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 Objections
Claims 2-6, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites in line 2 “the recovered circular pyrolysis oil of step (c)…” This should be “the circular pyrolysis oil of step (c)…” for antecedent basis purposes.
Claim 3 recites in line 1 “the LTA zeolite”. However, claim 1 recites “LTA-type zeolite” and thus claim 3 has an antecedent basis issue. The Examiner suggests that for consistency and clarity, claim 1 should be amended to recite “LTA zeolite” to match claim 3, as this is the clearer recitation.
Claim 4 recites “the C2-C6 range”. This should be “a C2-C6 range” for antecedent basis purposes.
Claims 4, 5, 6, and 14 each recite “the LTA catalyst”. However, claim 1 recites the catalyst as “a hydroconversion catalyst based on a LTA-type zeolite”, thus claims 4-6 and 14 lack antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending claims 4-6 and 14 to each recite “the hydroconversion catalyst” instead of “the LTA catalyst”.
Claim 12 recites “the aromatics comprise…” This should be “the aromatic compound comprises” for antecedent basis purposes.
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 1-14 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 1 recites “(e) passing the circular pyrolysis oil from (d) to a hydroconversion reactor…” However, step (d) recites “subjecting the circular pyrolysis oil to a hydrodehalogenation or a hydrolysis step…” Thus, it is unclear if “the circular pyrolysis oil from (d)” of instant claim 1 is a portion of the original circular pyrolysis oil or instead is the product of the hydrodehalogenation or hydrolysis step, and the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the instant specification demonstrates an embodiment where the hydroconversion takes place on the product from the dehalogenation (Figure 2, 29 is hydrodehalogenation and 32 is hydroconversion). Thus, the Examiner will consider that step (e) is intending to refer to hydroconversion of the product of step (d). Appropriate clarification to specify a product produced in step (d) which is passed to step (e) is respectfully requested.
Claims 3, 4, and 14 recite broad and narrow ranges together in the same claim. 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).
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “2.6 mol/l to 3.0 mol/l”, and the claim also recites “2.6 mol/l to 2.8 mol/l” and “about 2.7 mol/l” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 4 recites for the enriched hydroprocessed product stream the broad recitation “at least 2 wt. %”, and the claim also recites “at least 3 wt. %” and “at least 4 wt. %” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Claim 4 recites for the amount of C7+ normal paraffins “at least 5 wt. %” and the claim also recites “at least 10 wt. %” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “at least 3 months”, and the claim also recites “at least 6 months” and “at least 2 years” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claims 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 of claims 3, 4, and 14, the Examiner will only consider the broadest range listed above in each claim.
Claim 4 recites “the hydroprocessed product stream” in line 3 and “the n-paraffins in e)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, “the hydroprocessed product stream” will be considered as referring to the hydrocarbons which are recovered from the hydroconversion reactor, as this is the product of the hydroconversion in claim 1. “the n-paraffins in e)” will be considered as referring to the hydrocarbons enriched in linear paraffins of step (f), as these are the linear paraffins (n-paraffins) produced in claim 1. Appropriate corrections are respectfully requested.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the LTA zeolite catalyst, optionally, shaped with a binder into a pellet, is loaded with a hydrogenation function metal…” It is unclear from this phrasing what pieces are optional, whether it is everything after the word “optionally” or just the immediate limitation regarding the binder and pellet shape. As such, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the shaping with a binder is optional and the hydrogenation function metal is required, as most of the claim is directed to the hydrogenation function metal. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim 6 recites “such as an alumina”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider that the binder being alumina is optional.
Claims 2 and 7-13 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Paggio et al. (US 2023/0016539, cited on IDS of 08/07/2025) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2024/0059988).
