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 .
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO 2012/149150 A2 (WO’150) in view of Fukuhara et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741, hereafter US’741), and further in view of Lussenden (U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998, hereafter US’998)ereafter US.
Claim 6
WO’150 discloses a method for producing refined ethanol comprising:
(a) providing an ethanol/water feed stream containing acetal impurities (claim 1; Tables 1–2);
(b) contacting the feed stream with an acid catalyst to hydrolyze acetal to acetaldehyde (claim 5; paragraphs 73–76); and
(c) distilling the hydrolysis product to obtain refined ethanol (claim 1).
WO’150 does not explicitly disclose an acetal concentration of 20–2000 ppm or hydrolysis of at least 20% of the acetal. However, U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741 teaches that acetal and aldehyde concentrations and conversion levels in ethanol purification are result-effective variables adjusted by routine variation of known parameters (col. 3, ll. 25–45; col. 6, ll. 10–35). U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998 further teaches partial acetal hydrolysis followed by distillation.
Therefore, optimizing WO’150 to achieve the claimed ppm range and conversion level would have been obvious. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claim 7
WO’150 discloses producing ethanol from a fermentation liquor, concentrating ethanol to fuel-grade levels, molecular sieve dehydration, and regeneration of the molecular sieve producing ethanol/water streams containing contaminants such as acetal, which are recycled within the process (paragraphs 31, 115–117).
U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998 teaches recycling treated ethanol streams to fermentation and/or concentration steps to improve overall ethanol purity. Accordingly, the additional process steps recited in claim 7 would have been obvious.
Claim 8
WO’150 teaches that only portions or fractions of ethanol streams containing impurities may be treated depending on process configuration (Figures; paragraphs 108–118).
U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741 teaches treating only a fraction of a contaminated ethanol stream as a routine process design choice to manage throughput and catalyst usage (col. 6, ll. 20–40).
Thus, contacting only 5–90 wt.% of the feed stream as claimed is an obvious optimization. See In re Peterson, supra.
Claim 9
WO’150 discloses withdrawing distilled ethanol fractions containing acetal impurities, treating those fractions, and recycling treated streams to distillation or further purification stages (Figures; paragraphs 110–114).
U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998 teaches multi-stage distillation with recycle of treated ethanol streams to upstream or downstream columns.
Therefore, claim 9 would have been obvious.
Claim 10
WO’150 expressly discloses mineral acids and acidic zeolites as acid catalysts for acetal hydrolysis (paragraph 76). U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741 teaches sulfonated polymer acid catalysts as interchangeable alternatives for aldehyde/acetal conversion in ethanol purification (col. 4, ll. 10–25).
Accordingly, the catalyst selection of claim 10 is obvious.
Conclusion
WO’150 teaches the claimed process. The additional numerical ranges, fractional treatments, recycle configurations, and conversion thresholds constitute routine optimization of known result-effective variables, as supported by the applied U.S. patents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -7:00 pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights