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 communication is in response to the application filed 1/31/2025.
Claims 1-20 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) 1-8 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 20190367428) in view of Takeshita (US 20110272268).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16, Ramamurthy (US 20190367428) teaches a process for the production of hydrocarbons from waste plastics. Abstract. The process includes pyrolysis of waste plastics producing an oil having hydrocarbons in a gas oil range. Par. [0030]-[0031]. The oil is passed to a hydrocracking unit where pyoil is produced in the naphtha boiling range. Par. [0051]; [0100]. The liquid hydrocarbon (a pyrolysis naphtha) is subject to optional aromatics separation. Par. [0058]. The non-aromatic portion is passed to further upgrading which may be steam cracking or any reforming unit for producing additional aromatics. Abstract; Par. [0099]-[0106]. The aromatics are additionally processed in separation and conversion for maximum production of xylenes and benzenes. Par. [0071]-[0075].
Ramamurthy is silent regarding sending a portion of the r-pyoil (r-naphtha) to a resin production facility and wherein the r-paraxylene produced is at least 85 weight percent paraxylene or at least 97 % (claim 16).
With respect to the concentration of the paraxylene stream, Ramamurthy teaches production of para-xylene, further conversion of o- and m-xylenes to para-xylenes, par. [0071]-[0072], and the xylene stream may be separated into individual fractions via e.g. extractive distillation, crystallization, adsorption, or combinations, par. [0079]. Ramamurthy does not explicitly state the para-xylene fraction includes at least 85 weight percent paraxylene, however, it would have been within the skill and obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to design the conversion and separation of xylene fractions for maximum isolation of individual fractions to improve purity for use downstream.
With respect to sending a portion of the r-pyoil (r-naphtha) to a resin production facility, Takeshita (US 20110272268) discloses a process for producing DCPD resin from cracked gasoline. Abstract. A cracked gasoline having C5-C9 hydrocarbons is recovered from an ethylene cracking unit (i.e. pyrolysis gasoline from a steam cracking facility). Par. [0012]; [0034]-[0035]. The effluent is subject to a dimerization reaction and the dimerization reaction subject to separation such as distillation to recover C5, BTX, and a residual stream comprising crude DCPD (i.e. resin production facility). Par. [0037]-[0038].
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 steam cracked gasoline fraction produced in Ramamurthy to a treatment unit for producing DCPD and BTX as taught in Takeshita for the benefit of producing DCPD resin product in addition to recovering the BTX for continued production in the third separation and downstream treatment of Ramamurthy. Both teach treating steam cracked gasoline for production of aromatics. The integration would provide the benefit of producing a final resin product in addition to the benzene and paraxylene chemicals from recycle waste materials.
With respect to claims 2-4 and 12, Ramamurthy discloses producing an r-pyrolysis oil, which is a heavy oil in the gasoil ranges. Par. [0030]-[0035]; [0100]. The r-pyoil is subject to hydroprocessing, which may be hydrocracking. Par. [0100]. The hydrocracking to produce a C5+ stream. Par. [0036]-[0037]; [0100]. The liquid portion of hydrocracking effluent comprising naphtha is passed to downstream treatment. Par. [0100].
With respect to claim 14, (Original) The process of claim 11, wherein the r-BTX stream includes at least 5 weight percent and/or not more than 75 weight percent of benzene, at least 15 weight percent and/or not more than 65 weight percent of toluene, and at least 5 weight percent and/or not more than 50 weight percent of mixed xylenes.
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Ramamurthy discloses “the hydrocarbon product stream 210 can comprise equal to or greater than about 95 wt. %, alternatively equal to or greater than about 96 wt. %, or alternatively equal to or greater than about 97.5 wt. % C.sub.8− hydrocarbons (e.g., C.sub.5 to C.sub.8 hydrocarbons), based on the total weight of the hydrocarbon product stream 210,” which falls within the claimed range. Par. [0052].
With respect to claim 6, Takeshita discloses treatment to remove impurities, dimerization (polymerization unit), and separation of BTX, unreacted C5 for recycle and DCPD. Par. [0003]; [0034]-[0038]. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to return the unreacted C5 to the dimerization reactor to increase production of DCPD as recycle of unreacted and isolated feed is well known.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Takeshita teaches distillation to recover BTX. Ramamurthy discloses each of the separation of aromatics steps may include “selective adsorption, selective absorption, extractive distillation, solvent extraction followed by distillation, and the like, or combinations thereof.” Par. [0057]; [0065]; [0070]. Toluene may be subject to tansalkylation/ disproprionation to xylenes. Par. [0074]-[0078]. Mixed xylenes may be separated to recover p-xylenes. Par. [0079].
