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 amendment and reply filed 7/7/2025.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 112 are updated as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered and persuasive in part.
Applicant argues the art of record fails to teach limitations of amended claim 1. These limitations are now addressed in the rejection below in view of the previous cited art to Akah, further in view of Besong (WO 2021/089995), Chakraborty (US 20220228070), Basha (US 20230183582), and Hofer (US 9920255).
With respect to feature (1), Besong discloses feeding with a combination of water cooling and pneumatic conveying.
With respect to feature (2), Chakraborty discloses further details of the hot melting dichlorination reactor including circulating a portion of the melt through an exchanger to increase the temperature in the range claimed and return to the reactor. Note, in discussing feature (2) applicant states Akah discloses the plastic derived oil is directly fed as raw material to a catalytic cracking reactor, however, the melt liquid is first passed to a pyrolysis reactor and the gas products to the catalytic cracking reactor.
With respect to feature (3), Akah teaches graded gas-phase dehydrogenation and cracking wherein the plastic is subject to liquification, pyrolysis with catalyst to produce gas produce, and a final catalytic cracking stage. Newly cited art to Basha teaches the pyrolysis reactor details.
With respect to feature (4), Akah discloses two catalyst systems, the first a pyrolysis step which may be conducted in the presence of a catalyst and the second the steam assisted catalytic cracking step. The regeneration steps are now discussed below in view of the newly cited art.
With respect to claim (5), the art now relied upon teaches using gas for feeding the waste plastics and adding medium or heavy pyrolysis oil fractions to the dechlorination melt reactor and/or the pyrolysis reactor to improve viscosity among other benefits. It would have been obvious to utilizes streams from the downstream fractionation column, including byproduct gas and medium or heavy oil, to supply the taught gas and pyrolysis oil diluent.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 recites a slurry oil molten liquid on line 8 and again a slurry oil molten liquid on line 16, which appears to be the same stream. If so, the second should be written as “the” slurry oil molten liquid.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akah (US 2023/0257662) in view of Besong (WO 2021/089995), Chakraborty (US 20220228070), Basha (US 20230183582), and Hofer (US 9920255).
With respect to claim 1, Akah is directed to a system and process for converting waste plastics or mixed plastics into aromatics and light olefins. Abstract. A plastic feedstock is fed to a dichlorination reactor to melt the feed and release HCl. Abstract. The liquid effluent is fed to a pyrolysis reactor. The pyrolysis effluent is subject to generate a plastic derived oil. Plastic derived oil is subject to catalyst cracking to produce olefins and aromatics.
With respect to the dichlorination melt reactor, Akah discloses “feeding a plastic feedstock to a dechlorination operation including raising the temperature of the plastic feedstock to a temperature between 250 and 350° C, which overlaps the claimed range, to melt the plastic feedstock and generate a liquid plastic stream and scrubbing released HCl from the liquid plastic stream.” [0019] The plastics feed may be in the form of pellets, chopped, ground, or other size reduced, par. [0022], which are known to be created through pulverizer. With respect to the flue gas extracted from the top of the reactor, is passed to a scrubber 24 where HCL is removed from fuel gas (C1-C4, hydrogen, etc). [0029]-[0030] Given only residual sulfur remains after pyrolysis and the same hot melt process is conducted at the same temperature to produce liquid melt and light gases, it is expected that at least a portion of the sulfur would be removed with the melt gases as well. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combined treated fuel gas with the refiner fuel gas to utilize combined system to receive and supply fuel gas.
The art is silent regarding the details of the feeding apparatus, including using a water cooling feed pipe at a temperature of 20-95C and carrying the plastic to the reactor by pyrolysis dry gas.
