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
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinghoffer et al (US 2018/0016218) in view of Li et al (Na+ gated water conducting nanochannels for boosting CO2 conversion to liquids).
With respect to claim 1, Klinghoffer discloses an ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor, the reactor comprising: a reaction unit (hollow fiber catalytic membrane reactor, see abstract) comprising:
at least a plurality of reactants (carbon dioxide and hydrogen) that react to produce one or more permeates (water) at least due to activation by a catalyst (see abstract), and a separation unit comprising an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support, wherein polar permeates (water) from the one or more permeates pass through the nanochannel membrane and are separated in-situ (see abstract and paragraph 0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the membrane is a ion-gated nanochannel membrane.
However, in a related nanochannel NaA zeolite membrane, Li discloses that the utilization of Na+ ion gated NaA zeolite leads to increase of CO2 conversion by removing water more efficiently (see abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer membrane with the claimed ion gated membrane, as Li discloses that the increase in water permeability increase co2 conversion.
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1. Klinghoffer further discloses wherein the ion-gated nanochannel membrane is coated on a ceramic hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1. Klinghoffer further discloses wherein the ion-gated nanochannel membrane comprises metal ions that are Sodium (Na) (NaA zeolite) (see paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 4, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 3. Klinghoffer further discloses wherein the metal ions are incorporated in the ion-gated nanochannel membrane by an ion exchange mechanism with sodium zeolite membrane (see paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 5, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 4. Li further discloses wherein the passing through of the polar permeates, is based on manipulation of the size of a plurality of pores of the ion-gated nanochannel membrane by selecting the metal ions in accordance with the size of the polar permeates (see Li figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH30H) is performed using the membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is operated at an ambient temperature (150°C - 300 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In the case the manner of operation, i.e. reactor conditions, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 7, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH30H) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is utilized to produce ethanol and is operated at an ambient temperature (150°C - 400 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, the operation of the reactor, i.e. reactor conditions and product produced, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art reactor, as the functional language does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 8, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH30H) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is utilized to produce olefin and is operated at an ambient temperature (150°C - 400 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, the operation of the reactor, i.e. reactor conditions and product produced, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art reactor, as the functional language does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 9, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of gasoline and jet fuel is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is utilized to produce methane and is operated at an ambient temperature (150°C - 400 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, the operation of the reactor, i.e. reactor conditions and product produced, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art reactor, as the functional language does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 10, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH30H) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is utilized to produce methane and is operated at an ambient temperature (150°C - 400 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, the operation of the reactor, i.e. reactor conditions and product produced, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art reactor, as the functional language does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 11, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH30H) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is utilized to produce ethanol and is operated at an ambient temperature (300°C - 400 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, the operation of the reactor, i.e. reactor conditions and product produced, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art reactor, as the functional language does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 12, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH30H) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by: providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see figure 5, paragraph 0027), separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) (see figure 5) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the reactor is utilized to produce dimethyl carbonate from methanol and urea, operated at an ambient temperature (150°C - 400 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar), as claimed.
However, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, the operation of the reactor, i.e. reactor conditions and product produced, do not differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art reactor, as the functional language does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claims 13 and 15, Klinghoffer discloses a method for production of compounds using an nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor, the method comprising: providing, in a reaction unit, at least a plurality of reactants that react to produce one or more permeates at least due to activation by a catalyst (hollow fiber catalytic membrane reactor, see abstract); separating in-situ, from a separation unit, polar permeates from the one or more permeates that pass through the nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see abstract and paragraph 0034).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the membrane is a ion-gated nanochannel membrane.
However, in a related nanochannel NaA zeolite membrane, Li discloses that the utilization of Na+ ion gated NaA zeolite leads to increase of CO2 conversion by removing water more efficiently (see abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer membrane with the claimed ion gated membrane, as Li discloses that the increase in water permeability increase co2 conversion.
With respect to claim 14, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 13.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein the ion-gated nanochannel membrane is coated on a ceramic hollow fiber support (see paragraph 0033-0034).
With respect to claim 16, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 15.
Li further discloses wherein the metal ions are incorporated in the ion-gated nanochannel membrane by an ion exchange mechanism with sodium zeolite membrane (see Li abstract and figure 2).
With respect to claim 17, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 15.
Li further discloses wherein the passing through of the polar permeates, is based on manipulation of the size of a plurality of pores of the ion-gated nanochannel membrane by selecting the metal ions in accordance with the size of the polar permeates (see Li figure 1).
With respect to claim 18, Klinghoffer discloses the limitation of claim 13.
Klinghoffer further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH3OH) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by (see paragraph 0027):
providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see abstract and paragraph 0028-0032);
separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see abstract).
