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 .
Claim Status
A preliminary amendment was filed on 11/21/2023. Claims 5, 8-10, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application is a national stage application of PCT/CN2022/094002 filed on 05/20/2022, which claims foreign priority to Chinese application no. 202110559517.4 filed on 05/21/2021 and Chinese application no. 202110557880.2, filed on 05/21/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023, 01/15/2025, 08/25/2025, and 11/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract contains the legal phraseology of “said” on line 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-9, 12, and 14-15 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the pH of the aqueous solution phase ranges from about 6.5 to about 8.5”, and the claim also recites “from 7 to 8” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the ratio of the weight of the organic solvent in the organic solvent phase to the total weight of the inorganic salt and water in the aqueous solution phase ranges from 2 to 16”, and the claim also recites “from 3 to 10” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 also recites the broad recitation “the weight ratio of the inorganic salt to the water ranges from 0.10 to 0.70”, and the claim also recites “from 0.20 to 0.70, and further preferably from 0.40 to 0.70” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the hydrogenation active component is selected from one or more of ruthenium, platinum, and palladium,”, and the claim also recites “platinum and/or palladium” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 also recites the broad recitation “present in an amount ranging from 0.5% to 10% by weight”, and the claim also recites “from 2% to 6% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “the contact angle between the hydrogenation catalyst and water is greater than 50 degrees”, and the claim also recites “from 55 to 90°, and still preferably ranges from 60° to 90°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “the weight ratio of the organic solvent to the biomass raw material ranges from 5 to 60”, and the claim also recites “from 15 to 40” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 14 recites the broad recitation “the hydrogen pressure ranges from 0.2 MPa to 6 MPa”, and the claim also recites “from 0.5 MPa to 3 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “the weight ratio of the biomass raw material to the hydrogenation catalyst is (8-0.5):1”, and the claim also recites “and preferably (4-1):1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 also recites the broad recitation “the reaction temperature ranges from 160°C to 240°C”, and the claim also recites “from 180°C to 220°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 also recites the broad recitation “the reaction time ranges from 2 hours to 16 hours”, and the claim also recites “from 4 hours to 12 hours” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and do not overcome the indefiniteness discussed above regarding claim 1, and therefore, are also indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are limiting. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are limiting. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
MPEP § 2163 states an invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.
MPEP § 2163 further states that a “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
In the absence of a representative number of species, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics; i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. To meet this requirement in the instant case, the specification must describe structural features that the skilled artisan as of the effective filing date would have expected to convey to arrive at the claimed biphasic solvent system containing the hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst with the claimed contact angle.
Scope of the claims
Claim 8 is drawn to a biphasic solvent system with an organic phase containing a hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst thereof limited by having a “contact angle between the hydrogenation catalyst and water is greater than 50°.” Claim 8 depends on claim 1 which is drawn to a biphasic solvent system with an organic phase containing a hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst.
Description of Representative Species in the Specification
The specification discloses comparative example 1 of preparing 3% Pd/DC (DC is equivalent to untreated active carbon). The contact angle between the water and the catalyst and was found to be 28° (shown in Figure 2). Examples 1-3, representative of the instant hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst, are preparing 3% Pd/Gr catalyst with a contact angle of 64° (shown in Figure 1), 3% Pd/C catalyst with a contact angle of 57°, and 5% Pt/Gr with a contact angle of 74°, respectively. No other catalysts or solvent systems are taught. There is no guidance disclosed on how to achieve the recited contact angle.
State of the Relevant Art
Contact Angle (NPL, published 03/22/2019, PTO-892) teaches a given system of solid, liquid, and vapor at a given temperature and pressure has a unique equilibrium contact angle. However, in practice a dynamic phenomenon of contact angle hysteresis is often observed, ranging from the advancing (maximal) contact angle to the receding (minimal) contact angle. A given substrate-liquid-vapor combination yields a continuous range of contact angle values in practice. The maximum contact angle is referred to as the advancing contact angle and the minimum contact angle is referred to as the receding contact angle. The advancing and receding contact angles are measured from dynamic experiments where droplets or liquid bridges are in movement. In contrast, the equilibrium contact angle described by the Young-LaPlace equation is measured from a static state. Static measurements yield values in-between the advancing and receding contact angle depending on deposition parameters (e.g. velocity, angle, and drop size) and drop history (e.g. evaporation from time of deposition).
