DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 2 and 5 are amended.
Claims 17-20 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 April 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 02 June 2025 are acknowledged.
Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings is sufficient to overcome the objection of
the drawings. The drawings have been amended to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1). The
objection is withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification is sufficient to overcome the
objection of the specification. The specification has been amended to match the
drawings compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1). The objection is withdrawn.
Abstract
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract is sufficient to overcome the
objection of the abstract. The abstract has been amended to correct the typographical and grammatical mistake. The objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2 and 5 are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims have been amended to specifically point out the units for the value. The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hasenberg ‘658 and Hasenberg ‘703 do not disclose the limitations as recited in the claims. These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the response to arguments below.
In response to applicant’s argument (A) on page 10 and (C) on page 12 of the remarks filed on 02 June 2025 that the references do not teach sequential production of a mercaptan AND an asymmetrical sulfide, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, independent claim 1 is drawn to sequentially reacting a first feed mixture of H2S and an olefin to produce a mercaptan, then reacting a second feed mixture of symmetrical sulfides to produce asymmetrical sulfides. Sequentially is defined as “forming or following a logical order or sequence”, see Stevenson, (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2015, Oxford University Press, 3rd Ed.). Hasenberg ‘658 teaches flowing a first mixture through a catalyst bed to produce a mercaptan, then flowing a second mixture through a catalyst bed to produce an asymmetrical sulfide, i.e., methyl ethyl sulfide, see Fig. 3; Paras. [0006]-[0009];[0035]-[0037]; therefore, Hasenberg ‘658 teaches forming a mercaptan AND an asymmetrical sulfide following a logical order or sequence. In addition, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.04 B.IV.C. For the reasons indicated above, applicants above arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (B) on pages 10-12 and (C) on pages 12-14 of the remarks filed on 02 June 2025 that the references do not teach separate catalyst beds with CoMo in a first bed and with NiMo in a second bed, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant’s argue that the first catalyst layer in the sequence comprises a supported CoMo catalyst and the second catalyst layer in the sequence comprises a supported NiMo catalyst. Independent claim 1 is drawn to the open-ended transitional term “comprising”, i.e., “comprising a supported CoMo catalyst” and “comprising a supported NiMo catalyst”. The transitional term “comprising” does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps, see MPEP 2111.03 I. Therefore, as instantly claimed the first catalyst bed contains CoMo and a variety of other unrecited elements and the second catalyst bed contains NiMo and a variety of other unrecited elements. Hasenberg ‘658 teaches catalyst bed layers, 12b, 14b, 16b, where catalyst layers 12b, 14b, 16b all include catalyst A and catalyst A is the same or a different alumina supported mixture of cobalt, nickel, and/or molybdenum, i.e., layer 14b comprises CoMo and a variety of other unrecited elements and layer 16b comprises NiMo and a variety of other unrecited elements, see Paras. [0021]-[0029];[0035]-[0037];[0042]-[0045], and Fig. 3; therefore, Hasenberg ‘658 teaches the first catalyst layer in the sequence comprises a supported CoMo catalyst and the second catalyst layer in the sequence comprises a supported NiMo catalyst. For the reasons indicated above, applicants above arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 13 of the remarks filed on 02 June 2025 that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper, see In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case Hasenberg ‘658 and Hasenberg ‘703 are both in the field of catalytically synthesizing mercaptans and asymmetrical sulfide compounds, a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to these references for knowledge generally available within the art at the time the claimed invention was made. For the reasons indicated above, applicants above arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0135658 A1 to Hasenberg et al. (hereinafter Hasenberg ‘658), patented as US 7,399,893 B2, in IDS, in view of US 2019/0270703 A1 to Hasenberg et al. (hereinafter Hasenberg ‘703), in IDS.
