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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 08/18/2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments.
The rejection to claims 1-12 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a process using a catalyst that is “either ZnO impregnated on ZnMoO4 or ZnO impregnated on ZnAl2O4” and the catalyst taught by Jiao, which is a combination of a molecular sieve and zinc aluminum spinel oxide, does not correspond to the claimed catalyst.
In response, the examiner does not find the argument because claim 1, as currently presented, does not exclude having an additional catalyst in the conversion step. It is acknowledged that in the claimed step of “contacting a syngas with a catalyst,” the catalyst has to be either ZnO impregnated on ZnMoO4 (ZnO-ZnMoO4) or ZnO impregnated on ZnAl2O4 (ZnO-ZnAl2O4). However, no limitations in claim 1 require that the recited “a catalyst” is a single catalyst excluding additional catalysts. In fact, the transitional phrase “comprises” is used in claim 1 to introduce process steps (“wherein the process comprises”); therefore, the claimed process is considered open to having an additional step, e.g., co-feeding a second catalyst comprising a molecular sieve.
The prior art rejection over Jiao is maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al. (CN 112705258 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jiao discloses a process for converting syngas to light olefins, the process comprising contacting a syngas feed with a catalyst comprising ZnO impregnated on ZnAl2O4 (claims 1 and 9; see Examples1-17).
Jiao does not explicitly teach the following reaction conditions: a combined selectivity ranging from 50% to 80% for C2-C4 olefins; a syngas H2/CO ratio ranging from 1.0 to 3.0; a temperature ranging from 250°C to 425°C, a pressure ranging from 100 psi to 350 psi, a space velocity from 4,000 hr-1 to 15,000 hr-1, and a CO conversion ranging from 40% to 75%.
However, Jiao does teach the following reactions conditions: a temperature of 330-470°C, a pressure of 0.5-8 MPa (72.5-1160 psi), a volumetric space velocity of 500-10000 hr-1, and a CO/H2 ratio of 0.5-3.5 (claim 10). The claimed ranges for reaction temperature, pressure, and H2/CO overlap with the corresponding ranges taught by Jiao and are considered prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I.
The claimed limitations on selectivity for C2-C4 olefins (50-80%) and CO conversion (40-75%) are drawn to results of the reaction. Here, Jiao teaches the same syngas conversion process operating under overlapping reaction conditions with the claimed invention, as discussed above (claims 1, 9, and 10). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the process of Jiao to have the same results, including the selectivity and conversion, as the claimed process, when operated under the same reaction conditions (i.e., those that overlap in both processes). Additionally, Jiao discloses examples that which meet the claimed C2-C4 olefins selectivity and CO conversion (Table 1, see Examples 4, 5, 9, and 12).
It is noted that Jiao teaches having a zeolite component in addition to ZnO impregnated on ZnAl2O4 in the catalyst. Claim 1, as presented, does not exclude having such an additional zeolitic component.
Regarding claim 2, Jiao discloses that the zinc oxide (ZnO) is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% relative to the total mass of the zinc aluminate spinel oxide (ZnAl2O4) (claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Jiao does not explicitly teach producing CH4 at a selectivity of >0% to 5%. However, Jiao teaches the same syngas conversion process operating under overlapping reaction conditions with the claimed invention, as discussed above (claims 1, 9, and 10). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the process of Jiao to have the same results, including the CH4 production, as the claimed process, when operated under the same reaction conditions (i.e., those that overlap in both processes).
Regarding claim 6, Jiao discloses that the catalyst is first reduced by pure hydrogen in a reactor for 2 hours before the introduction of the syngas feed (pg. 3, Example 1). Therefore, the ZnO is reasonably expected be at least partially reduced to metallic zinc while in contact with the syngas.
Regarding claims 9-12, each of these claims recites “wherein the syngas is produced by…” Therefore, the limitation “the syngas” is considered a product-by-process. The patentability of a product does not depend on the its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product as made by a different process.” MPEP 2113. The claimed "syngas” in claims 9-12 does not appear to be any different than the syngas described by Jiao and is not given patentable weight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiao et al. (CN 112705258 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Coleman (US 6,884,917 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Jiao teaches the process of claim 1, as discussed above.
Jiao discloses that the syngas conversion results in a product stream comprising C2-C4 olefins, i.e., ethylene, propylene, and butylene (pg. 2; claim 9). Jiao notes that ethylene and propylene are important chemical raw materials (pg. 1, “Background”), and one would have been motivated to recover ethylene and propylene product fractions for further processing
Jiao does not explicitly teach operating ethylene and propylene from one another by distillation nor adsorption to provide purified ethylene and propylene.
However, Coleman teaches separating a stream comprising C2-C4 olefins into an ethylene and a propylene stream using two simple distillation towers (col. 3, lines 54-57).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiao by separating the product stream into an ethylene stream and a propylene stream using distillation, because (i) Jiao discloses ethylene and propylene are important chemical raw materials, (ii) Colman teaches that a mixture containing ethylene and propylene can be fractionated into individual component stream using distillation, and (iii) this involves application of a known technique in a known process to yield predictable results.
Examiner’s Comment
The following are suggestions provided by the examiner to amend the claims to be in align with the Applicant’s intended scope of invention (see Remarks, pg. 8) and to address minor informalities.
Claim 1
A process for producing ethylene and propylene from syngas, wherein the process comprises: a conversion step consisting of contacting [[a]] syngas with a catalyst, wherein the catalyst is a spinel, [[and]] wherein the catalyst is either ZnO impregnated on ZnMoO4 or ZnO impregnated on ZnAl2O4, and wherein the catalyst provides for a combined selectivity ranging from 50% to 80% for C2-C4 olefins at a syngas H2/CO ratio ranging from 1.0 to 3.0, at a temperature ranging from 250 °C to 425 °C, at a pressure[[s]] ranging from 100 psi to 350 psi, and a CO conversion ranging from 40% to 75%, thereby producing ethylene and propylene from syngas in said conversion step.
Claim 2
The process of claim 1, wherein 4 or ZnAl2O4
Claim 3: Canceled.
Claim 4
The process of claim 1, wherein the conversion step further produces CH4 at a CH4 selectivity ranging from 0% to 5%.
Claim 7
The process of claim 1, wherein the produced ethylene and propylene are in a product stream, and wherein the process further comprises a separation step comprising separating the ethylene and propylene
Claim 8: Canceled.
Claim 11
The process claim 1, wherein the syngas is produced by the gasification of carbonaceous resources, and where the carbonaceous resources are flare gas, oil refinery waste, stranded gas, disadvantaged gas, used engine oil, waste tires, tar sands, [[and]] oil shale, or combinations thereof.
Claims 13-19: Canceled.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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