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 4/10/205.
Claims 1-15 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, 3-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (CA 2202941).
With respect to claim 1, Wong (CA 2202941) is directed to a process for “depolymerization” of waste plastic material, including pyrolysis oil. Page 2. The process includes heating and reacting a feedstream comprising plastics to produce a pyrolysis oil. Pages 3-5, 8-13. The effluent is separated into a gaseous stream, a liquid stream, and a bottoms stream having paraffin wax and unreacted thermoplastics. Page 5. At the conclusion of the reaction, the heaters were turned off and allowed to cool and solidify. Page 17. Gases products are drawn from the reactor separately. The liquid is removed from the reactor/ tank through a valve in the bottom of the reactor. The solid was manually removed from the reactor. Page 16. The process may be a continuous process. Page 12. The liquid stream may then “be fed to a gasoline refiner” where it may be subject to e.g. naphtha steam cracking for the production of ethylene (i.e. olefins). Page 13. Pumping is a well-known and obvious means of feeding a liquid from one unit to another. The paraffin stream may be further dissolved in light oil or naphtha and passed to cracking. Page 13; claim 31. It is expected or else would have been obvious to heat during dissolve and processing of the paraffin wax to ensure flowable and capable of processing.
With respect to claim 3, Wong discloses removing the liquid from the bottom of the reactor, which includes a level no lower than 1 to 10 inches above the bottom of the tank.
With respect to claim 4, Wong discloses cooling to precipitate the wax. It would have been obvious to utilize any known cooler to achieve the desired reduction in effluent temperature. Additionally, it has been held that apparatus limitations are not entitled to patentable weight in method claims and do not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality and superior results of the limitations. See Ex Parte Norio Akamatsu (BPAI 1992) and In re Gelnovatch, 595 F.2d 32, 37, 210 USPQ 136, 141 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, cooler apparatus using a circulating fluid through the tank or coil would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill to house the pyrolysis oil for separation absent a showing of criticality and superior results achieve from reaching the desired cold temperature using this type of cooler.
With respect to claim 5, Wong is silent regarding the cold filter plugging point of the pyrolysis oil stream. However, the process is designed for the removal of wax from the pyrolysis oil. Removal of the wax prevents downstream problems with processing such as The removal of wax affects the cold flow properties including the cold filter plugging point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the solids removal step to achieve the desired cold filter plugging point of the pyrolysis oil stream.
With respect to claim 8, Wong discloses cooling and separating a (1) paraffin wax in solid form and a (2) pyrolysis oil in liquid form. The art does not expressly state the separation occurs in a tank located in a bulk transportation vessel or vehicle. However, the claim is directed to a process and not an apparatus. It has been held that apparatus limitations are not entitled to patentable weight in method claims and do not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the criticality and superior results of the limitations. See Ex Parte Norio Akamatsu (BPAI 1992) and In re Gelnovatch, 595 F.2d 32, 37, 210 USPQ 136, 141 (CCPA 1979). Therefore, the separation tank taking the form of a bulk transportation vessel or vehicle would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill to house the pyrolysis oil for separation absent a showing of criticality and superior results.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (CA 2202941) as applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 8 above, further in view of Willem (WO 2021115982).
With respect to claim 2, Wong discloses cooling to precipitate the wax but is silent regarding the temperature. Willem discloses dewaxing pyrolysis oil by reducing the temperature comprising “a) mixing the liquid hydrocarbon feedstock stream with a solvent resulting in a liquid mixture; b) cooling the liquid mixture obtained in step a) to a temperature in the range of from +5 °C to -30 °C to obtain wax crystals in the mixture; c) separating wax crystals from the cooled liquid mixture obtained in step b) to produce a wax comprising aliphatic hydrocarbons and a dewaxed liquid mixture comprising solvent.” Abstract. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the pyrolysis oil in the process of Wong to a temperature in the range of -30 to 5C as taught in Willem because both are directed to reducing temperature of pyrolysis oil to precipitate the wax for separation and Willem discloses a temperature range which allows the precipitation.
With respect to claim 6, Williem discloses the feed may have “for example of from 5 to 50 carbon atoms”, leaving paraffin wax in the range up to C50 and overlapping the claimed range of carbon atoms ranging from C18 to C36.
With respect to claim 7, Williem discloses wherein the aliphatic hydrocarbons may be up to 100% paraffinic and may be cyclic, linear and branched and the aliphatic. Page 7-8 This includes 80-90 wt. % normal paraffin content and 10-20 wt. % branched paraffins (iso- paraffins) and cycloparaffins.
With respect to claim 9-10 and 13-15, Wong discloses sending the pyrolysis liquid to a first cracking unit comprising steam cracking to produce olefins and sending the paraffin to a cracking unit to produce olefins. Wong is silent regarding the operating temperature of the steam cracking reactor. Cracking of pyrolysis oil is known in the art. Williem steam cracking pyrolysis oil is performed at elevated temperatures, preferably in the range of from 650 to 1000 °C to produce olefins. The temperature encompasses the claimed range of 775 to 825 C or 826 to 875 C. Therefore, before filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a temperature of 650-1000C for cracking the pyrolysis oil of Wong as disclosed in Williem because Wong teaches sending the pyrolysis oil to cracking to produce olefins and Williem discloses a specific process for treating pyrolysis oil to produce olefins.
With respect to claims 11-12, Wong discloses producing ethylene. Page 13.
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
