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 and preliminary amendment filed 4/24/2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 5-6 and 11-13 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 claims 5, 6, and 11, the phrases "preferably,” “more preferably" or “even more preferably" render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toukoniitty (US 2021/0292657) in view of Lange (US 20230365877).
With respect to claims 1-3, 5-6 and 10-11, Toukoniitty (US 2021/0292657) teaches (a) providing the recycled or renewable organic material; (c) heat treating the recycled or renewable organic material at 100 to 450°C, such as heat treating the recycled or renewable organic material comprising more than 20 ppm Cl in the presence of an aqueous solution of alkaline metal hydroxide at a temperature from 100 to 450° C to obtain the purified recycled or renewable organic material comprising less than 50% of the original chlorine content, [0065]; and (f) hydrotreating the heat treated recycled or renewable organic material in a presence of a hydrotreating catalyst at temperature of 270 to 380° C and pressure of e.g. up to 20 Mpa. Abstract; [0107]-[0111]. The hydroxide may be at a range of more than more than 0.1 g/g. [0068] The feed may be subject to water washing before or after the heat treating step including removing impurities. [0051]. This corresponds to step (b) and (d) After adding water after heat treatment, the water may be evaporated.
Toukoniitty is silent regarding using the first or second washed water stream (before and after step c) as the washing water in the second or first washing step, respectively; circulating the aqueous effluent; and injecting fresh water into the circuit.
Lange, also directed to treatment of plastic waste derived oil, teaches a series of washing steps including water washing. Fresh water is added to the system during the process. Additionally, during the process water may be recovered in upstream and downstream washing sections. [0164] The water may be recycled for reuse in the process. [0122], [0128], [0164]
It is known that recycle reduces waste and reduces raw material needs. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Toukoniitty by including water washing with a water recycle as taught in Lange before and after the heat treating step because both are directed to removing impurities from pyrolysis oils, recycle improves process economics through minimizing reactant costs and wash water disposal, and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 4, Lange teaches wherein the downstream aqueous stream is returned to the upstream washing section [0164].
With respect to claims 7, Toukoniitty teaches that filtration or decanting may be used in the process to remove solids formed during preheating, upstream of step c. [0052]
With respect to claim 8, Toukoniitty teaches that filtration or decanting may after solids form in step c. [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so before or after the additional washing step which also removes impurities and solids as a matter of design choice to obtain desired reduced concentration of solids and other impurities.
With respect to claim 13, Toukoniitty teaches that after the recycled or renewable organic material has been purified in accordance with the present method, it may be subjected to further processing e.g. catalytic upgrading. [0129]
With respect to claim 14, Toukoniitty teaches an apparatus, or else would have been obvious in view of the taught process step, for performing the process of claims 1-13, including first section for contacting with water, heat treatment step section with optional separation, second washing section, and hydrotreatment section.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toukoniitty (US 2021/0292657) and Lange (US 20230365877) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Adam (WO 2021204821).
With respect to claim 12, Toukoniitty is silent regarding further washing the hydrotreated effluent to eliminate inorganic compounds such as hydrosulfide, hydrogen chloride, ammonia. However, water wash of hydrotreating effluent is well known in the art. In Adam, a process for the purification of waste plastic based oil via hydrotreatment, Adam teaches washing with water the effluent obtained after said second hydrotreating step to remove inorganic compounds such as hydrosulphide, hydrogenchloride, ammonia and ammonium salts. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Toukoniitty by adding a water wash after hydrotreating because both are directed to purification or removal of impurities of waste plastic derived oil, both teach hydrotreating the oil, and Adams teaches washing hydrotreated effluent for the benefit of removing inorganic compounds.
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