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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12, and 22-24 in the reply filed on 8/26/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 is indefinite because it is unclear how the acetic acid product stream of the of the “one reactor” can combine with the feed stream of “the at least one other reactor” and still be considered to be “parallel”. Combining the output stream of one reactor with a feed stream of another reactor would make them in series not parallel. It seems applicant intended to claim combining the outputs of the two reactors and recycle them together (See instant Figure 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0546677.
Regarding claim 1, EP ‘667 teaches a method for producing acetic acid in a reactor, comprising: providing a fresh feed stream to the reactor, wherein the fresh feed stream comprises: a light hydrocarbon feed stream, such as ethane (Abstract); a carbon dioxide feed stream (Abstract); and a steam feed stream (Fig. 1, item 4, Page 3, line 4); and forming acetic acid in the reactor (Abstract); separating an acetic acid product stream from a reactor effluent stream in an absorption column (Fig. 1, Item 21), which is considered a scrubber; obtaining a recycle gas stream from the scrubber (Fig. 1, Item 2); and combining at least a portion of the recycle gas stream into the fresh feed stream to the reactor (Fig. 1, item 2). The process may be considered a selective oxidation process because it converts the hydrocarbon to acetic acid without full oxidation to carbon dioxide and water.
Regarding claim 2, two feed streams may be added separately (Fig. 1, item 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, the steam is supplied to form the desired acetic acid, which would be an adjustment to increase selectivity of acetic acid (Page 3, line 4).
Regarding claim 4, the carbon dioxide returned to the reaction zone (Fig. 1, item 2) is a considered a flue gas from combustion because some carbon dioxide is formed by combustion in the reactor (Fig. 1, item 13; Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, ethane is the light hydrocarbon (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6 and 10, the hydrocarbon may be ethane and ethylene in the recycle feed (Page 4, l. 46, Page 3, l. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the recycle stream contains water that is separated from acetic acid in the scrubber (Fig. 1, items 2 and 21; Page 3, l. 1-14).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, the catalyst may be a mixed metal oxide having a ratio of molybedenum to vanadium of 0.37: 0.25, which is within the ranges recited in the instant claim 8 (Page 3, l. 27). Note that the elements of Te, Nb, and Pd may each be zero in according to the formula recited in instant claim 8.
Regarding claim 22, EP ‘667 teaches a method for producing acetic acid in a reactor, comprising: providing a fresh feed stream to the reactor, wherein the fresh feed stream comprises: a light hydrocarbon feed stream, such as ethane (Abstract); a carbon dioxide feed stream (Abstract); and a steam feed stream (Fig. 1, item 4, Page 3, line 4); and forming acetic acid in the reactor (Abstract); separating an acetic acid product stream from a reactor effluent stream in an absorption column (Fig. 1, Item 21), which is considered a scrubber; obtaining a recycle gas stream from the scrubber (Fig. 1, Item 2); and combining at least a portion of the recycle gas stream into the fresh feed stream to the reactor (Fig. 1, item 2). The process may be considered a selective oxidation process because it converts the hydrocarbon to acetic acid without full oxidation to carbon dioxide and water. The carbon dioxide returned to the reaction zone (Fig. 1, item 2) is a considered a flue gas from combustion because some carbon dioxide is formed by combustion in the reactor (Fig. 1, item 13; Abstract). The steam is supplied to form the desired acetic acid, which would be an adjustment to increase selectivity of acetic acid (Page 3, line 4).
Regarding claim 23-24, the catalyst may be a mixed metal oxide having a ratio of molybedenum to vanadium of 0.37: 0.25, which is within the ranges recited in the instant claim 23 (Page 3, l. 27). Note that the elements of Te, Nb, and Pd may each be zero in according to the formula recited in instant claim 23.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0546677.
Regarding claim 11, EP ‘677 teaches that the ethane oxidation process produces both ethylene and acetic acid with the preference given to acetic acid (Page 2, l. 45-46). EP ‘677 teaches that prior art has shown that ethylene may be preferred over acetic acid (Page 2, l. 20).
EP ‘667 does not expressly state that reactors are operated in parallel one with selectivity to acetic acid and the other with selectivity to ethylene. However, this feature is obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art because producing each of acetic acid and ethylene was described in the EP ‘667 requiring similar reactants. The person having ordinary skill in the art under stood that in two parallel reactors both ethylene and acetic acid could be produced with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, combining the output streams of the two parallel reactors as a recycle stream was also obvious because the recycle stream for both the acetic acid reactor and the ethylene reactor would have been the same after the acetic acid and/or ethylene is removed. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the combined recycle stream would have been predictably similar to the recycle stream shown in EP ‘677 (Fig. 1, item 2; Page 3, l. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731