(a) Besong (WO 2021/089995), directed to a feed apparatus feeding melting feeds such as plastic to a reactor, teaches supplying waste plastic material to a pyrolysis reactor through a controllable apparatus having a heating/cooling jacket with cooling water cooling fluid. The cooling inlet helps solve problems of plastic solidifying and build up at the inlet. “Optionally, the pyrolysis reactor assembly is comprised in a waste recycling apparatus, the apparatus being configured to convert waste to a pyrolysis product, for example wherein the waste is selected from plastic waste, municipal waste and/or biomass, preferably mixed plastic waste. Optionally, the pyrolysis product comprises a hydrocarbon gas, a hydrocarbon liquid/oil, a hydrocarbon solid/wax, and/or a mixture thereof. Optionally, the apparatus comprises a shredder, a dryer and/or a blower for shredding, drying and/or conveying the waste material prior to feeding the waste to the pyrolysis reactor with the feed system.” “[T]he method comprises operating a temperature regulator to control the temperature of at least the second section of the feed conduit, such as to maintain at least the second section of the feed conduit at a temperature of from 20°C to 80°C.” “[T]he mechanical actuator optionally comprises a pneumatic actuator. . . a particularly efficient and fine-controllable method of moving the feed contacting member.”
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 feed inlet of the plastic to dichlorination reactor of Akah by adding a temperature-controlled inlet and feeding the particles using a gas system as taught in Besong for the benefit of preventing buildup at the inlet of the dichlorination reactor and as an efficient method of moving particles through the contacting member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use as the fluidizing gas a byproduct from the downstream reactor for the benefit of creating an efficient process.
Akah is silent regarding the details of the reactor apparatus including:
wherein the molten dichlorination reactor includes stirring;
extracting a molten plastic liquid from the bottom of the hot melting dechlorination reactor and pressurizing and conveying the molten plastic liquid by a delivery pump,
heating a part of the molten plastic liquid by a high speed circulating tube equipped with an external heater to a temperature 20-60°C higher than that of a slurry oil molten liquid,
returning the heated liquid to the upper part of said hot melting dechlorination reactor with a circulation rate of 2-30 m/s and mass ratio of 1-10: 1; and
recycling downstream gas oil from the pyrolysis fractionator.
With respect to the dechlorination reactor, Chakraborty (US 20220228070) is directed to a process and apparatus for converting waste plastics including a melt tank and pyrolysis reactor. The melt tank may be an agitated vessel, i.e. include stirring, for mixing and melting the polymer. [0015]; Figure 3. The melt tank receives the plastic particle feed at the top of the reactor. Figure. The product liquid is removed from the bottom of the hot melting tank, and may be pumped, heated, and returned to the tank to improve mixing and melting of the feed system. [0037]; [0020]-[0023]. The mixing may occur upstream of the melt tank but downstream of the plastic feed system. [0020] The recycle is heated to a temperature such as 325-375 C, which falls within the claimed range with respect to the tank liquid which is in a range of 250-350C. [0054] and [0052]. A diluent or solvent may be added to the melt reactor for the benefit of supplementing the total heat and adjusting the viscosity of the liquid. [0037]; [0055]. The diluent may be heavy or medium pyrolysis liquid product from the downstream reactor, i.e. pyrolysis gas oil. [0037]
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 reactor of Akah by agitating, heating, and diluting as taught in the process of Chakraborty because both are directed to the liquification and pyrolysis of waste plastic, Chakarborty teaches methods for heating, improving viscosity, and mixing the liquid melt, and such combination would have provided alternative or beneficial means for achieving these steps without obtaining new or unexpected results. With respect to the rate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the rate desired to achieve mixing into the reactor melt and at a ratio to achieve the desired viscosity of the melt liquid.
With respect to the first pyrolysis step and reactor, the liquid plastic stream 110 is subject to pyrolysis to produce to gaseous products and residual solid. [0032]; [0019]. The gaseous products include light gases, hydrocarbon gases, naphtha, middle and heavy hydrocarbons. Id. “The specific reactor used as the pyrolysis reactor 50 can be of different types and are not limited for the purposes of the present disclosure. One skilled in the art will appreciate that typical reactor types that can be used to serve the function of the pyrolysis reactor 50 are tank reactors, rotary kilns, packed beds, bubbling and various embodiments, the pyrolysis of the liquid plastic stream 110 is performed in the presence or absence of a pyrolysis catalyst at a temperature of 300 to 1,000° C.” [0033], which falls within the claimed range.