With regard to claim 1, Del Paggio teaches a process for treatment of liquid plastic-derived oil (Abstract) comprising the following steps (see Figure 2 and corresponding paragraphs [0040]-[0050]):
a) and b) pyrolyzing plastic waste to produce a pyrolysis effluent (paragraphs [0005] and [0026]). The instant specification exemplifies plastic waste as a circular feedstock (instant specification paragraph [0024]).
c) separating the pyrolysis effluent to obtain a gas (claimed off-gas), solid (claimed pitch or char), and pyrolysis oil product (paragraph [0026]).
d) passing the pyrolysis oil 46 through a preheating system to produce preheated stream 54 which is then passed to one or more reactors to dehalogenate and produce treated feed 48 (paragraph [0042]). The dehalogenation is in the presence of hydrogen (paragraph [0045]) and reduces the halogen content to less than 5 ppm (paragraph [0043]), which is within the range of 5 wt-ppm or lower of instant claim 1.
e) passing the treated feed 48 to hydroprocessing section 36 including hydrocracker 76 (claimed hydroconversion reactor) (paragraph [0046]) comprising a zeolite (paragraph [0049]).
f) passing the hydrocracked product 78 to a product recover section to obtain fractions based on boiling points (paragraph [0050]).
g) passing a product fraction to a steam cracker to produce light weight olefins and aromatics (paragraphs [0038] and [0050]).
Del Paggio fails to teach i) that the catalyst in the hydrocracker is an LTA zeolite and ii) that the product from the hydrocracker (claimed hydroconversion reactor) which is passed to the steam cracking includes ethane to n-hexane linear paraffins.
With regard to i), Del Paggio teaches that any suitable hydrocracking catalyst may be used (paragraph [0049]).
Narayanaswamy teaches a process for processing plastic pyrolysis oil (Abstract) comprising hydroprocessing of pyrolysis oil in the presence of hydrocracking catalysts including zeolite-A (LTA-type zeolite) (paragraph [0039]). Thus, Narayanaswamy teaches that LTA-type zeolites are suitable hydrocracking zeolites for plastic pyrolysis oils.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Zeolite-A (LTA-type zeolite) as the zeolite in the process of Del Paggio because Del Paggio teaches any suitable hydrocracking catalyst including zeolites can be used, and Narayanaswamy teaches that Zeolite-A (LTA-type zeolite) is a suitable hydrocracking catalyst (paragraph [0039]).
With regard to ii), Del Paggio further teaches that the conditions of the hydrocracking include a pressure of 50 to 150 barg and temperature of 275-500°C (paragraph [0048]). The instant specification recites that the hydroconversion conditions include in an embodiment a temperature of 310-357°C and a pressure of 1100 to 2000 psig (6.89 to 137.9 barg) (instant specification paragraph [0039]). Thus, the conditions of Del Paggio are very similar to the inventive hydroconversion conditions. As such, because Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy teaches hydroconversion of the same dechlorinated plastic pyrolysis oil with the same LTA catalyst and at very similar conditions, and because Del Paggio teaches that the fractions can be separated as desired, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to separate a fraction comprising ethane to n-hexane linear paraffins, absent any evidence to the contrary. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to send the stream comprising ethane to n-hexane to the steam cracker because it is well known in the art that light paraffins are suitable steam cracking feeds.
With regard to claim 2, Del Paggio teaches that the pretreating has multiple reactors, where a first sorbent removes metals and non-metals and a second sorbent removes the halogens (paragraphs [0057] and [0058], Fig. 3). This meets the limitation of removing some contaminants from the oil before the dehalogenation as claimed.
With regard to claim 4, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy does not specifically teach that the LTA catalyst converts C7+ into C2-C6 paraffins and/or that the hydroconversion enriches the product stream in n-paraffins by at least 2 wt% and/or that the product of the hydroconversion comprises at least 5 wt% C7+ paraffins, as claimed. However, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy teaches hydroconversion of the same dechlorinated plastic pyrolysis oil with the same LTA catalyst and at very similar conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect the process to produce similar results of converting C7+ into C2-C6 and/or enriching by at least 2 wt% n-paraffins and/or the product comprises at least 5 wt% C7+ n-paraffins, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 5, Narayanaswamy teaches that the hydrocracking catalyst comprises CoMo, NiMo, or NiW on the Zeolite-A (paragraph [0039]) which are hydrogenation function metals comprising Ni, Co, Mo, W, or a mixture thereof as claimed in instant claim 5.
