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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-34 were filed on 07/20/2023. A preliminary amendment to the claims was filed on 10/03/2023. Claims 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 22, and 24-25 were amended. Claims 6-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, and 26-34 were canceled. Claims 1-5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24-25 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application does not claim domestic benefit or foreign priority to any earlier application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2024, 03/01/2024, and 01/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024).
Nippon Gas et al. teaches a method for producing liquefied petroleum gas, the main component of which is propane or butane, from synthesis gas using a catalyst. Nippon Gas teaches a method for producing liquefied petroleum gas, the main component of which is propane or butane, from a carbon-containing raw material such as natural gas using the catalyst (see paragraph 0002). A commercially available Cu-Zn based methanol synthesis catalyst (Cu-Zn-Al composite oxide) was used as a methanol synthesis catalyst component. An LPG synthesis reaction was carried out using a stirred slurry bed high temperature and high-pressure reactor. Prior to the reaction, the prepared catalyst was reduced in a hydrogen/nitrogen mixed gas flow (H2/N2 =5/95; flow rate: 100 mL/min.) at normal pressure and 300 °C for 8 hours. First, add N2 to 100 mL/min. After increasing the pressure to 3.5 MPa, the N2 was stopped, and a raw material gas having a composition of CO:H2:CO2:Ar=32:60:5:3 (molar ratio) was supplied at a rate of 80 mL/min. The pressure was increased to 3.5 Mpa. Then, stirring was started, and after suspending the catalyst in the solvent to form a slurry state, the temperature was raised to 280 °C over 2 hours while stirring to start the reaction. At this time, stirring was performed at 200 rpm up to 200 °C and at 1050 rpm up to 280 °C. The reaction conditions for the LPG synthesis reaction were a reaction temperature of 280 °C, a reaction pressure of 3.5 MPa, and a space velocity (feed rate of raw material gas in standard conditions per 1 g of catalyst) of 960 ml/g.h (see paragraphs 0142-0149). In the present invention, a Cu-Zn based methanol synthesis catalyst is used as a methanol synthesis catalyst component, and a ß -zeolite (Pd Also called supported ß -zeolite) (see paragraph 0034). The reaction temperature is 200 °C or more and 325 °C or less, the reaction pressure is 1 MPa or more and 8 MPa or less, and the space velocity (supply rate of raw material gas in standard conditions per 1 g of catalyst) is 100 ml/g h or more and 50000 ml/g h (see claim 12). The LPG hydrocarbon yield is shown to be above 20% (see Figure 4).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) in view of DOE et al. (DOE website, published 03/06/2014, found in PTO-892).
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Nippon Gas et al. does not teach wherein the activating gas comprises a hydrocarbon or an oxygenated hydrocarbon.
DOE et al. teaches syngas compositions can vary significantly depending on the feedstock and the gasification process involved. Typically, syngas is 30 to 60% CO, 25 to 30% H2, 0 to 5% methane (CH4), 5 to 15% carbon dioxide, plus a lesser or greater amount of water vapor, small amounts of the sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and finally some ammonia and other trace contaminants (see Syngas Composition section).
It would have been obvious to substitute the syngas as taught by Nippon Gas et al. with the syngas composition as taught by DOE et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the instantly claimed invention, since the substitution of one known prior art element for another would yield predicable results. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the syngas as taught by Nippon Gas et al. with the syngas compositions as taught by DOE et al. because, as taught by DOE et al., syngas compositions can vary significantly depending on the feedstock and the gasification process involved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been obvious to substitute the syngas composition.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) in view of Li et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, published 01/21/2014, found in PTO-892).
Claim 18 is being interpreted by the examiner as the process as defined in instant claim 1 has a higher LPG hydrocarbon yield than a prior art process that does not perform step (a) as defined in instant claim 1. In view of the specification, this would include processes using the same catalyst and conditions that are not exposed to temperatures above 295 °C and have an LPG hydrocarbon yield above 30%.
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Nippon Gas et al. does not teach wherein, in a reference process consisting of step (b) in the absence of step (a), a reference initial LPG hydrocarbon yield is less than an initial operation LPG hydrocarbon yield in step (b) of the process.
Li et al. teaches CO2 hydrogenation to LPG on a variety of hybrid catalysts. As shown in Table 1 below, CZZA/Pd-β (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3 with a Pd-modified β zeolite) yields 45.5% with reaction conditions included at the bottom of Table 1. The most suitable reaction temperature for methanol synthesis over the current catalysts was approximately 230◦C, which differs substantially from that of the methanol conversion reaction over zeolite. The catalytic activity was tested using the composite catalyst CZZA/Pd-β (1/1 weight ratio) at 260, 270 and 280◦C as shown in Fig. 4. With increasing reaction temperature from 260 to 280◦C, the conversion of CO2 decreased slightly, while the yield of hydro-carbons markedly decreased and that of CO increased. Typically, the methanol synthesis function is provided by a Cu-based catalyst while the dehydrogenation of methanol to DME and then to hydrocarbons is afforded by modified zeolite. In general, zeolite is preferred at higher temperature for a substantially high activity, while methanol synthesis is favored for lower temperature from the thermodynamically standpoint as shown in Fig. 1, and it was realized in the experiment [19]. In order to attain a good synergy between the two catalysts, a suitable reaction temperature is important. Below 260 ◦C, almost the entire product was DME and CO, while higher temperature do also tend to favor CO formation. Li et al. teaches 260 ◦C is beneficial to obtaining high activity and higher LPG selectivity. It was found that with increasing the reaction temperature, the LPG selectivity decreased and the methane selectivity increased. Li et al. teaches that the relative lower temperature is suitable for
PNG
media_image1.png
512
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtaining high yield of LPG (see Section 3.5.1 Temperature).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nippon Gas et al. and Li et al. by modifying operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield because, as taught by Li et al., in order to attain a good synergy between the two catalysts, a suitable reaction temperature is important. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because changing reaction temperature is a routine part of method optimization.
