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
Claims 1 – 20 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.
The term “heavy aromatic” in claims 1, 8, 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the term “heavy” is drawn to amount of aromatic compounds or to the molecular weight of the compound(s). For the sake of examination, heavy aromatic is taken as representing the presence of any aromatic compound.
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.
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 – 3, 8 – 10, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasile et al. (Feedstock recycling from plastics and thermosets fractions of used computers; Pyrolysis oil upgrading)
In regard to claim 1, Vasile teaches liquid products of pyrolysis of plastics and thermosets fractions (keyboards, casings and printed circuit boards) used for computers were upgraded by thermal and catalytic hydrogenation (abstract). The plastics and thermosets are waste components (page 477). Such components are commonly known to sometimes comprise aromatics such bisphenol A (BPA), also see KR20010037110A which recites aromatic keyboard skin, thus making aromatic keyboards obvious. Pyrolysis oils were separated from the computer parts and catalytically hydrogenated (page 478). The pyrolysis products included liquid and solids (page 3). The pyoils comprise styrene, ethylene benzene and methylstyrene which were converted to ethylbenzene and cumene after hydrogenation (page 481). Separation of pyrolysis oils from solids would have been obvious. Also, product separation after the formation of ethylbenzene would have been obvious. Vasile teaches that styrene was removed during upgrading (i.e., during hydrogenation) (page 481).
The first intermediate product of the claim is the pyrolysis oil comprising styrene, with a remainder of solids (char). The intermediate product is subjected to hydrogenation. Then, the second intermediate product resulting from hydrogenation is ethylbenzene. Then the separation of ethylbenzene product from other unwanted products occurs according to limitations a) to c) of the claim which are obvious. For instance, Vasile discusses recovery of valuable pyrolysis products, thus indicating separation of products (page 478)
In regard to claim 2, Vasile recites the method and composition. The method comprises 2-stage thermal and catalytic pyrolysis (page 478).
In regard to claim 3, Vasile teaches the method wherein pyrolysis is done is stages including 2-stage pyrolysis, pyrolysis in the presence of limestone, and high temperature gasification, catalytic bromination etc. (page 478). There is no teaching that the stages are done in parallel and thus it appears to be in series, such that all of the ingredients together undergo one pyrolysis step after another.
In regard to claims 8 – 10, 15, 16, Vasile provides the method as previously discussed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