With regard to claim 7, Del Paggio teaches reducing the chlorine to less than 5 ppm (paragraph [0043]). This overlaps the range of less than 1 ppm of instant claim 7, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Del Paggio teaches that the solid plastic waste includes consumer products (claimed consumer waste) and is commonly made from polyolefins (claimed polyethylene and/or polypropylene) (paragraph [0003]).
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Del Paggio teaches that the olefins from the steam cracking include ethylene, propylene, and butenes and that the product includes aromatics (paragraph [0038]).
With regard to claim 12, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy does not specify what aromatics are produced in the steam cracking. However, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy teaches the same hydrodechlorination, hydroconversion with the same LTA catalyst and at very similar conditions, and steam cracking of the plastic pyrolysis oil. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a similar result of benzene, toluene, xylenes, or BTX as the aromatics produced during the steam cracking, absent any evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 14, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy fails to teach the run time of the process with the LTA catalyst. However, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy teaches hydroconversion of the same dechlorinated plastic pyrolysis oil with the same LTA catalyst and at very similar conditions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a similar result of being able to run the process of at least 3 months without changing or regenerating the catalyst, as claimed, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Paggio et al. (US 2023/0016539, cited on IDS of 08/07/2025) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2024/0059988) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Linck et al. (US 2021/0348063).
With regard to claim 3, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy teaches the method above with the Zeolite-A (LTA) zeolite.
Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy fails to teach the acid site concentration of the Zeolite-A.
Linck teaches a method for conversion of plastics (Abstract). Linck further teaches that hydrocracking catalysts have greater acidity in terms of acid site concentration which helps promote cracking (paragraph [0057], last two full sentences on page 11). Thus, Linck teaches that the acid site concentration is a result-effective variable, which can be optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a zeolite-A catalyst having an acid site concentration of 2.6 to 3 mol/l such that the catalyst is suitable for hydrocracking, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Paggio et al. (US 2023/0016539, cited on IDS of 08/07/2025) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2024/0059988) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weiss et al. (WO 2023/099304).
US 2025/0034465 is used as the English language equivalent of WO 2023/099304 herein.
With regard to claim 6, Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy teaches the method above where the catalyst comprises the zeolite.
Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy fails to teach the presence of a binder.
Weiss teaches a method for conversion of plastic pyrolysis oils (Abstract) comprising hydrodechlorination (paragraph [0011]), hydrocracking (paragraph [0017]), and steam cracking (paragraph [0171]). Weiss further teaches that the hydrocracking catalyst comprises an acidic zeolite catalyst and optionally a binding matrix which is alumina (paragraphs [0184] and [0189]). Thus, Weiss teaches that it is known to optionally use a binder which is alumina with a zeolite hydrocracking catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a binder with the catalyst of Del Paggio in view of Narayanaswamy, because each of Narayanaswamy and Weiss teach hydrocracking with a zeolite catalyst and Weiss teaches that a binding matrix is known and suitable for use with the zeolite catalyst (paragraph [0184]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Paggio et al. (US 2023/0016539, cited on IDS of 08/07/2025) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2024/0059988, referred to as US 2024 herein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (US 2014/0228605, referred to as US 2014 herein).
With regard to claim 13, Del Paggio in view of US 2024 teaches the method above, where the steam cracking product includes ethylene (paragraph [0038]).
Del Paggio in view of US 2024 fails to teach polymerization of the ethylene.
US 2014 teaches a method of conversion of plastics to olefins and aromatics (Abstract) where the olefins include ethylene, which is then polymerized to produce additional products (polyethylene) (paragraph [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the step of polymerization of the ethylene produced during the steam cracking as claimed, because Del Paggio in view of US 2024 and US 2014 each teach conversion of plastics to olefins including ethylene, and US 2014 teaches that ethylene can be polymerized to be a useful product (paragraph [0092]).
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