De Gennes et al. teaches many practical processes require the spreading of a liquid on a solid. The liquid may be a paint, a lubricant, an ink, or a dye. The solid may either show a simple surface or be finely divided (suspensions, porous media, fibers). In spite of their importance, these processes are still poorly understood. All interfacial effects are very sensitive to contaminants and to physical modifications of the surface (e.g., steps, dislocations, if we are dealing with a crystalline solid); this may explain why certain basic experiments (e.g., spreading a single small droplet on a flat solid sur face) have been fully carried out only recently. (2) The solid/liquid interfaces are much harder to probe than their solid/vacuum counterpart; essentially all experiments making use of electron beams become inapplicable when a fluid is present. A few sensitive techniques may still be applied specifically to the interface (fluorescence, EPR, etc.), but they are often restricted to very specific examples. Similar limitations occur with the electrochemical data. (3) On the theoretical side, 180 years after the pioneering work of Young and Laplace, a number of basic capillary problems are just beginning to be solved. (a) The physicochemical controlling thermodynamic parameters wettability of solid surfaces were clarified through the long, careful efforts of Zisman and others, but the deviations from the thermodynamic equilibrium are just beginning to be understood. Here I shall insist particularly on two—the hysteresis of contact angles, due to the pinning of the contact line on localized defects, and the deviations regimes of "dry spreading, " where the final state of a spreading droplet is not necessarily a monomolecular layer, but may be a film of greater thickness (see Introduction).
Analysis/Conclusion
Regarding scope of the claim, claim 8 recites minimal structure, the structure recited in claim 1 of a hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst in a biphasic solvent system, and defines the invention in terms of its function, the contact angle with water of the hydrogenation catalyst in the biphasic solvent system. Accordingly, the scope of claim 8 is described solely in terms of its function.
The specification discloses three examples of catalysts with contact angles measuring from at least 50°. However, given the unpredictable nature of contact angle with any given system, such a disclosure would not reasonably be considered representative of the structure of a biphasic solvent system containing a hydrogenation catalyst and the disclosure does not establish a functional relationship between the clamed contact angles and the catalysts used in the examples. Accordingly, in view of the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to envisage the necessary structure of the biphasic solvent system containing a hydrogenation catalysts comprising a hydrogenation catalyst with a contact angle of at least 50°.
The prior art highlights that contact angle is not a predictable function of a hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst in a biphasic solvent system because, as taught by Contact Angle, a given system, such as the instant biphasic solvent system containing a hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst, has a unique equilibrium contact angle but in practice, contact hysteresis makes it unreliable to predict the contact angle of the system. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would be unable to envisage the hydrogenation catalyst used in the biphasic solvent system based on contact angle.
Based on the analysis described above, claim 8 lacks written description due to minimal structure recited in the claims while being described by a recited function, there is an absence of representative species in the specification, and neither the specification nor the prior art disclose a functional relationship between a hydrogenation catalyst in a biphasic solvent system and its contact angle.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (NPL, published 04/01/2019, PTO-892) in view of Chambon et al. (NPL, published 03/03/2015, PTO-892).