Claim 1 Hasenberg ‘658 discloses a process for sequentially producing a mercaptan and an asymmetrical sulfide (Fig. 3; Paras. [0006]-[0009];[0035]-[0037], a combination of isopropyl mercaptan and methyl ethyl sulfide are produced from product stream 18b), the process comprising:
(a) flowing a first feed mixture comprising H2S and an olefin (Para. [0035]; Fig. 3, alcohol feed stream 8b and sulfur compound reactant stream 10b; Para. [0037], hydrogen sulfide; Paras. [0057]-[0058], with the subsequent addition of hydrogen sulfide to the propylene, 2-propanethiol(isopropyl mercaptan) would have been the major product) through a first catalyst layer of a fixed bed reactor comprising a supported CoMo catalyst, then through a second catalyst layer of the fixed bed reactor comprising a supported NiMo catalyst to produce a first reaction mixture comprising the mercaptan (Paras. [0035]-[0037]; Fig. 3, catalysts layers 12b, 14b, 16b all including catalyst A; Paras. [0021]-[0022], hydrotreating catalyst A is a supported mixture of cobalt, nickel, molybdenum, i.e., each layer contains a mixture of CoMo and NiMo; Paras. [0042]-[0045]).
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose (b) flowing a second feed mixture comprising a first symmetrical sulfide and a second symmetrical sulfide through the first catalyst layer and then the second catalyst layer in the fixed bed reactor to produce a second reaction mixture comprising the asymmetrical sulfide.
Hasenberg ‘703 in the field of synthesizing asymmetrical sulfide compounds (Abstract; Paras. [0004]-[0012]) teaches (b) flowing a second feed mixture (Paras. [0094]-[0095], continuous process, i.e., more than one feed mixture; Para. [0098], feed is recycled) comprising a first symmetrical sulfide and a second symmetrical sulfide (Para. [0108], dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and diethyl sulfide (DES) were blended in a feed tank at an approximate weight ratio of 4:1 (DMS:DES)) through the first catalyst layer and then the second catalyst layer in the fixed bed reactor (Para. [0109], The DMS and DES blend was fed into the top of a fixed bed reactor containing a mixed bed of (i) supported CoMo on alumina and (ii) γ-alumina at a total flow rate (DMS and DES) of 17 g/hr. The fixed bed reactor had three independent heating zones: the top zone of the reactor (5.71 g of γ-alumina and 6.85 g of supported CoMo), the middle zone of the reactor (8.41 g of γ-alumina and 3.31 g of supported CoMo), and the bottom zone of the reactor (10.7 g of γ-alumina).; Para. [0207], a solid hydrotreating catalyst such as a CoMo catalyst or a NiMo catalyst, γ-alumina, a zeolite, or any combination thereof) to produce a second reaction mixture comprising the asymmetrical sulfide (Para. [0109], 90% of the DES was converted, primarily to methyl ethyl sulfide (MES)).
Claim 2 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1. Hasenberg ‘658 further discloses wherein the first feed mixture is flowed through the fixed bed reactor at: a temperature from 150 0C to 250 0C; a pressure from 25 psig to 450 psig (Para. [0034], about 220° C. to about 250° C and about 450 psig).
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose a WHSV from 1 to 10 g/g/hr.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches a WHSV from 1 to 10 g/g/hr (Paras. [0087]-[0088], WHSV of about 0.01 to about 5; Para. [0090], pressure of about 50 to about 850 psig; Para. [0085], temperature of about 200 0C to about 500 0C).
Claim 3 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1. Hasenberg ‘658 further discloses wherein the olefin comprises ethylene, propylene, 1-butene, or a combination thereof (Paras. [0057]-[0058], propylene).
Claim 4 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1. Hasenberg ‘658 further discloses wherein the mercaptan comprises isopropyl mercaptan, sec-butyl mercaptan, or a combination thereof (Para. [0037], 2-propanethiol(isopropyl mercaptan) and 2-butanethiol(secondary butyl mercaptan)).
Claim 5 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein the second feed mixture is flowed through the fixed bed reactor at: a temperature from 250 0C to 350 °C; a pressure from 25 psig to 400 psig; and a WHSV from 2 to 4 g/g/hr.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein the second feed mixture is flowed through the fixed bed reactor at: a temperature from 250 0C to 350 °C; a pressure from 25 psig to 400 psig; and a WHSV from 2 to 4 g/g/hr (Paras. [0087]-[0088], WHSV of about 0.01 to about 5; Para. [0090], pressure of about 50 to about 850 psig; Para. [0085], temperature of about 200 0C to about 500 0C).
