DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are amended. Claims 2-7 are cancelled.
The amendments and cancellations overcome the previous Double Patenting rejection and 112(b) rejections.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are pending for examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Axelrod and Guo fail to teach the newly amended catalyst comprising either gamma alumina, or an alkali or alkaline earth metal on alumina or zeolite in combination with the temperature of 25-150°C. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art in view of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 9, the claim recites “normal butene that remains unreactive”. This is a typographical error of “unreacted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szabo et al. (EP 0550331, machine translation provided herein).
With regard to claim 1, Szabo teaches a method for isomerizing n-butenes to isobutenes (paragraph [0001]) comprising contacting the n-butenes with a catalyst comprising bismuth, chlorine, and a gamma-alumina support (paragraph [0034]) at a temperature of 20-550°C (paragraph [0023]). This temperature encompasses the range of 25-150°C of instant claim 1, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Szabo is silent regarding the acidic or basic nature of the catalyst comprising the gamma-alumina support and the bismuth of Szabo is not listed as a basic metal. However, the instant claim recites that gamma-alumina is a basic catalyst, and the instant specification recites that the solid basic catalyst functions as a basic catalyst even when a basic metal is not supported (paragraph [0032]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the catalyst comprising the gamma-alumina support of Szabo functions as the claimed basic catalyst, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughenour et al. (US 4,731,490) in view of Ma (One-step electrosynthesis of ethylene and ethanol from CO2 in an alkaline electrolyzer) and Szabo et al. (EP 0550331, machine translation provided herein).
With regard to claim 8, Coughenour teaches an apparatus for synthesis of methyl tertiary butyl ether (Abstract) comprising the following components (Figure 1 and corresponding description column 5):
a) a dimerization zone 12 for dimerizing ethylene to butene; and
b) an isomerization zone 16 for isomerizing butene to isobutene. (column 5, lines 40-50).
Coughenour fails to teach i) an electrolyzer for generating ethylene from carbon dioxide, ii) that the catalyst in the isomerization zone 16 is a basic catalyst comprising gamma-alumina, or iii) that the temperature in the isomerization zone is 25-150°C.
With regard to the electrolyzer i), Coughenour exemplifies that the source of the ethylene is from pyrolysis of naphtha and gas oil (column 5, lines 33-34), but does not limit the source of the ethylene to only the listed sources. Ma teaches producing ethylene from carbon dioxide in an electrolyzer (Abstract). Ma further teaches that producing ethylene from CO2 is useful because ethylene is an important raw material and producing value added chemicals from CO2 offers promise to suppress CO2 emissions to help curb undesirable effects of climate change (page 22, Introduction, first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add an electrolyzer to the apparatus of Coughenour, because Coughenour teaches dimerizing of ethylene and does not limit the source of the ethylene, and Ma teaches that an electrolyzer produces the desirable raw material ethylene from CO2, where the electrolysis reduces CO2 emissions and helps curb undesirable effects of climate change (page 22, Introduction, first paragraph).
With regard to the catalyst ii), Coughenour teaches that any suitable isomerization catalyst capable of isomerizing n-butene to isobutene may be employed (column 3, lines 11-14).
Szabo teaches a method for isomerizing n-butenes to isobutenes (paragraph [0001]) comprising contacting the n-butenes with a catalyst comprising a gamma-alumina support (paragraph [0034]). Szabo does not explicitly teach the gamma-alumina is a basic catalyst, as claimed. However, the instant claim recites that gamma-alumina is a basic catalyst, and the instant specification recites that the solid basic catalyst functions as a basic catalyst even when a basic metal is not supported (paragraph [0032]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the gamma-alumina support of Szabo functions as the claimed basic catalyst, absent any evidence to the contrary. Szabo further teaches that that catalyst is able to be optimized to obtain good selectivity and activity (paragraph [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the catalyst of Szabo in the process of Coughenour, because each of Coughenour and Szabo teaches isomerization of n-butenes to isobutenes, Coughenour teaches any suitable isomerization catalyst capable of isomerizing n-butene to isobutene (column 3, lines 11-14) and Szabo teaches that the gamma-alumina catalyst is able to be optimized to obtain good selectivity and activity (paragraph [0011]).
With regard to the temperature iii), Szabo teaches a temperature of 20-550°C (paragraph [0023]). This temperature encompasses the range of 25-150°C of instant claim 8, rendering the range prima facie obvious. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the temperature of Szabo in the process of Coughenour, because it is well known in the art that certain catalysts are effective at certain temperatures. Thus when using the catalyst of Szabo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to also use the temperature of Szabo, in order to make sure the catalyst functions in the process as desired.
With regard to claim 9, Coughenour teaches that the apparatus further comprises an etherification zone 20 which accepts the isomerization effluent in line 18 and separates MTBE in line 24 and normal butene in line 26, where the normal butene is recycled to isomerization zone 16 (column 5, lines 40-50).
Coughenour does not explicitly teach that the etherification zone is a hydration reactor as claimed. However, Coughenour teaches the structural limitations of the etherification zone 20 include a vessel (20) with an inlet conduit (18) and two outlet conduits (24, 26), where one of the conduits is in communication with the isomerizer as a recycle line (26). These structural limitations are equivalent to the implied structural limitations of the claimed hydration reactor. Additionally, the etherification reactor of Coughenour has a similar function of reacting iso-butene to form an oxygenated compound which allows for the separation of normal butene as the claimed hydration reactor (see instant specification paragraph [0048]). Thus the etherification zone 20 is considered to be equivalent to the hydration reactor of instant claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 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, 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights