the finite list of 6 alkaline earth metal oxides is prima facie obvious absent any evidence of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2143(I)E).
With regard to claim 27, Ullom teaches that the amount of heteroatom scavenger is 0 to 20 wt% (paragraph [0069]). This overlaps the range of 0.2 to 40 wt% of instant claim 27, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claim 30, Ullom teaches a method for conversion of polymer waste to hydrocarbons (paragraph [0001]) comprising adding a heteroatom scavenger to a raw material to form a mixture (paragraph [0068]) where the raw material is mixed polymeric waste including plastics (paragraph [0034]) and the heteroatom scavenger is a finely divided (solid) mineral-based additive comprising an oxide of a transition metal (paragraph [0068]). The instant specification defines granules as “encompassing all kinds of powders, grains, agglomerates and the like and is not limited to a specific shape.” As such, the finely divided (solid) mineral-based additive is considered to be formed as granules, as claimed.
Ullom fails to teach i) that the transition metal oxide is alumina, ii) that the plastic includes organic silicon, or iii) reducing the organic silicon amount in-situ.
With regard to i), Streiff teaches a method for conversion of mixed plastics into hydrocarbons (Abstract) comprising a step of scavenging heteroatoms which are released during the polymer decomposition, wherein the scavenger is alumina (paragraph [0066]). Thus, Streiff teaches that it is known to use alumina (transition metal oxide) as a scavenger for heteroatoms produced by decomposition of mixed plastics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use alumina as the transition metal oxide of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Streiff teaches conversion of mixed waste plastics to hydrocarbons and the use of a heteroatom scavenger during the conversion, and Streiff teaches that alumina is a specific useful heteroatom scavenger.
With regard to ii), Ullom teaches that the material is mixed polymeric waste including plastics (paragraph [0034]) and plasticizers and additives (paragraph [0038]), but does not specifically teach that the plastics and/or plasticizers and additives include organic silicon.
Li teaches a process for treating waste plastics to remove impurities (Abstract). Li further teaches that waste plastics are complex and contain a large amount of heteroatoms, and that a primary impurity is Si which comes from additives mainly including silicone (organic silicon) (paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the mixed plastic waste of Ullom includes silicones (organic silicon), as claimed, because each of Ullom and Li teaches a process for removing heteroatoms from waste plastics, and Li teaches that silicone (organic silicon) is very prevalent in waste plastics.
With regard to iii), Ullom in view of Li and Streiff does not explicitly teach that the pyrolysis is an in-situ reduction of an amount of organic silicon in a waste plastic pyrolysis process, as claimed.
However, the instant specification defines “in-situ” as “in-situ reduction means that the organic silicon species (which may be originally present or generated in the course of the pyrolysis reaction) are removed, accumulate in a solid residue and are reduced in content in the product stream (gas/oil product) while carrying out the pyrolysis.” (page 28, lines 4-9). Ullom teaches that the heteroatom scavenger is a reacted heteroatom scavenger which is present in the solids (paragraph [0080] and that pyrolysis takes place at a temperature of 365-488°C (paragraph [0082]) while the instant specification recites that the pyrolysis takes place at a temperature of 300-850°C (page 27, first full paragraph).
Therefore, because Ullom in view of Li and Streiff teaches the same silicone containing waste plastics combined with the same aluminum oxide in the reactor at a similar temperature of 365-488°C and that the residue comprises reacted additive which can be aluminum oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the process of Ullom in view of Li and Streiff produces the same result of an in situ reduction in an amount of organic silicon in a waste plastic pyrolysis process, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 21, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) and Streiff et al. (US 2018/0371325) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Adam et al. (WO 2021/204821) as evidenced by Luque et al. (Handbook of Biofuels Production – Processes and Technologies).
With regard to claims 21, 22, and 29, Ullom in view of Li and Streiff teaches the method above where the heteroatom scavenger is alumina.
Ullom in view of Li and Streiff does not specifically teach the properties or type of alumina used.
Adam teaches a method comprising contacting pyrolysis oil with an adsorbent which is activated aluminum oxide (instant claim 29) (page 20, lines 25-27) Adam teaches that the adsorbent specifically traps organic silicon compounds (page 20, lines 35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use activated alumina as the alumina of Ullom in view of Li and Streiff, because Ullom in view of Li and Streiff teaches the use of alumina as a heteroatom scavenger, and Adam teaches that activated alumina specifically is useful for trapping (scavenging) organic silicon containing compounds (page 20, lines 25-36).
Adam does not specifically teach the properties of the activated alumina. However, Luque teaches that activated alumina is a highly porous material (claimed open pore structure instant claim 21) having a surface area of greater than 200 m2/g (page 368, section 14.7.1). This overlaps the range of 50 to 500m2/g of instant claim 22, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ullom (US 2016/0024390) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0357644) and Streiff et al. (US 2018/0371325) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ramamurthy et al. (US 2019/0367428).
With regard to claim 24, Ullom teaches the process above which comprises two pyrolysis steps (paragraphs [0077]-[0080]).
Ullom fails to teach a first thermal pyrolysis step followed by a second catalytic pyrolysis step.
Ramamurthy teaches a method for plastic pyrolysis (Abstract). Ramamurthy teaches that the pyrolysis can comprise two steps (paragraph [0017]) where the first can be thermal cracking (pyrolysis) and the second may be catalytic cracking (pyrolysis) (paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a first thermal pyrolysis step followed by a second catalytic pyrolysis step when performing the pyrolysis of Ullom, because each of Ullom and Ramamurthy teach pyrolysis in two steps and Ramamurthy teaches that it is known to perform thermal pyrolysis followed by catalytic pyrolysis, as claimed (paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights