11/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 .
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.
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 9 recites the broad recitation followed by “wherein in further embodiments” which is the narrower statement 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites the temperatures are insufficient to decompose polyolefin, while claim 11 recites conditions sufficient to degrade the polyolefin component. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javeed (US 2019/0270939).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 11, Javeed teaches treatment of a waste plastic feed comprising polyolefins and polar polymer component (polyethylene terephthalate, PVC, polystyrenes) [0022], comprising heteroatoms [0022]-[0023], [0034]. Javeed teaches reacting the feedstock in the absence of oxygen [0024]. Prior to cracking, Javeed teaches treatment of the waste plastics in a devolatilization extruder reactor [0029-0034]. Javeed teaches temperatures of 200-400˚C, pressures of 1-10-14 torr, and 0.1 min -1 hour [0030-0032], overlapping with the claimed range.
Javeed sends the dechlorinated/reduced heteroatom stream to further cracking treatment (depolymerization) in catalytic cracker or steam cracking steps (see figures).
Javeed does not explicitly disclose the reactions are insufficient (or sufficient as in claim 11) to decompose the polyolefin component. However, Javeed teaches overlapping temperatures, pressures, and residences times, as discussed above, as well as the same feedstocks.
Therefore, it is expected that the same reactions would occur, since the same feeds and conditions are utilized.
Regarding claim 2, Javeed teaches adding hydrogen or nitrogen stripping gas to remove the undesirable heteroatoms [0067]. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the stripping gas flow rates, in order to achieve the desired striping of heteroatoms as desired. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Javeed teaches greater than 50% polyethylene and polypropylene (see example 1, [0078]).
Regarding claim 6, Examiner considers Javeed device to read on the claimed mixing/heating/gas injection/withdrawal means, as these are all standard to maintain the process conditions as disclosed by Javeed.
Regarding claims 8-9, Javeed teaches additional steps for treating the waste plastic with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide [0051], as well as various chloride adsorbers including activated carbon, calcium oxide, etc [0052], in order to further remove chloride components.
Regarding claim 10, Javeed does not explicitly disclose the dosage of the additional chloride scrubbing components or absorbers.
However, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an effective amount, in order to remove the chloride compounds as desired. It is not seen where such a selection would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Javeed teaches the same feeds as claimed, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
Therefore, it is expected that the feeds would have the same molecular weight averages and relationship as claimed. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the feedstocks in this regard.
Regarding claim 13, Javeed teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. After depolymerization, Javeed teaches catalytic cracking followed by scavenging to recover solid residue (char) from vapor and dechlorinated pyrolysis oil (second liquid stream) (see figure 2).
Regarding claims 14-17 and 19, Javeed teaches zeolitic cracking catalyst and temperatures of 350-730˚C [0053-0055]. Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate reaction vessels, as disclosed, in order to perform the desired steps.
Regarding claim 18, it is expected that the same intermediates are present, since the prior art teaches the same feedstocks, operating conditions, and heteroatom removal. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the process steps in this regard.
Regarding claim 20, Javeed teaches temperatures of 25-225 ˚C [0061], overlapping with the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