Klinghoffer does not disclose wherein the process is operated at ambient temperature (150°C - 300 °C), and pressure of (10-70 bar).
However, Li discloses wherein operation conditions include 38 bar and 200 to 250°C (see Li page 1, 6th paragraph)
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the Klinghoffer with the claimed reaction conditions, through routine experimentations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinghoffer and Li as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chen et al (Thermodynamic Analysis of Membrane Separation-Enhanced Co-Hydrogenation of Co2/CO to ethanol).
With respect to claim 19, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 13.
The prior combination further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH3OH) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by (see paragraph 0027):
providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see Klinghoffer abstract and paragraph 0028-0032);
separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see abstract).
Li discloses wherein operation conditions include 38 bar and 200 to 250°C (see Li page 1, 6th paragraph).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the membrane reactor process can be utilized with a CO2 to ethanol process as claimed.
However, in a related process Chen discloses Co-hydrogenation of CO2/CO to produce ethanol presents an important way to utilize carbon-neutralized biomass resources through gasification. By applying a water-permselective membrane reactor, water, the byproduct of CO2/CO hydrogenation to ethanol, can be removed, wherein ethanol formation can be promoted thermodynamically.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination with Co-hydrogenation of CO2/CO to produce ethanol in view of Chen, as the same principles being used in the prior combination are utilized in Chen to produce ethanol.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinghoffer and Li as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Aleaziz et al (Design and Analysis of a CO2 to olefin process, using renewable energy).
With respect to claim 20 and 22, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 13.
The prior combination further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH3OH) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by (see paragraph 0027):
providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see Klinghoffer abstract and paragraph 0028-0032);
separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see abstract).
Li discloses wherein operation conditions include 38 bar and 200 to 250°C (see Li page 1, 6th paragraph).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the membrane reactor process can be utilized with a CO2 to olefin process as claimed.
Aleaziz discloses a light olefins production plant that hydrogenates carbon dioxide to C2-C4 using green hydrogen and electricity produced from solar and wind energy resources, wherein combining Fischer-Tropsch and methanol-mediated pathways on a large scale is analyzed as a new method to increase light olefins production (see abstract).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination methanation process with a F-T process to produce an CO2 to olefin process as clamed in view of Aleaziz.
With respect to claim 21, the claims relate to process for production of gasoline and jet fuel range fuels, that is not taught by the prior combination.
However, Aleaziz discloses a light olefins production plant that hydrogenates carbon dioxide to C2-C4 using green hydrogen and electricity produced from solar and wind energy resources, wherein combining Fischer-Tropsch and methanol-mediated pathways on a large scale is analyzed as a new method to increase light olefins production (see abstract), wherein light olefin are utilized in the production of jet fuel and gasoline (see introduction)
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination methanation process with a F-T process to produce an CO2 to olefin process, wherein light olefin are utilized in the production of jet fuel and gasoline, as clamed in view of Aleaziz.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinghoffer and Li as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zeng et al (Dual-Role Membrane as NH3 Permselective Reactor and Azeotrope Separator in Urea Alcoholysis, 2019).
With respect to claim 23-24, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 13.
The prior combination further discloses wherein production of methanol (CH3OH) is performed using the ion-gated nanochannel catalytic membrane reactor by (see paragraph 0027):
providing, in a reaction unit, carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) as reactants for producing methanol (CH3OH) and polar water (H20) as permeates due to activation by a catalyst (see Klinghoffer abstract and paragraph 0028-0032);
separating in-situ, from a separation unit, the polar water (H20) produced as permeate as it passes through the ion-gated nanochannel membrane of the reactor, wherein the separation unit comprises an ion-gated nanochannel membrane supported on a hollow fiber support (see abstract).
Li discloses wherein operation conditions include 38 bar and 200 to 250°C (see Li page 1, 6th paragraph).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the membrane reactor process can be utilized with a dimethyl carbonate process as claimed.
However, in a related process, Zeng discloses an NH3 permselective membrane reactor (MR) based on modified SAPO-34 membrane is successfully realized for UM-to-DMC, wherein the permselectivity and acidity of the SAPO-34 membrane are significantly adjusted to cater the strict molecular sieving of NH3/methanol and chemical inertness upon the reaction and MR exhibits excellent reactant conversion and DMC selectivity, resulting in >139% higher DMC yield than that of the nonmembrane reactor, due to in situ removal of NH3 by the membrane.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination disclosure with the teachings of Zeng to arrive at the claimed inventions, as the utilization of the membrane reactor to permeate a polar compound is common in both the prior combination and Zeng, the only difference is desired product, which is just an engineering choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights