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 .
This correspondence is in response to the application field on 3/21/2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20130324772).
With respect to claim 1, Huber (US 20130324772) is directed to pyrolysis of hydrocarbon material such as waste plastics to produce aromatic and olefin chemicals. Par. [0006]. The feed may include waste plastic, which is a heavy aromatic waste. Par. [0020]. The feed is sent to a first reactor for thermal pyrolysis and at least a portion of the effluent is passed to a catalytic pyrolysis unit. Par. [0006]; [0087]; [0124]. The product includes aromatics and olefines, par. [0006], including styrene, benzene, ethylene, propylene, or a combination thereof, par. [0059].
With respect to claims 2-5, the art teaches wherein styrene, benzene, ethylene and propylene are produced. The art teaches that in a multiple-reactor system, the second products may comprise a relatively higher amount of aromatics or olefins than the previous product, which is higher than the feed. Par. [0125]. It is expected that when the pyrolysis reactions were tailored to produce each of the products, the individual product would increase in concentration as it moved through the system.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the pyrolysis reactors operate at a temperature between 400 and 600 C. Par. [0021].
With respect to claims 8-9, the catalyst may be a zeolite catalyst such as ZSM-5, zeolite Y, zeolite beta, mordenite, MCM-22, ZSM-23, ZSM-57, SUZ-4, EU-1, ZSM-11, (S)AlP0-31, SSZ-23, and the like, which include both medium and large pore zeolites and those claimed.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, The art teaches returning a portion of the catalyst and effluent to the pyrolysis reactor. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle residual product in one or both pyrolysis reactors to increase conversion to the desired aromatic and olefin products.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (US 20130324772) as applied to claims 1-9, further in view of Repsol (WO 2023209180).
With respect to claim 10, propylene may be produced. E.g. Table 3. The art is silent regarding catalytically reacting the propylene with ethylbenzene hydroperoxide to form propylene oxide and 1-phenyl ethanol and dehydrating the 1-phenyl ethanol to produce styrene monomer.
Repsol (WO 2023209180) is directed to the conversion of waste plastic via pyrolysis to hydrocarbon liquid and further upgrading the liquid to produce styrene polymer. Repsol discloses “oxidation of ethylbenzene (EB) to form ethylbenzene hydroperoxide (EBHP), followed by the catalytic reaction of the EBHP with propylene to produce PO and 1-phenylethanol (MBA, also referred as alpha-methylbenzyl alcohol), PO purification, dehydration of the MBA to produce SM.” Par. [0003]; [0015]-[0016]. Respol also discloses “[i]t is well known that waste plastic can be pyrolyzed to produce high yields of light gas olefins (i.e., ethylene, propylene, butylenes) and aromatics (i.e. , benzene, toluene, xylenes (BTX), ethylbenzene (EB)), along with low yields of paraffins, isoparaffins, and naphthenes. The pyrolysis can be configured to maximize propylene and/or aromatics, with high yields of BTX and EB.” Par. [0006].
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the propylene and ethyl benzene produced in the pyrolysis process of Huber to a styrene production process as taught in Respol for the benefit of creating a polymer end product from waste plastic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
