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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. This is the first office action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is considered indefinite for reciting “adjusting a content of water in the LPG synthesis stage to improve a performance parameter of the process.” It is unclear what is meant by “improve a performance parameter of the process” (emphasis added). For the purpose of examination, claim 16 is construed to incorporate the limitations of claim 19, which specifies the performance parameter (see also Spec., [0062]).
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimoto et al. (US 2007/0282019 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a process comprising:
(a) in an LPG synthesis stage (Fig. 1, 12, 13) contacting a synthesis gas feed (22) comprising H2 and CO with an LPG synthesis catalyst system to produce an LPG synthesis effluent (24) comprising the LPG product ([0044]-[0047]), and
(b) removing a water-enriched product (Fig. 1, 9) downstream of the LPG synthesis stage ([0048]; [0142]).
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto discloses separating the LPG product from the LPG synthesis effluent (8) ([0048], [0142]).
Regarding claim 11, Fujimoto discloses removing the water-enriched product from a separation stage downstream of the LPG synthesis stage, wherein the separation stage separates the LPG product from the LPG synthesis effluent ([0048], [0142]).
Regarding claim 14, Fujimoto discloses removing an initial water-enriched product from the synthesis gas feed ([0105], [0118]).
Regarding claim 15, Fujimoto discloses that the water-enriched product is removed from the effluent by any known method, such as liquid-liquid separation ([0196]). One skilled in the art would understand that liquid-liquid separation on the LPG synthesis effluent to remove water would require cooling to condense water vapor into liquid phase.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Fujimoto discloses a process comprising:
(a) in an LPG synthesis stage (Fig. 1, 12, 13) contacting a synthesis gas feed (22) comprising H2 and CO with an LPG synthesis catalyst system to produce an LPG synthesis effluent (24) comprising the LPG product ([0044]-[0047]).
Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose “adjusting a content of water in the LPG synthesis stage to improve a performance parameter of the process.”
However, Fujimoto discloses removing water from the synthesis gas feed ([0105], [0118]), which would inherently adjust the water content in the LPG synthesis stage. Furthermore, the LPG synthesis stage in Fujimoto involves the conversion of synthesis gas to methanol or to dimethyl ether, which are equilibrium reactions and produce water as by-product ([0046], [0050]). Therefore, the presence of water in the reactants is expected to reduce the methanol or dimethyl ether yield, which in turn affects the LPG yield.
Regarding claim 20, Fujimoto discloses that the LPG synthesis can be conducted in a fluidized bed ([0184]).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieskens et al. (US 2019/0352239 A1, cited in IDS dated 07/07/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Nieskens discloses a process for producing C2-C5 hydrocarbons, the process comprising:
(a) in a reaction stage comprising a “first reaction zone” (Fig. 1, 101) and a “second reaction zone” (103), contacting a synthesis gas feed (110) comprising H2 and CO with a catalyst to produce a reaction effluent stream (115) comprising an LPG product (“propane”) ([0023], [0025], [0030], [0045], [0050]) and
(b) removing a water-enriched product (Fig. 1, 118, 119) from the reaction stage ([0047], [0049], [0142]).
It is note that Nieskens is not specifically directed to the production of LPG. Nieskens, however, expressly discloses that the product mixture may contain propane ([0045]), which is an LPG component. Therefore, the reaction stage of Nieskens corresponds to an LPG synthesis stage.
Regarding claim 2, Nieskens discloses separating a product stream (Fig. 1, 116) comprising hydrocarbons from the reaction effluent stream (115) ([0052]). Since propane generated during the reaction will be present along with other hydrocarbon in the product stream (116), it can be said that a LPG component is separated from the reaction effluent stream.
Regarding claim 3, Nieskens discloses that the reaction stage comprises a first reactor (Fig. 1, 101) and a second reactor (103), wherein a water-enriched product (118) is removed downstream of the first reactor and upstream of the second reactor ([0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Nieskens discloses removing the water-enriched product (Fig. 1, 118) from a first reactor effluent (111) to provide a second reactor water-depleted feed (112) ([0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Nieskens discloses separating a product stream (Fig. 1, 116) comprising hydrocarbons from the reaction effluent stream (115) ([0052]). Since propane generated during the reaction will be present along with other hydrocarbon in the product stream (116), it can be said that a LPG component is separated from the reaction effluent stream. Furthermore, the reaction effluent (115) is derived from a second reactor effluent (113).
Regarding claim 6, Nieskens discloses separating a gaseous fraction (“H2 and CO”) (Fig. 1, 117) from the reaction effluent (115), which is derived from the second reactor effluent (113) ([0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Nieskens discloses recycling the gaseous fraction (Fig. 1, 117) to the reaction stage (101) ([0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12, and 13 are 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.
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggest a process for producing a LPG product by catalytically converting a synthesis gas in an LPG synthesis stage, wherein the process further includes the features of claim 8, 9, 17, or 18. With regard to claims 8 and 9, while the applied references, Fujimoto and Nieskens, disclose removing a water-enriched product downstream of the LPG synthesis stage, the water-enriched product is not removed from a loop reactor effluent or a recycle portion of the LPG synthesis effluent. Furthermore, the cited references fail to teach or reasonably suggest that a content of water in the LPG synthesis stage is adjusted (i) in response to a measured content of water in the process, as recited in claim 17, or (ii) by adjusting a flow of a recycle portion of the LPG synthesis effluent, or water-depleted recycle portion of the LPG synthesis effluent, to the LPG synthesis stage, as recited in claim 18.
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, 2, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 16-18 of copending Application No. 17/470,195 (submitted on 09/30/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the reference claims are directed to a process comprising the steps of converting syngas to an LPG effluent and removing a water-enriched product from the LPG synthesis stage
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772