Peng et al. teaches the waste rice straw is a sustainable bioresource with large reserves and low-cost, thus can be used to produce fuels and chemicals to enhance its value. A new method to convert rice straw into biogasoline was developed with high yield in one step by using multifunctional catalyst of RhCl3/NaI/HCl/H2 in a biphasic reaction system. Lipid and lignin in the rice straw hindered its conversion and need to be removed by pretreatment. The major products are C5 and C6 furan, furfural, and cyclic ketones, which are low in oxygen content and can be used as biogasoline. Under the optimal reaction conditions (140 °C, 4 h, 300 psi H2, toluene to water volume ration 1:1), C5 from hemicellulose with 77.2 % yield and C6 from cellulose with 71.7 % yield can be obtained (see Abstract). In a typical reaction, 100 mg rice straw, 2 mmol NaI, corresponding to the Group VIIA anion added by an inorganic salt, 0.1 mmol RhCl3*3H2O, 1.5 mmol HCl (0.125 mL), 2.875 mL H2O, 3 mL toluene are sequentially placed into a 25 mL glass vial. Then the vial was placed into a 50 mL stainless steel autoclave. And the stainless-steel autoclave was put on an IKA magnetic stirring apparatus. The autoclave was purged by three cycles of pressurization/venting with H2 (400 psi) before pressurized with H2 (300 psi). The mixture was stirred at a given temperature for the desired time. When the reaction was stopped, the reactor was cooled with a water bath. Then the upper organic phase of the reaction liquid is collected for analysis and fractionated to obtain biogasoline. Majority of the iodide, acid, and metal catalysts remain in the water phase and can be reused directly. The main products detected are C5 compounds of 2-methylfuran (2-MF), 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (MTHF), cyclopentanone (CPT), 2-pentanone (2-PT), Furfural and C6 compounds of 2,5-dimethylfuran (2,5-DMF), 2,5-dimethyltetrahydrofuran (DMTHF), 2-hexanone (2-HXO), 3-methylcyclopentanone (3-MTP), 5-methylfurfural (5-MF), and 2,5-hexanedione (2,5-HDO) (see 3rd paragraph, Results and Discussion section). Various conditions were screened to achieve a better result. The optimization of the catalyst, salt/acid, and solvent volume ratio used in the method are shown respectively in figures 3, 4, and 5 below. The weight ratio of the inorganic salt to the water, as calculated by the examiner, is 0.10. Furthermore, Fig. 5 (shown below) shows the yield of C5 and C6 compounds at different solvent volume ratios. Reaction conditions include: 100 mg pretreated rice straw, 0.1 mmol RhCl3_3H2O, 2 mmol NaI, 1.5 mmol HCl (0.125 mL), 2.875 mL H2O, 3 mL Toluene, 140 °C, 500 rpm, 2 h, 300 psi (2.06 MPa) initial pressure of H2. The weight ratio of the organic solvent to the biomass raw material, as calculated by the examiner, is 26.01. The weight ratio of the biomass raw
PNG
media_image1.png
788
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
818
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
material to the hydrogenation catalyst, as calculated by the examiner, is 3.79:1.
The teachings of Peng et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Peng et al. does not teach the pH of the aqueous solution phase ranges from about 6.5 to about 8.5 under the room temperature condition of 25 °C as required by instant claim 1 and during the process, no acid, and preferably no acidic salt, is added into the reaction system, as required by instant claim 11.
Chambon et al. teaches 2,5-hexanedione is produced from cellulose using ZrW in the presence of hydrogen (see Abstract). The hydrolysis of cellulose into sugars can be catalyzed by strong mineral Brønsted acids such as H2SO4, HCl and HF. Because mineral acids are inexpensive, this method remains the most often used in research pilot development or in the few processes at industrial scale. This method using liquid acids produces glucose but causes corrosion and waste elimination remains problematic. Moreover, if acid hydrolysis conditions are severe (high temperature and/or concentration), a large fraction of sugars is degraded to undesired oligomers and tars (see Introduction section). Reactions were performed in a 100 mL Parr Hastelloy autoclave equipped with a Rushton turbide. The autoclave was filled with cellulose (1.60 g), catalyst (0.68 g) and de-ionized water (65 mL). The autoclave was flushed three times with He at room temperature, and then was heated at 190 ◦C (5 ◦C/min). The pressure was adjusted to 5 MPa with He or H2 for 24 h.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to keep the aqueous phase near or at a neutral pH, as taught by Chambon et al., in the biphasic solvent system, as taught by Peng et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to have a near neutral or neutral pH in the biphasic solvent system because, as taught by Chambon et al., the use of strongly acidic aqueous solutions causes corrosion and waste elimination remains problematic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Chambon et al. teaches a successful example of the conversion of biomass to 2,5-hexanedione without using strong acids.
Regarding instant claims 2 and 3, Peng et al. teaches adding an inorganic salt, such as NaI, which includes the Group IA cation, Na, and the Group VIIA anion, I, which are added together in the equimolar amounts. Peng et al. further teaches more other examples of Group IA cations to include Li and other examples of Group VIIA anions to include Cl and Br, shown in Figure 4.
Regarding instant claim 9, Peng et al. teaches using toluene as an organic solvent which would possess a lower density than water.
Regarding instant claims 10-15, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to keep the aqueous phase near or at a neutral pH by not adding an acid, as taught by Chambon et al., in the method, as taught by Peng et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to have a near neutral or neutral pH in the biphasic solvent system of the method because, as taught by Chambon et al., the use of strongly acidic aqueous solutions causes corrosion and waste elimination remains problematic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Chambon et al. teaches a successful example of the conversion of biomass to 2,5-hexanedione without using an acid.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12606502B2 (‘502, published 08/01/2024, PTO-892).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘502 recites:
15. A method for preparing para-xylene, comprising the steps of: contacting an organic phase comprising 2,5-hexanedione and ethylene with a molecular sieve catalyst to carry out a reaction to produce para-xylene, wherein the molecular sieve catalyst comprises an SCM-X molecular sieve, and X is 14 or 15.
16. The method according to claim 15, comprising the steps of: (1) contacting a biomass starting material with a hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst to carry out a reaction in a two-phase solvent system comprising an organic phase and an aqueous phase, in the presence of hydrogen as a hydrogen source, and separating the resulting product to obtain the organic phase comprising 2,5-hexanedione an aqueous phase having a pH value of 6.5-8.5; and (2) contacting the organic phase comprising 2,5-hexanedione and ethylene with the molecular sieve catalyst to produce para-xylene, wherein in step (1), the aqueous phase comprises an inorganic salt dissolved therein, the anion and cation of the inorganic salt being derived from Group VIIA elements and Group IA elements, respectively; wherein the Group VIIA element is at least one selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br, and/or the Group IA element is at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, and K.
17. The method according to claim 16, wherein in step (1), the organic phase comprises an organic solvent selected from 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4-dioxane, methyl isobutyl ketone, tetrahydrofuran, γ-valerolactone, and toluene, and mixtures thereof, and/or the mass ratio of the organic solvent to the biomass starting material is 4-60, and/or the ratio of the mass of organic solvent in the organic phase to the total amount by mass of the inorganic salt and water in the aqueous phase is 2 to 16, and/or the ratio of the mass of the inorganic salt to the mass of water is 0.10 to 0.70.
18. The method according to claim 16, wherein the mass ratio of the biomass starting material to the hydrogenation catalyst used in step (1) is in a range of from 0.2:1 to 4:1, and/or in step (1), the reaction is carried out at a temperature of 160-250° C. for 4 to 36 hours, and/or under a hydrogen pressure is 0.2-5 MPa, and/or in step (1), said hydrophobic hydrogenation catalyst comprises a hydrogenation active component and a carrier; the carrier is one or more selected from the group consisting of activated carbon and graphene having hydrophobicity; the hydrogenation active component is one or more selected from the group consisting of ruthenium, platinum, and palladium, the contact angle of the hydrogenation catalyst used in step (1) with water is greater than 50°, the hydrogenation active component is present in an amount of 0.5% to 10% by mass, calculated as metal atom, based on the mass of the hydrogenation catalyst; and/or the biomass starting material used in step (1) is one or more selected from the group consisting of cellulose, inulin, cellobiose, sucrose, glucose, fructose, corn straw, corncob, pine wood, poplar wood, and beech wood.
‘502 differs from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘502 recites step (2) which converts the 2,5-hexanedione to para-xylene.
The instant claims 1-15 are anticipated by claims 15-18 of ‘502 because ‘502 recites all of the features of instant claims 1-15.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-5906. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 Goon can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/KRISTEN W BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/SCARLETT Y GOON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights