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 18999179 filed 12/23/24.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 6/10/25, 6/3/25 and 4/23/25 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 12/23/24 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to in the recitation “… fuelproduct…”, and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested to amend the claim to recite "… fuel product ..." Appropriate correction is suggested.
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 13 and all dependent claims 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.
Claim 13 recites “… 2-4ing…”. It is unclear as to what “2-4ing” limitation represents, which renders the claim indefinite. The limitations “2-4ing” are not defined by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicants are required to further bring clarification and/or correction to claims.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHMIDT ET AL. (US PG PUB 20230312437) in view of NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. (US PG PUB 20190161683) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as SCHMIDT and NARAYANASWAMY.
Regarding claims 1-23:
SCHMIDT teaches a continuous process for converting waste plastic into recycle for polypropylene polymerization comprising: (a) selecting waste plastics comprising polyethylene and/or polypropylene; (b) preparing a blend of petroleum and the selected waste plastic with the blend comprising about 20 wt. % or less of the selected waste plastic; (c) passing the blend at a temperature above the melting point of the plastic to a refinery FCC unit; (d) recovering a liquid petroleum gas C3 olefin/paraffin mixture from the FCC unit; (e) separating the C3 paraffin and C3 olefin into different fractions; and (f) passing the C3 olefin to a propylene polymerization reactor. Gasoline and heavy fraction is recovered from the refinery FCC unit. The blend of (b) is a hot stable homogeneous blend of waste plastic from classification group 2, 4, and/or 5, and petroleum oil. Polypropylene products are prepared from the polymerized propylene. The gasoline recovered from the refinery FCC unit is sent to a gasoline blending pool. A C4 stream and a heavy fraction are recovered from the FCC unit distillation column and further processed in the refinery to clean gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel, wherein the volume flow of the blend to the refinery FCC unit in (c) comprises up to 100 volume % of the total hydrocarbon flow to the FCC unit. The blend of petroleum and selected waste plastic in (b) is prepared by heating the waste plastic above the melting point of the plastic and mixing with the petroleum and then cooling the blend to a temperature below the melting point of the waste plastic. The petroleum in the blend comprises atmospheric gas oil, vacuum gas oil (VGO), atmospheric residue, a petroleum derived oil, a petroleum-based material, and/or heavy stock recovered from refinery operations, light cycle oil (LCO), heavy cycle oil (HCO), FCC naphtha, gasoline, diesel, toluene, and/or aromatic solvent derived from petroleum. (see claims 1-14 of SCHMIDT).
SCHMIDT teaches a continuous process for converting waste plastic into recycle for polypropylene polymerization comprising: (a) selecting waste plastics containing polyethylene and/or polypropylene; (b) preparing a blend of petroleum and the selected plastic, with the blend comprising about 20 wt. % or less of the selected plastic; (c) passing the blend to a refinery FCC unit; (d) recovering a liquid petroleum gas C3 olefin/paraffin mixture from the FCC unit; (e) separating the C3 paraffin and C3 olefin into different fractions; (f) passing the C3 olefin to a propylene polymerization reactor; and (g) passing the C3 paraffin to a dehydrogenation unit to produce propylene. (see claims 15-29 of SCHMIDT).
SCHMIDT teaches in claim 30 - A process for converting waste plastic into chemicals useful in preparing polypropylene, comprising: (a) selecting waste plastics containing polyethylene and/or polypropylene; (b) preparing a blend of petroleum and the selected plastic, with the blend comprising about 20 wt. % or less of the selected plastic; and (c) passing the blend to a refinery FCC unit.
SCHMIDT teaches in claim 31-33 - A continuous process for converting waste plastic into recycle for polypropylene polymerization comprising: (a) selecting waste plastics comprising polyethylene and/or polypropylene; (b) preparing a blend of petroleum and the selected waste plastic with the blend comprising about 20 wt. % or less of the selected waste plastic; (c) passing the blend at a temperature above the melting point of the plastic to a feed pretreater unit for a refinery FCC unit; (d) recovering a heavy fraction from the feed pretreater unit and passing the heavy fraction to a refinery FCC unit; (e) recovering a liquid petroleum gas C3 olefin/paraffin mixture from the FCC unit; (f) separating the C3 paraffin and C3 olefin into different fractions; and (g) passing the C3 olefin to a propylene polymerization reactor. (see also para [0064])
SCHMIDT teaches in para [0049] Proper sorting of waste plastics is very important in order to minimize contaminants such as N, Cl, and S. Plastics waste containing polyethylene terephthalate (plastics recycle classification type 1), polyvinyl chloride (plastics recycle classification type 3) and other polymers (plastics recycle classification type 7) need to be sorted out to less than 5%, preferably less than 1% and most preferably less than 0.1%. The present process can tolerate a moderate amount of polystyrene (plastics recycle classification type 6). Waste polystyrene needs to be sorted out to less than 20%, preferably less than 10% and most preferably less than 5%.
SCHMIDT teaches in FIG. 6 a present process for establishing a circular economy for waste plastics where the blend is passed to a refinery FCC feed pretreater before a refinery FCC unit.
SCHMIDT teaches in para [0062]-FIG. 6 shows a present integrated process such as that shown in FIG. 5, where the co-feed of the blend and hydrocarbon refinery flow 26 is sent first to a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) feed pretreater unit 27. The numerals in FIG. 6, which are the same as in FIG. 5 refer to the same streams or refinery units.
SCHMIDT does not explicitly teach aromatic separation; however it is within the scope of SCHMIDT as taught by NARAYANASWAMY.
NARAYANASWAMY teaches in EXAMPLE 18 - a process wherein waste plastic, including polystyrene is fed to a fluid catalytic cracking unit to obtain several fractions, including naphtha. Naphtha can be subjected to steam cracking and then aromatic extraction to separate benzene, toluene or xylene.
Therefore, 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.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, 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. Additionally, 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)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
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 applicants have 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
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