With respect to claim 8, Ramamurthy discloses the cracked product is subject to separation to produce an aromatics rich stream and the aromatics rich stream is further separated into a benzene product, xylene product, and C7, C9, and/or C10 aromatics. The C7, C9, and/or C10 aromatics are converted in a disproportionation & transalkylation unit to yield additional benzene and xylenes. Abstract; par. [0074]-[0078]. The benzene, along with propylene, is passed to an alkylation unit for the production of cumene. Par. [0086]-[0090]. The xylenes are further separated to isolate paraxylene. Par. [0079].
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 20190367428) in view of Takeshita (US 20110272268) as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-16 above, further in view of Bitting (US 20210130699).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Ramamurthy and Takeshita are silent regarding the relative location of the waste plastic pyrolysis and each of the downstream units to the other, including wherein at least two of the steam cracking facility, the hydrocarbon resin production facility, and the aromatics complex are co-located.
In the analogous art of production of recycled hydrocarbons from waste plastic pyrolysis and steam cracking, Bitting (US 20210130699) discloses passing recycled waste plastic to a pyrolysis reactor for conversion to r-pygas and r-pyoil. The r-pyoil is passed to a cracker and the effluent subject to separation to produce light olefins, hydrogen, and pyrolysis gasoline. Figure 1. The cracker for pyoil may be a gas cracker in the presence of steam for steam cracking. Par. [0403]-[0404]. The cooled effluent is separated into r-product streams and r-pyrolysis gasoline. Figure 1, 4. Bitting discloses “large-scale production of one or more materials having recycle content” via pyrolysis of recycled waste and downstream steam cracking. Bitting at par. [0005]. The “pyrolysis unit producing recycle content pyrolysis oil (r-pyoil) and/or recycle content pyrolysis gas (r-pygas) can be co-located with the production facility[ or] can be sourced from a remote pyrolysis unit and transported to the production facility.” Bitting at par. [0006], [0266], [0360].
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use large scale processing of waste and production of benzene and paraxylene in a facility which is co-located in the same area for the benefit in the process of Ramamurthy and Takeshita as taught in Bitting for the benefit of large scale production of the desired products and within the same area minimizes complexity and cost in transporting intermediate products between units.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy (US 20190367428) in view of Linck (US 20210348063).
With respect to claims 17-20, Ramamurthy teaches processing waste plastics in a pyrolysis unit to produce r-pyoil, optional catalyst cracking, followed by hydrocracking the pyoil in a hydroprocessing unit to produce a gas and a liquid comprising naphtha. The naphtha is subject to separation in a first aromatic separation unit. The BTX is subject to downstream separation and conversion to produce paraxylene. Ramamurthy is silent regarding wherein the recycled content paraxylene (r-paraxylene) stream is processed in a terephthalic acid production facility to produce PTA.
Linck (US 2021/0348063) discloses a process for effective recycling of waste polymer into the same or different polymer. Par. [0075]. “[H]ydrodeoxygenation of PET can be used to recover para-xylene, which may, in turn, be conveniently processed to upgraded PET according to known methods involving oxidation of para-xylene to its dicarboxylic acid derivative, namely terephthalic acid (TPA), optionally followed by esterification or possibly transesterification of an esterified intermediate, and then copolymerization with ethylene glycol.” Par. [0075]. The process allows circular production of PET. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the integrated process to include downstream use of para-xylene produced in Ramamurthy by oxidation to TPA and conversion to PET resin because both are directed to the use of waste plastics to produce additional high value chemicals, the integration allows production of a PET product from the intermediate chemical. Ramamurthy teaches production of para-xylene and Link teaches the production of para-xylene along with the downstream use of para-xylene to produce TPA and then PET resin; thus, the claimed elements were known in the prior art and could have been combined as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/100211 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims merely overlap in scope. For example, the reference application claims recovering a recycled content pyrolysis gasoline stream while the instant application claims recovering a pyrolysis naphtha.
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 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
Prosecution Insights