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 communication filed 5/8/2025.
Claims 1-44 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 12, 14 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the amount of high-density PP " however there is no high-density PP claimed. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites high-performance compact reactor which is not a general term in the art and not defined or recited in the specification. The specification lists high-production compact reactor at par. [0010], but this is not defined either.
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) 1-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scavello (US 2023/0265258).
With respect to claims 1-6, 29, Scavello (US 2023/0265258) discloses a process for converting waste plastic in a refinery comprising:
(a) Providing waste plastic, which may include polyethylene and/or polypropylene. Par. [0141]-[0143]. The polyethylene may include high-density polyethylene and low-density polyethylene. Par. [0154].
(b) Mixing and blending the waste plastic with hydrocarbon at a temperature from 150 to 450 C, which encompasses the claimed ranges of from 300-450° F, 300-400° F, or the range of from 350-400° F. The plastic is added in an amount of e.g. 19.3wt% and vacuum residue hydrocarbon in amount of 80%, which is less than 20% waste plastic with a petroleum based feed. See Table 6, par. [0322].
(c) Filtering the blend. Par. [0215]. No cooling occurs between the heating/mixing and the filtering, therefore, the temperature of filtering is about 300-450° F, 300-400° F or about 350-400° F.
(d) Passing the composition to refinery processes blend to a refinery conversion unit. Par. [0231]-[0238].
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Scavello discloses where the waste comprises one or more of the listed plastics including 100% polyethylene. Par. [0141]-[0142]. 100% of the listed plastic and 0% of plastic in classification groups 1, 3, and 7.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Scavello discloses the blend comprises between 2 and 300% plastic with respect to the hydrocarbon. Par. [0174]. This encompasses the range of from 1-10 wt.% or 1-5wt% of the selected waste plastic.
With respect to claim 11, Scavello discloses vacuum resid. Par. [0115].
With respect to claim 12, polypropylene is taught as well as high density plastics such as polyethylene. Thus, it would have been obvious to include high density polypropylene feed.
With respect to claim 13, Scavello discloses a catalytic conversion process. Par. [0233]. Fluid catalytic cracking is a well-known catalytic conversion process for operating over a wide range of feeds and reactions.
With respect to claim 14, Scavello discloses a slurry catalytic reactor for hydroconversion with EST. Par. [0237]. This is interpreted as a high-performance compact reactor for hydroconversion.
With respect to claim 15, Scavello discloses a coker. Par. [0234].
With respect to claim 16, Scavello discloses a hydrocracking unit. Par. [0235].
With respect to claims 17-19, Scavello discloses the blend can be filtered using operations previously described in the invention. Par. [0216]. “[A]ny system known in the state of the art for this purpose can be used, e.g. fixed or mobile filtering nets, and filter changer systems which possibly implement management modes that contemplate the filter change mode in line without interrupting operations, or continuous cleaning or at intervals or when the pressure loss exceeds a certain threshold value.” Par. [0217]. Thus, it would have been obvious to use a known slurry removal recovery a slurry stream, filter press recovering a cake, or centrifuge to separate the solids from the liquified plastic-solvent blend.
With respect to claim 20, the filtered plastics contain hydrocarbon material. It would have been obvious to process the plastics in the same or a separate conversion unit, including a coker as disclosed in Scavello as a means of upgrading the plastics.
With respect to claim 21, Scavello discloses filtering the plastics, but is silent regarding the size. It would have been obvious to remove macro plastics which cause downstream fouling and plugging while allowing conversion of dispersed microplastics, thus, rendering obvious a filter size in a range overlapping a 20-25-micron average pore opening.
With respect to claim 22, a naphtha fraction is recovered from the refinery conversion unit. Par. [0252].
With respect to claims 23-24, Scavello discloses producing naphtha in a refinery unit. It does not explicitly state the naphtha is further processed to produce clean gasoline, diesel, base oil, or jet fuel. Given the naphtha is produced within a refinery unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the naphtha to a downstream unit for production of usable product streams including upstream conversion and blending.
With respect to claim 25, a temperature of 150-450 C includes a temperature above the melting point of the highest melting plastic in the blend.
With respect to claim 26-28, the ratio by weight of the blend to additional hydrocarbon flow is between 0.01 and 2. Par. [0243]. When converted to a volume percentage of the total flow to the conversion unit falls in the claimed ranges of up to 100%, up to 50% or up to 25%.
Claim(s) 30-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scavello (US 2023/0265258). as applied to claims 1-16 and 22-29 above, and further in view of Linck (US 2021/0348063).
With respect to claims 30 and 31, Scavello teaches the process of claim 29, including preparing the waste plastic by blending with a solvent and heating. Linck (US 2021/0348063) disclose a process for preparing waste for downstream conversion in hydrodeoxygenation reactor. “[T]he preparation of the flowable form of the oxygenated polymer may comprise solvating (partially or completely dissolving) the oxygenated polymer by combining it with a solvent (e.g., a paraffinic or aromatic oil) and, at a temperature between the melting temperature and the thermal decomposition temperature of the oxygenated polymer, filtering the solvated, oxygenated polymer to separate impurities such as solids existing under the heated, solvated condition of the oxygenated polymer.” Par. [0046]. The solvent for recycle may include effluent from the downstream conversion reactor. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a portion of the downstream pyrolysis or otherwise upgraded oil for the benefit of generating the required solvent oil feed within the process. One skilled in the art could have combined the elements 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.
With respect to claims 32 and 33, the waste plastic is mixed with hydrocarbon at a temperature from 150 to 450 C, which encompasses the claimed ranges of from 300-450° F, 300-400° F, or the range of from 350-400° F.
With respect to claims 34 and 35, no cooling occurs between the heating/mixing and the filtering, therefore, the temperature of filtering is about 300-450° F, 300-400° F or about 350-400° F.
With respect to claim 36, the plastic may comprise polypropylene. Par. [0141]-[0143].
With respect to claims 37-38, Scavello discloses where the waste comprises one or more of the listed plastics including 100% polyethylene. Par. [0141]-[0142]. 100% of the listed plastic and 0% of plastic in classification groups 1, 3, and 7.
With respect to claims 39 and 40, Scavello discloses the blend comprises between 2 and 300% plastic with respect to the hydrocarbon. Par. [0174]. This encompasses the range of from 1-10 wt.% or 1-5wt% of the selected waste plastic.
With respect to claim 41, Scavello discloses a catalytic conversion process. Par. [0233]. Fluid catalytic cracking is a well-known catalytic conversion process for operating over a wide range of feeds and reactions.
With respect to claim 42, Scavello discloses a slurry catalytic reactor for hydroconversion with EST. Par. [0237]. This is interpreted as a high-performance compact reactor for hydroconversion.
With respect to claim 43, Scavello discloses a coker. Par. [0234].
With respect to claim 44, Scavello discloses a hydrocracking unit. Par. [0235].
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 1-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of copending Application No. 19/202442 (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 (e.g. 1-20% plastic and up to 20% plastic).
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