Claim 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) in view of De María et al. (International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, published 08/27/2013, found in PTO-892).
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Nippon Gas et al. does not teach (a) increasing the LPG synthesis catalyst system temperature to an activation temperature or above, sufficient to provide an activation LPG hydrocarbon yield of at least about 30%; and (b) decreasing the LPG synthesis catalyst system temperature to an initial operation temperature, sufficient to maintain an initial operation LPG hydrocarbon yield of at least about 30%.
PNG
media_image2.png
375
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
De María et al. teaches methanol from syngas synthesis involved hydrogenation of CO (1) and CO2 (2) and reversed water-gas shift reactions (3). As shown in the heats of reaction below, the global process is exothermic, reaching highest conversions at low temperatures. This fact, coupled with high capacity of the process, makes the reactor design to be the sticking point in the process. Therefore, companies have invested great efforts in the development of their own reactors. Most of the designed industrial reactors are packed bed reactors where the catalyst is fixed inside the tubes and cooling is provided through a reactor jacket (see Introduction section).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nippon Gas et al. and De María et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield because, as taught by De María et al., the global process of methanol synthesis from syngas is exothermic, increasing the reaction temperature to an activation temperature that would then be decreased by cooling elements of the reactor design. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because it is obvious to modify temperature as a part of routine method optimization.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) in view of Li et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, published 01/21/2014, found in PTO-892) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Twigg et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, published 04/30/2001, found in PTO-892).
The combined teachings of Nippon Gas et al. and Li et al. were discussed above.
The combined teachings of Nippon Gas et al. and Li et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that the combined teachings of Nippon Gas et al. and Li et al. do not teach wherein, in a reference process consisting of said contacting at the pre-activation temperature and step (a), but in the absence of step (b), a reference deactivation rate of the LPG synthesis catalyst system is greater than an operating deactivation rate of the process.
Twigg et al. teaches laboratory and industrial results are used to elucidate the general features of the deactivation of supported copper metal catalysts in hydrogenation reactions. Hydrogenations with copper catalysts are milder than with their nickel or platinum counterparts, and they have selectivities that are exploited commercially. They are used in single stream plants for production of hydrogen via the low-temperature water shift gas reaction, and for methanol manufacture from synthesis gas, and also in hydrogenation of specialty organic compounds. Common catalyst types are based on Cu/Cr2O3 (copper chromite) or Cu/ZnO formulations that contain stabilizers and promoters such as alkaline earth oxides and Al2O3. These have several roles, including inhibition of sintering, and poison traps that prevent poisoning of the active metal surface. The best understood are Cu/ZnO formulations that have improved sulphur resistance due to formation of thermodynamically stable ZnS. Copper catalysts are susceptible to thermal sintering via a surface migration process and this is markedly accelerated by the presence of even traces of chloride. Care must be, therefore, taken to eliminate halides from copper catalysts during manufacture, and from the reactants during use. Operating temperatures must be restricted, usually to below 300◦C when catalyst longevity is important with large catalyst volumes (see Abstract). For metals, the predominant sintering mechanism in the bulk is vacancy diffusion, which suggests a relationship with cohesive energy. Hughes gave the following increasing order of stability for metals: Ag < Cu < Au < Pd < Fe < Ni < Co < Pt < Rh < Ru < Ir < Os < Re. It is, therefore, not surprising copper-based catalysts are more susceptible than other commonly used metallic catalysts, for example, the nickel and iron catalysts used in ammonia and hydrogen plants based on the steam reforming of hydrocarbons. This is also shown by copper’s low Hüttig temperature, which reflects a relatively low melting point (1083◦C), compared with, for example, that of iron (1535◦C) and nickel (1455◦C). Therefore, copper-based catalysts have to be operated at relatively low-temperatures, usually no higher than 300◦C. Thermal sintering can be controlled in well-formulated catalysts manufactured under optimal conditions, provided they are operated under well-controlled conditions. Thermal stability depends strongly on the manufacturing procedures used, not only on composition (see Thermal Sintering section).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nippon Gas et al. and Li et al. with Twigg et al. by optimizing method temperature to decrease the deactivation rate. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize method temperature to decrease deactivation rate of the catalyst because, as taught by Twigg et al., thermal sintering can be controlled in well-formulated catalysts manufactured under optimal conditions, provided they are operated under well-controlled conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because optimizing temperature is routine for method optimization.
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 1-5, 12, 15, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 27, and 38-39 of copending Application No. 18/218403 (reference application) in view of Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The reference applicationclaims recites an LPG synthesis catalyst system comprising: (i) an alcohol synthesis catalyst, and (ii) a dehydration catalyst, wherein the catalyst system comprises a stabilizer that reduces deactivation of the dehydration catalyst. The LPG synthesis catalyst system of claim 1, wherein the alcohol synthesis catalyst is a methanol synthesis catalyst. The LPG synthesis catalyst system of claim 1, wherein (i) and (ii) are separate compositions, each composition being in the form of separate particles. An LPG synthesis catalyst system comprising, as constituents of a bi-functional catalyst: (i) an alcohol synthesis-functional constituent, and (ii) a dehydration-functional constituent, wherein the catalyst system comprises a stabilizer that reduces deactivation of the LPG synthesis catalyst system. The LPG synthesis catalyst system of claim 26, wherein the alcohol synthesis-functional constituent is a methanol synthesis-functional constituent. An alcohol to LPG hydrocarbon conversion catalyst comprising a stabilizer on a solid acid support comprising a zeolite or a non-zeolitic molecular sieve, wherein the stabilizer reduces deactivation of the alcohol to LPG hydrocarbon conversion catalyst. The alcohol to LPG hydrocarbon conversion catalyst of claim 38, which is a methanol to LPG hydrocarbon conversion catalyst.
The reference claims differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that the reference claims do not recite a process for producing an LPG product.
The teachings of Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the reference claims with the teachings of Nippon Gas et al. by using the catalyst system as taught by the reference claims to perform the process to produce an LPG product as taught by Nippon Gas et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the reference claims with Nippon Gas et al. because the catalytic system, as recited by the reference claims, is used for the purpose of LPG synthesis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the purpose of the catalyst is for production of LPG.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, and 26-27 of copending Application No. 18/218403 (reference application) in view of Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DOE et al. (DOE website, published 03/06/2014, found in PTO-892).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that wherein the activating gas comprises a hydrocarbon or an oxygenated hydrocarbon.
The teachings of DOE et al. were discussed above.
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. with Doe et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by using a syngas composition as the activating gas that contains hydrocarbons. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. with DOE et al. because, as taught by DOE et al., syngas compositions can vary significantly depending on the feedstock and the gasification process involved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because using starting material of varying gaseous composition is known.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, and 26-27 of copending Application No. 18/218403 (reference application) in view of Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, published 01/21/2014, found in PTO-892).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that wherein, in a reference process consisting of step (b) in the absence of step (a), a reference initial LPG hydrocarbon yield is less than an initial operation LPG hydrocarbon yield in step (b) of the process.
The teachings of Li et al. were discussed above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. with Li et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield because, as taught by Li et al., in order to attain a good synergy between the two catalysts, a suitable reaction temperature is important. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because it would be obvious to modify method temperature to increase yield.
Claims 20 and 24-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, and 26-27 of copending Application No. 18/218403 (reference application) in view of Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) and further in view of De María et al. (International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, published 08/27/2013, found in PTO-892)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. were discussed above.
The combined teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that (a) increasing the LPG synthesis catalyst system temperature to an activation temperature or above, sufficient to provide an activation LPG hydrocarbon yield of at least about 30%; and (b) decreasing the LPG synthesis catalyst system temperature to an initial operation temperature, sufficient to maintain an initial operation LPG hydrocarbon yield of at least about 30%.
The teachings of De María et al. were discussed above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the reference claims and Nippon Gas et al. with De María et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify operating temperature to increase hydrocarbon yield because, as taught by De María et al., the global process of methanol synthesis from syngas is exothermic, increasing the reaction temperature to an activation temperature that would then be decreased by cooling elements of the reactor design. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because it is obvious to modify temperature as a part of routine method optimization.
Claim 22 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, and 26-27 of copending Application No. 18/218403 (reference application) in view of Nippon Gas et al. (JP2009195815A, published 09/03/2009, found in IDS dated 03/01/2024) in further view of De María et al. (International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, published 08/27/2013, found in PTO-892) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Twigg et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, published 04/30/2001, found in PTO-892).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The combined teachings of the reference claims, Nippon Gas et al., and De María et al. were discussed above.
The combined teachings of the reference claims, Nippon Gas et al., and De María et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that wherein, in a reference process consisting of said contacting at the pre-activation temperature and step (a), but in the absence of step (b), a reference deactivation rate of the LPG synthesis catalyst system is greater than an operating deactivation rate of the process.
The teachings of Twigg et al. were discussed above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to combine the teachings of the reference claims, Nippon Gas et al., and De María et al. with Twigg et al. by optimizing method temperature to decrease the deactivation rate. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize method temperature to decrease deactivation rate of the catalyst because, as taught by Twigg et al., thermal sintering can be controlled in well-formulated catalysts manufactured under optimal conditions, provided they are operated under well-controlled conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because all references use alcohol synthesis catalysts.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-5906. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/KRISTEN W BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693