Akah teaches pyrolysis with catalyst for the same purpose and teaches the use of any reactor, but is silent regarding (1) combining the liquid with crude oil to the pyrolysis reactor, (2) the operating pressure and time, and (3) the details of the reactor, separator, or catalyst regenerator, including:
wherein the reactor is a downer cracking reactor;
wherein the separator is a gas-solid fast separator;
wherein the feed is passed to the upper middle part of a downer cracking reactor through an atomizing feedstock nozzle with a steam dosage of 4-12wt.% of the mixture;
and the regenerator is a riser regenerator with air fluidized coke burning at a temperature of 500-700C with a regenerated air inlet at the bottoms and a gas-solid separator at the top, and a heat exchanger and regenerated flue gas outlet.
(2) (3) Given the current claim is directed to a process, the apparatus limitations are given limited weight because it does not appear that the claimed separator or regenerator would function substantially different than a conventional gas-solid separator and catalyst regenerator. 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. However, Akah teaches a first stage pyrolysis for processing liquid plastic in the presence of catalyst. Basha (US 20230183582), directed to the art of catalytic pyrolysis of solid hydrocarbons material in a down flow reactor, teaches wherein solid or melted liquid plastics may be subject to pyrolysis in a downflow catalytic reactor. Abstract; [0065]. In Basha the feed enters the reactor, optionally with atomizing gas, and is passed down through the reactor. [0065]; figure. The effluent is separated from the catalyst in a gas-solid separator and the spent catalyst is passed to a riser regenerator for burning in the presence of air at a regenerator temperature of 500-1000C. [0079]-[0081]; [0084]. At the top of the riser the regenerated catalyst is separated and returned to the downflow reactor and the flue gas is withdrawn from the system. [0082]; Figure. Basha mentions the flue gas contains waste heat. [0082]. It would have been obvious to recover the waste heat in a heat exchanger as well-known in the art. The process operates at a temperature of 400-700C, a time of 0.5-180s, and a pressure of 0.5-10 barg, and fluidizing gas in a range of 0.6-10 vol. %, which may be converted to wt. %, [0009]-[0011]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select as the first reactor of Akah the downer reactor and riser regenerator of Basha because Akah teaches any reactor may be used and both Akah and Basha disclose reactors and associated reaction steps designed for the catalytic pyrolysis of liquid plastic feeds to produce gaseous hydrocarbon product and solid byproduct, and the combination would do no more than apply any known reactor as taught in Akah to the process to achieve the desired and predictable result of upgrading the waste plastic.
With respect to (1) combining the liquid with crude oil to the pyrolysis reactor, Hofer (US 9920255) discloses a method for pyrolysis of plastic material wherein the plastic material is first molten, degassed, and then mixed with crude oil as solvent to reduce the viscosity. Abstract; col. 2. The mixture is subject to pyrolysis. The addition of solvent improves heat transfer to the plastics material, allowing larger capacity and more reliable reactions under economically acceptable conditions. Col. 2. Before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the molten liquid of Akah with a crude oil solvent as taught in Hofer prior to pyrolysis for the benefit of improving viscosity and processing in the downstream reactor.
With respect to the second reactor, the steam enhanced catalytic cracking reactor 80 may comprises a fluidized bed reactor. The reactor may be a riser or downer. [0034]. The reactor may operate at a temperature of from about 450° C to about 700° C, a reaction pressure of from about 1 kg/cm² to about 20 kg/cm², contact time (in the reactor) of from about 0.1 seconds to about 30 seconds, and a catalyst-to-feed ratio on a weight basis of from about 3:1 to about 60:1. [0036]. Processing in the fluid catalytic cracking reactor 80 includes separating the catalyst, regenerating the catalyst in a regenerator vessel at a temperature sufficient for regenerating spent catalyst and returning to the reactor. [0035]. The effluent from the second reactor is passed to an atmospheric distillation unit and produces light olefins 190, an aromatics product 192 and other products 194. [0046].
