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 – 14 are pending.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arita Yoshio (JP 2015160807) (Yoshio) (See English translation) in view of Masaya Yanagita et al. (US 3,736,354) (Yanagita) and further in view of Childress et al. (US 4,208,306) and Devaux et al. (US 9,296,676)...
The rejected claims cover, inter alia, a method comprising: selectively oxidizing iso-propanol over a first mixed metal oxide catalyst in the presence of oxygen in the vapor phase to produce acrolein, wherein the first mixed metal oxide catalyst comprises oxides of molybdenum and bismuth.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 further limit the process. Dependent claims 4, 5 and 6 further limit the catalyst. Dependent claim 7 further limits the oxygen. Dependent claim 9 further limits the acrolein product.
However, Yoshio discloses a method for producing new acrolein or acrylic acid, especially a technique capable of persistently producing acrylic acid or the like by using a biomass raw material. Yoshio’s example 1 and claim 1 discloses the preparation of a catalyst using ammonium molybdate, cobalt nitrate, nickel nitrate, ferric nitrate, bismuth nitrate and other metallic salts. A mixture containing said substances is calcined at 480°C for 6 hours. Thus, a catalyst is obtained which falls under the definition of present claims 1 and 8 and is employed in the oxidation of isopropanol. Also, paragraph [0036] sets out reaction conditions as well as Table 1, teaches that the reaction is carried out in the gas phase in the presence of oxygen. This reaction yields acrolein, which can be accompanied by small amounts of acrylic acid in the experiments carried out at 310-340°C. No acrylic acid is detected in experiments 1-3 and 7-9, which are carried out at 285-310°C. (pp. 9 Table 1).
Additionally, the process of Yoshio discloses the preparation of isopropanol by fermentation of biomass and a separation unit for the purification of acrolein. (pp. 3, [0008]; pp. 4, [0018] & [0019]; & Figure 1, unit 2 & 7). For the partial oxidation of Isopropyl alcohol to acrolein or acrylic acid, the preferred catalyst contains Mo and Bi; in addition to at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mo,W,Bi,Sb,Fe,Co,Ni,Si,Al,Zr,Ti,Tl , alkali metals, and alkaline earth metals. Preferably compounds containing Mo and / or W, Bi and / or Sb, at least one selected from the group consisting of Fe, Co, and Ni, at least one selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Zr, and Ti, and alkali metals and / or alkaline earth metals,. (pp. [0020]). Lastly, Yoshio discloses that the oxidation water vapor (steam) may be present (pp. 8, [0037]).
The difference between the instantly claimed invention and Yoshio is as follows: a content of propionic acid; acrolein is selectively oxidized over a second mixed metal catalyst (claims 3 – 5).
With regard to a content of propionic acid the Examiner turns to the teaching of Childress and Devaux. The prior art of Childress discloses a process for preparing acrylic acid by oxidation of acrolein. (entire application). The catalyst of Childress consists essentially of the oxides of molybdenum, vanadium, chromium, copper and titanium and optionally silicon on an inert carrier. (abstract, col. 1, ln 14 -16). Devaux discloses that acrolein can be subjected to oxidation methods to produce acrylic acid with a low content of propionic acid, typically, containing less than 5000 ppm (.5%), even less than 1000 ppm (.1%). (col. 10, ln 7 – 12). These limitations are deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103.
However, with regard to acrolein is selectively oxidized over a second mixed metal catalyst (claims 3 – 5), the Examiner turns to the teaching of Yanagita and Childress. The prior art of Yanagita disclose a process for producing acrylic acid by catalytic vapor phase oxidation of acrolein with molecular oxygen, with catalyst comprised of oxide or oxygenated compound of vanadium and molybdenum. (col. 1, ln 14 – 20). The prior art of The prior art of Childress discloses a process for preparing acrylic acid by oxidation of acrolein. (entire application). The catalyst of Childress consists essentially of the oxides of molybdenum, vanadium, chromium, copper and titanium and optionally silicon on an inert carrier. (abstract, col. 1, ln 14 -16). Also, both Childress and Yanagita disclose the use of steam in the oxidation process. (Childress, col 2, ln 27 – 39 & Yanagita col. 4, ln 20 0 26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to combine the process of Yoshio with the process of Childress or Yanagita to expand the process of Yoshio to include a second step for acrolein oxidation for the purpose of preparing acrylic acid. The Courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Also, “an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical, we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. (DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366, 1368; 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692