Claim 6 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein the first symmetrical sulfide and the second symmetrical sulfide independently comprise dimethyl sulfide, diethyl sulfide, dipropyl sulfide, dibutyl sulfide, dioctyl sulfide, or any combination thereof.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein the first symmetrical sulfide and the second symmetrical sulfide independently comprise dimethyl sulfide, diethyl sulfide (Para. [0108], dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and diethyl sulfide (DES)).
Claim 7 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1. Hasenberg ‘658 further discloses the asymmetrical sulfide comprises methyl ethyl sulfide (Para. [0037]).
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein: the first symmetrical sulfide comprises dimethyl sulfide; the second symmetrical sulfide comprises diethyl sulfide.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein: the first symmetrical sulfide comprises dimethyl sulfide; the second symmetrical sulfide comprises diethyl sulfide (Para. [0108], dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and diethyl sulfide (DES)), and the asymmetrical sulfide comprises methyl ethyl sulfide (Para. [0109]).
Claim 8 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 7.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein a molar ratio of dimethyl sulfide to diethyl sulfide in the second feed mixture is from 2:1 to 5:1.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein a molar ratio of dimethyl sulfide to diethyl sulfide in the second feed mixture is from 2:1 to 5:1 (Para. [0108], 4:1 (DMS:DES)); Paras. [0091]-[0092]).
Claim 9 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 7.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein the second feed mixture further comprises from 3,500 ppmw to 6,500 ppmw carbon disulfide.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein the second feed mixture further comprises from 3,500 ppmw to 6,500 ppmw carbon disulfide (Para. [0093], the sulfur-containing compound includes CS2, any suitable amount of the sulfur-containing compound can be used, from an amount greater than zero and typically less than or equal to about 5 mol % … or less than or equal to about 1 mol %. These mole percentages are based on the moles of the limiting reactant., i.e., 50 mol of the limiting reactant with 1 mol% CS2 equates to via calculation by the examiner 0.5% CS2 or 5000 ppm; Paras. [0035];[0091], molar ratio).
Claim 10 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 7.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein a conversion of diethyl sulfide is from 60 mol % to 90 mol %.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein a conversion of diethyl sulfide is from 60 mol % to 90 mol % (Para. [0109], 90% of the DES was converted, primarily to methyl ethyl sulfide (MES); Paras. [0094]-[0095];[0099]).
Claim 11 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 7.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein a yield of methyl ethyl sulfide in the second reaction mixture is from 38 wt. % to 50 wt. %.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein a yield of methyl ethyl sulfide in the second reaction mixture is from 38 wt. % to 50 wt. % (Paras. [0094]-[0095];[0097];[0099], yield of MES of about 50% to 100%).
Claim 12 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein a conversion of either of the first asymmetrical sulfide or the second asymmetrical sulfide is greater than that of an otherwise identical process, wherein the first catalyst layer is the supported NiMo catalyst and the second catalyst layer is the supported CoMo catalyst, under the same reaction conditions.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein a conversion of either of the first asymmetrical sulfide or the second asymmetrical sulfide is greater than that of an otherwise identical process, wherein the first catalyst layer is the supported NiMo catalyst and the second catalyst layer is the supported CoMo catalyst, under the same reaction conditions (Paras. [0094]-[0095];[0098]-[0099];[0108]-[0109];[0207], i.e., Hasenberg ‘703 teaches the exact same reaction conditions, catalysts, and a conversation of about 100% which is the maximum of that of an otherwise identical process).
Claim 13 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein a conversion of either of the first asymmetrical sulfide or the second asymmetrical sulfide is greater than that for an otherwise identical process wherein the fixed bed reactor comprises a mixed bed of the supported NiMo catalyst and the supported CoMo catalyst, under the same reaction conditions.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein a conversion of either of the first asymmetrical sulfide or the second asymmetrical sulfide is greater than that for an otherwise identical process wherein the fixed bed reactor comprises a mixed bed of the supported NiMo catalyst and the supported CoMo catalyst, under the same reaction conditions (Paras. [0094]-[0095];[0098]-[0099];[0108]-[0109];[0207], i.e., Hasenberg ‘703 teaches the exact same reaction conditions, catalysts, and a conversation of about 100% which is the maximum of that of an otherwise identical process).
Claim 14 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1.
Hasenberg ‘658 does not disclose wherein a conversion of either of the first asymmetrical sulfide or the second asymmetrical sulfide is greater than that for an otherwise identical process wherein the fixed bed reactor comprises a single catalyst layer consisting of the supported NiMo catalyst or the supported CoMo catalyst, under the same reaction conditions.
Hasenberg ‘703 teaches wherein a conversion of either of the first asymmetrical sulfide or the second asymmetrical sulfide is greater than that for an otherwise identical process wherein the fixed bed reactor comprises a single catalyst layer consisting of the supported NiMo catalyst or the supported CoMo catalyst, under the same reaction conditions (Paras. [0094]-[0095];[0098]-[0099];[0108]-[0109];[0207], i.e., Hasenberg ‘703 teaches the exact same reaction conditions, catalysts, and a conversation of about 100% which is the maximum of that of an otherwise identical process).
Claim 15 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1. Hasenberg ‘658 further discloses wherein the supported NiMo catalyst comprises an alumina support, the supported CoMo catalyst comprises an alumina support, or both (Paras. [0009];[0022]-[0023]).
Claim 16 Modified Hasenberg ‘658 discloses the process of claim 1. Hasenberg ‘658 further discloses wherein a weight ratio of the first catalyst layer of the supported CoMo catalyst to the second catalyst layer of the supported NiMo catalyst is from 1:4 to 4:1 (Paras. [0021]-[0022]; Fig. 3, i.e., layer 14b with 75% volume of catalyst A which is a mixture of supported CoMo & NiMo to layer 16b with 100% volume of catalyst A which is a mixture of supported CoMo & NiMo via calculation by the examiner equates to a weight ratio of layer 14b to layer 16b of 1:1.3; Paras. [0040]-[0045], volumetric ratios of catalyst A to catalyst B).
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified
the differing embodiments of Hasenberg ‘658 to use propylene to produce isopropyl mercaptan and to separate the CoMo/alumina and NiMo/alumina into differing zones with the desired ratios with a reasonable predictability of success. By applying “routine optimization” and “predictable results” to select the optimal reactant and catalysts mixture in each zone, as taught in the differing embodiments of Hasenberg ‘658, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications because Hasenberg ‘658 provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to select the appropriate methods of producing the desired compound by pursuing the known options within their technical grasp, such as the selection of the optimal reactant and catalyst configuration, for the benefit of efficiently producing a mercaptan and an asymmetrical sulfide by synthesizing and recycling an olefin in the process and utilizing the most effective catalyst blend (Hasenberg ‘658, Paras. [0004];[0022];[0039];[0058]). See MPEP 2141. As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”. Further, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) states “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions”. In addition, selection of a known material, such as the optimal reactant and catalyst, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the ratio of each catalyst within each zone, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP 2144.05. ”.
In further reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of Hasenberg ‘658 with the asymmetrical sulfide synthesis process and concentrations of Hasenberg ‘703 with a reasonable predictability of success. By applying “routine optimization” and “predictable results” to combine the asymmetrical sulfide and mercaptan synthesis process of Hasenberg ‘658 with the asymmetrical sulfide synthesis process of Hasenberg ‘703. MPEP 2144.04 states “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination because both Hasenberg ‘658 and Hasenberg ‘703 provide a finite number of identified, predictable solutions and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to efficiently produce an asymmetrical sulfide and mercaptan by pursuing the known options within their technical grasp, such as combining the synthesis and recycling reactants, for the benefit of efficiently producing a mercaptan and an asymmetrical sulfide with minimal unwanted byproducts (Hasenberg ‘658, Paras. [0004];[0037];[0058]; Hasenberg ‘703, Paras. [0003];[0098]). As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”. See MPEP 2141. Further, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) states “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions”. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) identifying “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.”. In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges”, such as the ppmw of carbon disulfide, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571)270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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, Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691