Akah is silent regarding the details of the second regeneration apparatus. Given the current claim is directed to a process, the apparatus limitations are given limited weight because it does not appear that the claimed catalyst separator and regenerator would function substantially different than a traditional FCC catalyst separator and regenerator. 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. Further, Akah teaches fluidized catalytic process in an upper or downer reactor and regenerating the catalyst. Basha (US 20230183582), as discussed above with respect to the first downer reactor with riser regenerator, discloses the details of the riser reactor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the downer reactor and riser regenerator of Basha as the first reactor and riser in Akah because Akah teaches any reactor may be used and both reactors and reaction steps are designed for the pyrolysis of liquid plastic feeds to produce gaseous hydrocarbon product and their combination would do no more than obtain the predictable results of regeneration of spent catalyst from the catalytic pyrolysis reactor to achieve a regenerated catalyst for reuse.
With respect to claim 2, Besong teaches wherein the feed is passed through a cooling jacket cooled with cooling water. With respect to the shape of the cooling jacket, it does not appear that the claimed shape of the cooling jacket would function substantially different than the cooling jacket disclosed and no evidence indicating the criticality and superior results of any of the claimed shapes is provided.
With respect to claim 3, Besong discloses the use of screw feeders for feeding solid feed such as plastic or wood chips.
With respect to claim 4, the claim is directed to heating apparatus known in the art, including heating with hot thermal fluid. [0053]-[0054]. The fluid may be heated by furnace or electrical heating. [0059].
With respect to claim 5, Akah teaches wherein the first pyrolysis reactor occurs in the presence of catalyst, but is silent regarding the composition. Basha discloses wherein the pyrolysis catalyst for initial reaction of solid or molten plastic includes e.g. a molecular sieve in combination with a support or binder material such as, for example, a porous inorganic oxide support or a clay binder. [0087]. “Non-limiting examples of such binder materials include alumina, zirconia, silica, magnesia, thoria, titania, boria and combinations thereof, generally in the form of dried inorganic oxide gels and gelatinous precipitates.” [0087]. “The catalyst composition may be in the form of an extrudate, beads or fluidizable microspheres.” [0087]
With respect to claims 6, Akah teaches the catalyst is not limited, and "may be any conventional fluidized catalytic cracking catalyst known to those skilled in the art." [0038]. The exemplified catalyst includes ZSM-5. [0045]; [0058].
With respect to claims 7-9, the claims are directed to regenerator apparatus limitations of turbulent and fluidized beds and equivalent diameters of the respective sections. Basha teaches regeneration of the catalyst from the first reactor of Akah in a riser regenerator. Figure. Akah teaches regeneration of the spent catalyst from the second reactor in a regenerator. [0042]. Basha teaches a riser reactor with catalyst and fluid introduced in the lower portion. Thus, it is expected to include turbulent bed at the bottom and fluidized bed at the top. Regarding the diameters, it does not appear that the claimed regenerators would function substantially different than the pyrolysis or FCC regenerators of the art. 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.
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.
Claim1-9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 19/421858 in view of Akah (US 2023/0257662). The copending application claims substantially the same dechlorniation melt process and pyrolysis process. The copending application is silent regarding the second catalytic pyrolysis reaction and regeneration stage. However, given Akah teaches subjecting the liquid melt first to a first pyrolysis followed by second cracking to produce valuable products, it would have been within the skill of one in the art to subject the product from the pyrolysis reactor in the copending claims to a second cracking and regeneration step as taught in Akah to further upgrade the gaseous products from the pyrolysis reactor to valuable product.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights