DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE APPLICATION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ Amendments and Remarks, filed 18 February 2026, in the matter of Application No. 18/250,993. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 12-13, 16, and 18 have been amended.
Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Thus, claims 1-19 represent all claims currently under consideration.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
The status for each rejection and/or objection in the previous Office Action is set out below.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments filed 18 February 2026 have fully overcome the objection to claim 9.
35 U.S.C.§ 112
Applicant’s amendments filed 18 February 2026 have fully overcome the rejection over instant claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
35 U.S.C.§ 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2026, wherein on p. 8-16 of the response Applicant argues that the claim limitation of a temperature gradient of less than 0.5 ºC/min as recited in amended claim 1 is non-obvious over the cited prior art because Applicant’s disclosed invention makes it possible to achieve adequate trifluoroethylene productivity (e.g., 18 g/h or more) by using a temperature gradient applied during activation to prevent premature degradation of the catalyst and enable a better yield or productivity of the hydrogenolysis reaction (Specification; page 2, lines 27-33 and page 3, lines 1-2). Applicant further argues that a special technical effect is demonstrated in the working examples, wherein Example 1 which has a thermal gradient within the claimed range (0.2 ºC/min) resulted in superior trifluoroethylene productivity than Comparative Example 2 which has a thermal gradient just outside the claimed range (0.7 ºC/min) (Specification; pages 20-21; Example 1 and Comparative Example 2). Therefore, Applicant argues that the recited specific and narrow claimed temperature gradient as well as evidence of criticality on the impact of the claimed range on trifluoroethylene productivity renders instant claim 1 non-obvious over the cited prior art in which there is no indication that the criticality of the claimed range is contemplated, there is no indication that a product made according to the cited art would possess advantageous trifluoroethylene productivity, and a skilled person would not have a reasonable expectation of success of achieving Applicant’s claimed invention.
Further regarding amended claim 9, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach activating a catalyst with chlorotrifluoroethylene specifically for the purpose of later using the catalyst to convert chlorotrifluoroethylene to trifluoroethylene, as required by the instant claim. The present Application explains that this leads to a simpler process, as the reducing agent (chlorotrifluoroethylene) during activation is also one of the reactants for the following reaction (Specification; page 10, lines 17-24).
Further regarding amended claim 13, Applicant argues that Lerot teaches that after use, the catalyst can be regenerated, specifically under a stream of air and under a stream of hydrogen. Therefore, Applicant argues that all limitations required by amended claim 13 are neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art.
These arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive to overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millefanti et al. (US 2016/0303543 A1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Millefanti”), in view of Hoek et al. (US 6,475,943 B1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Hoek”) and M. A. A. Ahmed (Catalyst Deactivation Common Causes, Nitrogen and Syngas Conference, 2013, pages 1-28; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Ahmed”), the rejections of claims 9-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerot et al. (US 5,089,454; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Lerot”), in view of Robbins et al. (US 5,137,620; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Robbins”) and Yoshikawa et al. (US 2015/0080618 A1; IDS of 04-28-2023; hereinafter “Yoshikawa”), the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerot, Robbins, Yoshikawa, and further in view of Leduc (US 2015/0094432 A1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter Leduc) and Albertazzi et al. (J. Catal. 2004, 228, 218-224; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Albertazzi”), and the rejection of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerot on record of the Office Action dated 18 November 2025. None of the cited prior art alone or in combination would permit the skilled artisan to arrive at the process of amended claims 1 and 9, and Lerot fails to teach or render obvious every limitation of amended claim 13. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. Furthermore, the rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of this claim.
REJECTIONS-MAINTAINED, MODIFIED, & NEW
The below rejections are modified in view of the amendments to the claims. Modifications are bolded below.
NEW Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 7-8, “…temperature T5 greater than a temperature greater than 300 ºC…” should read “…temperature T5 greater than 300 ºC…”
Appropriate correction is required.
MAINTAINED 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)(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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Millefanti et al. (US 2016/0303543 A1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Millefanti”).
Regarding claim 3, Millefanti teaches a catalytic process for the synthesis of trifluoroethylene from chlorotrifluoroethylene, wherein the process of the invention is preferably carried out in the gas-phase, and in an embodiment of the process, a gaseous stream of hydrogen and chlorotrifluoroethylene is fed to the reaction zone, brought into contact with the catalyst at a suitable temperature, and the produced trifluoroethylene is recovered from the effluent gas (Millefanti; Title; Abstract; paragraph [0013]). Millefanti further teaches that the process is carried out in a tubular stainless steel reactor, and that the use of an inert gas in the process allows to better control the temperature of the exothermic reaction preventing local overheating of the catalyst bed and of the reactor, thus increasing productivity (Millefanti; paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). In addition, Millefanti that the process comprises a catalyst activation step wherein the catalyst is reduced in a H2/N2 stream from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min, and a reacting step wherein H2/chlorotrifluoroethylene and a nitrogen inert gas are fed to the catalyst bed, and the effluent stream was analyzed to determine the composition of the product mix (yield and selectivity), showing that the process proceeds with very high chlorotrifluoroethylene conversion rates and with high selectivity in trifluoroethylene (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0034]; Catalyst Activation; General Procedure for the Catalytic Tests; Example 1; Tables 1 and 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the catalyst activation temperatures of from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min as taught by Millefanti corresponds to the temperature of the catalytic bed is increased in increments from a temperature T1 to a temperature T2 that is greater than T1, as recited in instant claim 3.
Regarding claim 5 depending from claim 3, Millefanti teaches wherein the process comprises a catalyst activation step wherein the catalyst is reduced in a H2/N2 stream from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the catalyst activation step of Millefanti necessarily comprises several temperature increments (e.g., 90 ºC, 95 ºC, 100 ºC, 105 ºC, 110 ºC, 115 ºC, and 120 ºC) that read directly on the range recited in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2026, wherein on p. 12-13 of the response Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min disclosed by Millefanti involves changing the temperature smoothly and continuously over time from T1 to T2 at a specified rate. Conversely, the incremental temperature increases as required by claim 3 involves raising the temperature from T1 to T2 in discrete steps or increments, such that after each increment temperature is held constant for some period before moving to the next increment (Specification; page 2, lines 27-33 and page 3, lines 1-2). Therefore, Millefanti does not disclose every limitation of instant claim 3.
This argument has been fully considered, but is not found to be persuasive. The skilled artisan would recognize although the thermal ramp of Millefanti involves changing the temperature smoothly and continuously over time from T1 to T2 at a specified rate, as argued by Applicant, the thermal ramp necessarily involves incremental increases in temperature. The written description does not particularly specify a strict definition for what comprises an increase in increments of the temperature of the catalytic bed. Absent any evidence to the contrary, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the method of Millefanti would inform the skilled artisan that the thermal ramp of Millefanti would necessarily involve incremental increases in temperature. Therefore, the claim rejections are maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth above.
MAINTAINED, MODIFIED, & NEW Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Necessitated by Amendment
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 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millefanti et al. (US 2016/0303543 A1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Millefanti”), in view of Hoek et al. (US 6,475,943 B1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Hoek”) as evidenced by M. A. A. Ahmed (Catalyst Deactivation Common Causes, Nitrogen and Syngas Conference, 2013, pages 1-28; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Ahmed”).
Regarding claim 6 depending from claim 3, the teachings of Millefanti regarding the limitations of claims 3 and 5 are incorporated herein as detailed above.
Millefanti does not explicitly teach wherein each increment lasts for between 5 min and 24 h, as recited in instant claim 6.
However, Hoek teaches a process for the activation of a fresh or rejuvenation of a spent catalyst in the presence of a hydrocarbon liquid, which catalyst is a hydrocarbon synthesis catalyst comprising a Group Ib, VIIb or VIII metal compound, said process comprising contacting a fresh or spent catalyst in a reactor with a hydrogen-containing gas (Hoek; Abstract, claim 1). Of particular note, Hoek teaches an activation process comprises wherein fresh or spent catalyst, in admixture with hydrocarbon liquid, is first heated to an initial temperature, typically in the range from 150 to 180 °C or even 200 °C, preferably in the presence of an inert gas like nitrogen. Then the catalyst is contacted with a hydrogen-containing gas, and the temperature is incrementally (step-wise) or continuously increased at a rate in the range from 0.1 to 10 °C/min to a final temperature, typically at least 240 °C, preferably at least 250 °C. It will be understood that if the temperature is increased incrementally, the above temperature increase rate refers to the rate during periods of temperature increase and not to the average temperature increase rate between initial and final temperature. The mixture of catalyst and hydrocarbon liquid is kept at the final temperature level for a period sufficient to substantially activate the catalyst, typically for at least 0.25 hours, preferably at least 2 hours (Hoek; Col. 4, lines 62-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-15). In addition, Hoek teaches a catalyst activation method wherein during the activation the catalyst is heated from 20 °C to 260 °C continuously at a rate of 5 °C/h (Hoek; Example II, Col. 11, lines 38-52). The rate of 5 °C/h taught in Example II of Hoek corresponds to wherein each temperature increment lasts for 1 hour and therefore resides within the range recited in instant claim 6. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Furthermore, as evidenced by Ahmed (Ahmed; page 22, paragraph 3), the mechanical failure or attrition of catalysts may be due to thermal stresses that occur as catalyst particles are heated and/or cooled rapidly (start up and shutdown) and that they are magnified by temperature gradients across particles and by differences in thermal expansion coefficients at the interface of two different materials (e.g., catalyst coating/monolith interfaces). Thus, the teachings of Hoek in view of the supporting teachings of Ahmed would inform the skilled artisan that decreasing the catalyst activation temperature gradient and/or increasing the time of each temperature increment during catalyst activation as taught by Hoek may, with a reasonable expectation of success, render a catalyst activation method that imparts less thermal stress on the catalyst particles and mitigates catalyst attrition, as taught by Ahmed.
The prior art as taught by Millefanti and Hoek reside in the closely overlapping technical field of hydrogenation catalysts and their preparative methods and is therefore deemed analogous art, as described in MPEP § 2141.01(a). In addition, the supporting teachings of Ahmed inform the skilled artisan of common causes of catalyst deactivation, including thermal stresses caused by rapid heating, such that the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to optimize the exposure time at each temperature increment of Millefanti, in a manner consistent with instant claim 6, in an effort to minimize catalyst deactivation with a reasonable expectation of success. Such an endeavor would result in applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Furthermore, optimization of the exposure time at each temperature increment would represent results that can be arrived at through routine experimentation that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Millefanti to incorporate the teachings of Hoek and Ahmed to arrive at a process wherein each increment lasts for between 5 min and 24 h through means of routine experimentation. The motivation for doing so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, a catalyst activation method step that mitigates thermal stress and mechanical failure (i.e., attrition) that is known to cause catalyst deactivation, as described above.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millefanti et al. (US 2016/0303543 A1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Millefanti”).
Regarding claim 13, Millefanti teaches a catalytic process for the synthesis of trifluoroethylene from chlorotrifluoroethylene, wherein the process of the invention is preferably carried out in the gas-phase, and in an embodiment of the process, a gaseous stream of hydrogen and chlorotrifluoroethylene is fed to the reaction zone, brought into contact with the catalyst at a suitable temperature, and the produced trifluoroethylene is recovered from the effluent gas (Millefanti; Title; Abstract; paragraph [0013]). Millefanti further teaches that the process is carried out in a tubular stainless steel reactor, and that the use of an inert gas in the process allows to better control the temperature of the exothermic reaction preventing local overheating of the catalyst bed and of the reactor, thus increasing productivity (Millefanti; paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). The reaction may be conducted at any suitable temperature, generally at a temperature in the range of from 100 ºC to 350 ºC (Millefanti paragraph [0019]), corresponding to a temperature of the catalytic bed T3 in step a) of the instant claim.
In addition, Millefanti that the process comprises a catalyst activation step wherein the catalyst is reduced in a H2/N2 stream from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min, and a reacting step wherein H2/chlorotrifluoroethylene and a nitrogen inert gas are fed to the catalyst bed, and the effluent stream was analyzed to determine the composition of the product mix (yield and selectivity), showing that the process proceeds with very high chlorotrifluoroethylene conversion rates and with high selectivity in trifluoroethylene (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0034]; Catalyst Activation; General Procedure for the Catalytic Tests; Example 1; Tables 1 and 2). Millefanti further teaches that before each run the catalyst was dried at 350 ºC for 4 h and reactivated following the activation procedure described above (Millefanti; paragraph [0032]). The skilled artisan would reasonably interpret the reactivation procedure of Millefanti as a catalyst regeneration step, and that the H2/N2 stream of Millefanti represents an absence of oxygen, as recited in the instant claim. Furthermore, the temperature range of from room temperature to 350 ºC disclosed by Millefanti overlaps with the T4 temperature range of from 90 ºC to 300 ºC as recited in step b) of the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
The prior art as taught by Millefanti resides in the closely overlapping technical area of trifluoroethylene production via catalytic hydrogenolysis of chlorotrifluoroethylene, in a manner consistent with the instantly claimed invention. Thus, the cited prior art is deemed analogous art, as recited in MPEP § 2141.01(a). As such, the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to apply the teachings of Millefanti to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success because Millefanti teaches or renders obvious every limitation of the instant claim, as detailed above. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to at the instantly claimed process based on the teachings of Millefanti alone.
Regarding claim 14 depending from claim 13, Millefanti teaches that the reaction may be conducted at any suitable temperature, generally at a temperature in the range of from 100 ºC to 350 ºC (Millefanti paragraph [0019]), corresponding to a temperature of the catalytic bed T3 in step a) of the instant claim, and Millefanti further teaches a reactivation (i.e., regeneration) condition identical to the activation procedure, comprising temperature of from room temperature to 350 ºC (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Thus, the skilled artisan could arrive at several embodiments wherein the temperature difference ΔT between the temperature of the catalytic bed in step a) and the temperature of the catalytic bed step b), ΔT = T3 – T4, is between 0 and 50 (e.g., with a reaction temperature of 300 ºC to 350 ºC and a regeneration temperature of 350 ºC), as recited in the instant claim. Therefore, as with claim 13, it would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the claimed invention based on the process of Millefanti.
Regarding claim 15 depending from claim 13, Millefanti teaches that the reaction method step is preceded by a catalyst activation step (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0032]; Example 1).
Regarding claim 16 depending from claim 13, Millefanti teaches that before each run the catalyst was dried at 350 ºC for 4 h and reactivated following the activation procedure described above (Millefanti; paragraph [0032]). The skilled artisan could reasonably interpret the catalyst drying step at 350 ºC for 4 h of Millefanti as comprising a heat treatment step, and the heat treatment temperature of 350 ºC is greater than or equal to the reactivation (i.e., regeneration) temperature of Millefanti of from room temperature to 350 ºC (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claims 18-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millefanti et al. (US 2016/0303543 A1; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Millefanti”), in view of C. P. Stark (US 3,130,240; PTO-892 of 11-18-2025; hereinafter “Stark”) (partially newly applied as necessitated by amendment).
Regarding claim 18 and claim 19 depending from claim 18, Millefanti teaches a catalytic process for the synthesis of trifluoroethylene from chlorotrifluoroethylene, wherein the process of the invention is preferably carried out in the gas-phase, and in an embodiment of the process, a gaseous stream of hydrogen and chlorotrifluoroethylene is fed to the reaction zone, brought into contact with the catalyst at a suitable temperature, and the produced trifluoroethylene is recovered from the effluent gas (Millefanti; Title; Abstract; paragraph [0013]). Millefanti further teaches that the process is carried out in a tubular stainless steel reactor, and that the use of an inert gas in the process allows to better control the temperature of the exothermic reaction preventing local overheating of the catalyst bed and of the reactor, thus increasing productivity (Millefanti; paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). In addition, Millefanti that the process comprises a catalyst activation step wherein the catalyst is reduced in a H2/N2 stream from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min, and a reacting step wherein H2/chlorotrifluoroethylene and a nitrogen inert gas are fed to the catalyst bed, and the effluent stream was analyzed to determine the composition of the product mix (yield and selectivity), showing that the process proceeds with very high chlorotrifluoroethylene conversion rates and with high selectivity in trifluoroethylene (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0034]; Catalyst Activation; General Procedure for the Catalytic Tests; Example 1; Tables 1 and 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the catalyst activation step of Millefanti comprises a step of heat treatment, in a manner consistent with instant claim 18.
Furthermore, Millefanti teaches that before each run the catalyst was dried at 350 ºC for 4 h and reactivated following the activation procedure described above (Millefanti; paragraph [0032]). The skilled artisan could reasonably interpret the reactivation procedure of Millefanti as a catalyst regeneration step, and the heat treatment at 350 ºC corresponds to a temperature greater than 300 ºC as recited in the instant claim.
Millefanti fails to teach a process for the production of trifluoroethylene in two reactors each comprising at least one catalytic bed comprising a catalyst, wherein the reaction of chlorotrifluoroethylene and hydrogen takes place in a first reactor, and a step of heat treatment of said catalyst takes place in a second reactor, as recited in instant claim 18, and wherein said reaction step and said heat treatment step are carried out alternatively in each of said two reactors, as recited in instant claim 19.
However, Stark teaches a process for the activation of hydrogenation catalysts (Stark; Title). In accordance with one embodiment, Stark utilizes two reactors in series wherein a bed of activated metal hydrogenation catalyst is utilized in the first reactor and a bed of fresh catalyst in the oxidized state is used in the second reactor (Stark; Col. 2, lines 10-14). The hydrogenation feed is passed through the first reactor under hydrogenation conditions and the reaction effluent from the hydrogenation bed is then to active the inactive catalyst bed in a second reactor at elevated temperature ranging from about 450 to about 750 ºF (Stark; Col. 2, lines 15-21).
In addition, Stark teaches that when breakthrough of unreacted hydrogenatable material occurs from the processing bed (indicating that the processing bed has been spent and is no longer active), the bed in the tail position, having been reduced, becomes the processing bed through which the hydrogenation reaction proceeds (Stark; Col. 2, lines 31-36);. The spent catalyst in the first reactor can then be replaced and activated with the hydrogenation effluent from the second reactor (which is now the processing zone) (Stark; Col. 2, lines 37-40). This embodiment is further described by Stark as shown in Figure 1 (Stark; Figure 1; Col. 3, lines 45-75 and Col. 4, lines 1-40). Finally, Stark teaches that the hydrogenation catalysts activated or reduced in the described process overcomes some of the prior art disadvantages by utilizing the hydrogen-rich effluent products from a hydrogenation reaction as the reducing medium or atmosphere, thereby resulting in a saving of time, labor, money, and equipment (Stark; Col. 1, lines 42-47).
Overall, the process of Stark teaches a hydrogenation process comprising two reactors, each comprising a catalytic bed with a catalyst, wherein the hydrogenation reaction takes place in a first reactor, and a step of heat treatment of said catalyst takes place in a second reactor, and wherein said reaction step and said heat treatment step are carried out alternatively in each of said two reactors, in a manner consistent with instant claims 18-19.
The prior art as taught by Millefanti and Stark reside in the closely overlapping technical field of methods for the hydrogenation or organic compounds comprising catalysts activated by heat treatment, and are therefore deemed analogous art, as described in MPEP § 2141.01(a). Furthermore, since Stark teaches several advantages to a two-reactor hydrogenation system wherein the first reactor comprises the hydrogenation reaction, the second reactor comprises the activation/heat treatment of inactive catalyst, and the reaction step and heat treatment step are carried out alternately in each of the two reactors, the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to substitute the one reactor hydrogenation process of Millefanti with the two-reactor hydrogenation process of Stark to pursue a process that results in a saving of time, labor, money, and equipment with a reasonable expectation of success. Such an endeavor would result in the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the one reactor hydrogenation method of Millefanti with the two reactor method of Stark to arrive at a process for the production of trifluoroethylene with two reactors each comprising at least one catalytic bed comprising a catalyst, wherein the reaction of chlorotrifluoroethylene and hydrogen takes place in a first reactor, and a step of heat treatment of said catalyst takes place in a second reactor, and wherein said reaction step and said heat treatment step are carried out alternatively in each of said two reactors, to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation for doing so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, an improved hydrogenation process that results in a saving of time, labor, money, and equipment, as described above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026, asserting that the teachings of Millefanti and Stark do not teach every limitation of amended claim 18, has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As detailed in the maintained and modified 103 rejection above, Millefanti teaches that before each run the catalyst was dried at 350 ºC for 4 h and reactivated following the activation procedure described above (Millefanti; paragraph [0032]), wherein this procedure comprises a wherein the catalyst is reduced in a H2/N2 stream from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min (Millefanti; paragraph [0031]). The skilled artisan could reasonably interpret the reactivation procedure of Millefanti as a catalyst regeneration step, and the heat treatment (i.e., catalyst drying method step) at 350 ºC for 4 h corresponds to a temperature greater than 300 ºC as recited in amended claim 18. Therefore, the modified claim rejections are maintained for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 13-16, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 18 February 2026 were persuasive in overcoming the rejection of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerot on record of the Office Action dated 18 November 2025. However, a new search necessitated by amendment results in the new 103 rejections of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millefanti as detailed herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7-12, and 17 are allowed.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed processes of amended independent claims 1 and 9 and claim 4 depending from claim 3. Regarding claims 1 and 4, the prior art does not teach or suggest a temperature gradient of less than 0.5 ºC/min in the catalyst activation step (as recited in amended claim 1 and claim 4 depending from claim 3). Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or suggest activating a catalyst with chlorotrifluoroethylene for the purpose of later using the catalyst to convert chlorotrifluoroethylene to trifluoroethylene, as required by amended claim 9. Furthermore, an expanded search did not identify additional prior art to remedy these deficiencies.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Millefanti and Lerot (both of record). The claims are distinguished from the prior art for the reasons set forth above.
Millefanti teaches a catalytic process for the synthesis of trifluoroethylene from chlorotrifluoroethylene, wherein the process of the invention is preferably carried out in the gas-phase, and in an embodiment of the process, a gaseous stream of hydrogen and chlorotrifluoroethylene is fed to the reaction zone, brought into contact with the catalyst at a suitable temperature, and the produced trifluoroethylene is recovered from the effluent gas (Millefanti; Title; Abstract; paragraph [0013]). Millefanti further teaches that the process is carried out in a tubular stainless steel reactor, and that the use of an inert gas in the process allows to better control the temperature of the exothermic reaction preventing local overheating of the catalyst bed and of the reactor, thus increasing productivity (Millefanti; paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). In addition, Millefanti that the process comprises a catalyst activation step wherein the catalyst is reduced in a H2/N2 stream from room temperature to 350 ºC with a thermal ramp of 5 ºC/min, and a reacting step wherein H2/chlorotrifluoroethylene and a nitrogen inert gas are fed to the catalyst bed, and the effluent stream was analyzed to determine the composition of the product mix (yield and selectivity), showing that the process proceeds with very high chlorotrifluoroethylene conversion rates and with high selectivity in trifluoroethylene (Millefanti; paragraphs [0031]-[0034]; Catalyst Activation; General Procedure for the Catalytic Tests; Example 1; Tables 1 and 2).
Millefanti fails to teach a temperature gradient of less than 0.5 ºC/min in the catalyst activation step as recited in amended claim 1 and claim 4 depending from amended claim 3. Millefanti also fails to teach wherein the catalyst activation step comprises bringing said catalyst into contact with a gaseous stream comprising chlorotrifluoroethylene, as recited in amended claim 9.
Lerot teaches catalytic compositions permitting the hydrogenation of chlorofluoroalkenes to fluoroalkenes and more particularly the hydrogenation of chlorotrifluoroethylene to trifluoroethylene, as well as a process for obtaining such catalytic compositions (Lerot; Col. 1, lines 6-10). Lerot further teaches that the catalytic compositions according to the invention may be used in any hydrogenation process, such as especially the processes carried out with a catalyst arranged as a stationary bed or a fluidized bed, and the catalytic composition thus obtained may be used as such or may be reduced beforehand, either with hydrogen or with a mixture of hydrogen with an inert gas such as helium (Lerot; Col. 3, lines 27-31 and lines 37-40). In one embodiment, Lerot teaches a catalyst composition comprising palladium on silica (prepared as in Example 1a), wherein the catalytic composition introduced into a hydrogenation reactor and treated for 2 hours with a mixture of hydrogen and helium before the step of hydrogenating chlorotrifluoroethylene; then, the reactor is fed at a rate of 0.05 mole per hour of chlorotrifluoroethylene and 0.05 mole per hour of hydrogen at 280° C at 3 bars; after 4 hours operation, the degree of conversion of chlorotrifluoroethylene to trifluoroethylene is 60%; the selectivity for trifluoroethylene is 94%; after 16 hours operation, the degree of conversion is 66% and the selectivity is 94% (Lerot; Example 1).
Lerot fails to teach a temperature gradient of less than 0.5 ºC/min in the catalyst activation step as recited in amended claim 1 and claim 4 depending from amended claim 3. Lerot also fails to teach wherein the catalyst activation step comprises bringing said catalyst into contact with a gaseous stream comprising chlorotrifluoroethylene, as recited in amended claim 9.
Although both Millefanti and Lerot teach the production of trifluoroethylene from chlorotrifluoroethylene via catalytic hydrogenolysis, in a manner consistent with instantly claimed invention, neither reference alone or in combination would sufficiently motivate the skilled artisan to arrive at a temperature gradient of less than 0.5 ºC/min in the catalyst activation step or wherein the temperature of the catalytic bed is increased in increments, as recited in amended claims 1 and claim 4 depending from amended claim 3, respectively. In addition, Applicant demonstrates a special technical effect of the instantly claimed range, wherein Example 1 which has a thermal gradient within the claimed range (0.2 ºC/min) resulted in superior trifluoroethylene productivity than Comparative Example 2 which has a thermal gradient just outside the claimed range (0.7 ºC/min) (Specification; pages 20-21; Example 1 and Comparative Example 2). Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or suggest activating a catalyst with chlorotrifluoroethylene for the purpose of later using the catalyst to convert chlorotrifluoroethylene to trifluoroethylene, as required by amended claim 9. Therefore, the claims are free from the prior art for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 7-12 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 3, 5-6, 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected.
Applicant’s amendment under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 18 February 2025 necessitated and prompted the maintained, modified, and 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 extension fee 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 Derek Rhoades whose telephone number is (703)-756-5321. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday, 7:30 am-5:00 pm EST; Friday, 7:30 am-4:00 pm EST.
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 on (571)-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-8300.
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.
/D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights