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 Objections
Claims 3-6 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: “the waste plastic that is liquified (a)” (lines 3 and 8) should be –the waste plastic that is liquified in (a)—.
Claims 4-6: use “liquefying” and “liquefied” instead of “liquifying” and “liquified”, respectively, as used in claim 1.
Claims 13-15: each of the claims reuses steps (a) and (b) for steps which are distinct from steps (a) and (b) introduced in claim 1, leading to confusion of the claimed steps and how the process proceeds.
Claims 13-15: recitations of “waste plastic” and “a liquified waste plastic” should be –the waste plastic—and –the liquified waste plastic—, respectively, to make clear Applicant is referring back to the streams introduced in claim 1.
Claims 13-15: recitations of “a fluidized catalytic cracker” and “a hydrocracking unit” should be—the FCC unit—and –the hydrocracking unit—, respectively, to make clear Applicant is referring back to the units introduced in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is 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 9 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claim requires pyrolyzing at least a portion of the liquified waste plastic and later includes an option wherein at least a portion of the r-pyoil is combined with at least a portion of the liquified waste plastic stream before introducing into the FCC unit. It is unclear how both of these conditions can be met, where “at least a portion” includes all. Thus, the claim allows for pyrolyzing all of the liquified waste plastic and also combining r-pyoil with all of the liquified waste plastic before introduction in the FCC unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Javeed et al (US 2019/0270939)
Regarding claim 1, Javeed discloses a chemical recycling process comprising:
(a) liquifying waste plastic to form a liquified waste plastic stream (see [0024]-[0025]); and
(b) introducing at least a portion of the liquified waste plastic stream into a fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC) unit (see [0020]; [0053]; [0069]).
The waste plastic feed comprises predominantly polyolefins (see Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 2, Javeed discloses an embodiment wherein the waste plastic feed comprises not more than 5 wt.% polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (see Fig. 5A, feed without PET).
Regarding claim 3, Javeed discloses the process further comprising introducing a mixed plastic waste (MPW) to one or more preprocessing steps to produce the waste plastic that is liquified in (a), wherein the one or more preprocessing steps comprises size reducing or density separating (see [0004]; [0024], preprocessing in a thermal cracking reactor to break down the plastics into smaller hydrocarbon molecules).
Regarding claim 4, Javeed discloses wherein the liquifying comprises melting (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Javeed discloses the liquified waste plastic stream having a viscosity of less than 500 cP immediately prior to being introduced into the FCC unit (see Figs. 6A-G; [0097]; [0101]).
Regarding claim 6, Javeed discloses the process comprising removing one or more halogens from the liquified waste to form a halogen-depleted liquified waste plastic stream, the removing comprising sparging stripping gas into the liquified waste plastic stream to produce a multi-phase mixture and removing at least a portion of the halogens in a gas stream from the multi-phase mixture (see [0025]; [0033]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Javeed discloses an embodiment wherein the liquified waste plastic stream is introduced to the FCC unit without being pyrolyzed (see Fig. 1D; [0076]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Javeed discloses the process further comprising pyrolyzing at least a portion of the liquified waste plastic stream to thereby provide at least a recycled content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil) and a recycled content pyrolysis gas (r-pygas) and further comprising (i) combining at least a portion of the r-pyoil with at least a portion of the waste plastic before or during the liquifying (see [0024]; [0048]). With respect to claim 10, the office notes that the limitations therein are optional.
Regarding claim 13, Javeed discloses wherein the liquifying step comprises melting waste plastic to form the liquified waste plastic stream and the process further comprises dehalogenating the liquified waste plastic stream to form a halogen-depleted liquified waste plastic stream which is then introduced into the FCC unit (see [0025]; [0033]; [0045]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 14, Javeed discloses the process of claim 1 comprising pyrolyzing at least a first portion of the liquified waste plastic to thereby provide a recycled content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil) and then catalytically cracking a second portion 11 of the liquified waste plastic, wherein at least a portion 11A of the r-pyoil is combined with at least a portion of the waste plastic 6 before or drying the liquifying in (a) (see Figs. 1A-B; [0024]; [0048]; [0053]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javeed, as applied to claim 1, in view of LI et al (WO 2022/002091).
LI is cited from the English language equivalent (US 2023/0357644).
Regarding claim 7, Javeed does not disclose introducing a refinery stream into the FCC unit along with the liquified waste plastic stream.
LI is directed to a method for treating waste plastics. Waste plastic is pretreated in the presence of a solvent oil and the resulting plastic-containing solution is passed to a catalytic cracking unit where it is contacted with a catalytic cracking catalyst together with a catalytic cracking feedstock. The reaction product is separated to obtain a gas, gasoline fraction, diesel fraction, and a heavy cycle oil fraction. The catalytic cracking feedstock is any conventional feedstock, including VGO (see Fig. 2; [0119]; [0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Javeed by introducing a refinery stream into the FCC unit along with the liquified waste plastic stream, as suggested by LI, in order to improve the yield of desirable products such as gasoline and diesel (see Table 1).
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javeed, as applied to claim 1, in view of Ramamurthy et al (US 2019/0177626).
Javeed discloses the process being suitable for production of aromatic products (see [0002]), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed downstream steps outlined by claims 11, 12 and 15.
Ramamurthy is directed to producing high value chemicals from mixed plastic. The process entails subjecting a mixed plastics feedstock to thermal and catalytic cracking (in 10). The cracking effluent 12 is separated into recycled content FCC streams comprising LPG, naphtha, and/or cycle oil (gas stream 22 and liquid stream 21). The liquid stream is combined with a hydrocarbon feedstock (54a, 55a), subjected downstream to steam cracking 45, and separated into aromatics streams (53, 54), including xylene. The aromatics streams can be isolated into their respective components (see Fig. 3; [0030]; [0041], gas stream 22 comprises C1 to C4 hydrocarbons; [0044]-[0050], describing the liquid stream 21; [0091]; [0106]).
While Ramamurthy does not explicitly disclose the concentration of para-xylene in an isolated stream obtained from the aromatics stream(s), a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the separation conditions in order to achieve maximum purity of the desired aromatics products. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed concentration of para-xylene is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Javeed by including downstream processing steps such as steam cracking and aromatics recovery, as suggested by Ramamurthy, in order to produce and recover valuable chemical products.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/099,065 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to substantially similar/overlapping processes entailing liquifying a waste plastic stream and catalytically cracking the liquified stream. Independent claim 1 differs from the independent claims of ‘065 by (1) specifying FCC or hydrocracking as the cracking step; and (2) specifying that the waste plastic comprises predominantly polyolefins. These differences are not patentably distinguishing because dependent claims 2, 3, 14, and 17 of ‘065 remedy these deficiencies.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights