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 Objections
Claims 3, 5, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, lines 2-3, the phrase “the subsequent feed gas composition…” has an additional line space added that isn’t required.
Regarding claim 5, the formula “Z* = (ECL + 2•EDC + VCL) (C2H6 + 0.01 •C2H4)” is likely intended to read “Z* = (ECL + 2•EDC + VCL) -+ (C2H6 + 0.01 •C2H4)”. This is based on Pg. 13, lines 24-35 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 10, line 3, the term “oxygenduring” is missing a space.
Regarding claim 16, line 2, the term “3.0MPa” should have a space between the value and the unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “first efficiency-maximizing, optimum overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value” is unclear. It is unclear how a value can be both a “first” and also be an “overall” effectiveness value. For example, it is unclear if the “first” efficiency-maximizing, optimum overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value is representative of the “overall” effectiveness, or if the first reference value is one of many in a series of values from which an overall effectiveness (such as an average of efficiency values) is obtained. The instant specification discloses that ‘"Overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness" means the net effect of the promoting and non-promoting gas phase species in chloriding the catalyst while the term "first" when used in connection with reaction condition values, aging periods, feed gas concentration values, or optimum values is merely used to connote a time frame or aging period relative to a later time frame or aging period.’ Pg. 8, lines 4-9; Pg. 8, lines 27-28. However, it remains unclear how a snapshot in time (a first as described in the specification) can be represented by a net effect of a catalyst (overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value as described in the specification) within the same value. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term is interpreted to be an initial measurement of the catalyst chloriding effectiveness from which subsequent catalytic trials with aged catalysts is compared.
Regarding claim 9, the term “a first maximum efficiency” is unclear. It is unclear how the first “maximum efficiency” can correspond to the “first efficiency-maximizing, optimum overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value”, when the “first efficiency-maximizing, optimum overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value” is supposed to be a term that describes a series of catalytic results while “a first maximum efficiency” describes a single calculation.
Regarding claim 13, the term “the ethylene oxide production parameter” lacks antecedent basis. While claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, discusses a process for manufacturing ethylene oxide, an “ethylene oxide production parameter” is not presented.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the first overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness” lacks antecedent basis. Further, the claim limitation does not clearly set forth what is being performed and in the context of claim 1, it is unclear how a selection step can be performed in claim 14 from the limitations presented in claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution, performing an operation that affects the first overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness is equivalent to “selecting one or more values.”
Regarding claim 16, the term “the first reaction pressure value” does not have antecedent basis, as the term “the first reference reaction pressure value,” introduced in claim 1, is not necessarily interpreted to be equivalent to the claimed term due to how Applicant uses terminology in the claims.
Regarding claim 17, the term “the first gas hourly space velocity” does not have antecedent basis, as the term “the first reference gas hourly space velocity,” introduced in claim 1, is not necessarily interpreted to be equivalent to the claimed term.
Regarding claim 18, the term “Z*” does not have antecedent basis, as the equation introducing the term “Z*” is introduced in claim 5.
Claims 2-18 all depend from claim 1 and thus are also rendered indefinite.
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US20100267972A1; cited in IDS dated 12/18/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a process for manufacturing alkylene oxide, including ethylene oxide, with a high efficiency silver catalyst with a rhenium promoter where a desired value of alkylene oxide production parameter is selected and maintained by adjusting reaction parameters ([0003]; [0006]; [0011]; [0060]). Zhang teaches the method compensates for activity decline in the catalyst that occurs after performing reactions by adjusting certain reaction conditions to increase the overall production rates ([0023]). Compensating for the loss of catalyst activity as a result of performing successive reactions is interpreted to be equivalent to “reducing aging-related deactivation” for rhenium-promoted silver catalysts. This interpretation is supported in at Pg. 2, lines 27-34 of the instant specification that describes aging-related performance decline as a result of performing normal operation of the catalyst in the ethylene oxide production process.
Zhang further teaches the process is operated at an initial reaction temperature to yield an initial value of alkylene oxide production, where subsequent reactions are conducted such that the overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness is maintained at a selected value by varying selected reaction parameters ([0011]; [0023]). Zhang teaches the reaction feed stream contains an olefin, including ethylene, supplied at an olefin concentration, oxygen supplied at an oxygen concentration, water supplied at a water concentration, and organic chloride such as ethyl chloride provided at an ethyl chloride concentration ([0027]-[0034]). Zhang teaches the initial reaction conditions include a reaction temperature, a reactor pressure, and a gas hourly space velocity ([0040]). Zhang performing the first instance of a reaction (i.e. an ethylene oxide production reaction on a fresh, new, and/or initial catalyst) is equivalent “a first reference reaction condition” and the various parameters associated with it.
Zhang further teaches for a given catalyst activity and within a certain range of overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness values and reaction temperatures, alkylene oxide production parameters such as the concentration of alkylene oxide in the reactor outlet stream can be adjusted and maintained without substantially sacrificing efficiency by adjusting one of the overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness or the reaction temperature while holding the other variable constant ([0067]). Zhang teaches that based on the initial outlet concentration of alkylene oxide, a reaction temperature and overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness parameter is selected, where the efficiency changes by no greater than -8 percent ([0070]; [0083]). Zhang maintaining the catalyst chloriding effectiveness with no greater than -8 percent change appears to meet the limitation “a first overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness that never exceeds 95 percent of the first efficiency-maximizing, optimum overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value during the first catalyst aging period.”
Zhang further teaches that the reaction temperature during the reaction can be unchanged, while pressure and gas hourly space velocity is applied ([0040]; [0067]). Zhang teaches a skilled artisan may maintain these properties or adjust one variable from the group including temperature, pressure, and gas hourly space velocity to arrive at a desired catalyst chloriding effectiveness ([0066]-[0068]). Zhang teaching the temperature can be maintained meets the limitation of “a first reaction temperature that is no less than the first reference reaction temperature and which varies from the first reaction temperature by no more than +3 °C during the first catalyst aging period.”
Zhang further teaches the oxygen, ethylene and water feed concentrations can be held constant while varying other variables such as temperature and ethyl chloride concentration ([0030]-[0034]; [0092]).
Zhang teaches that the process can use aged catalyst have an age of no greater than 10 kt alkylene oxide/m3 catalyst ([0075]).
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). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zhang (efficiency changes by no greater than -8 percent; temperature can be maintained; oxygen, ethylene and water feed concentrations can be held constant; aged catalyst have an age of no greater than 10 kt alkylene oxide/m3 catalyst) overlaps with the claimed ranges (never exceeds 95 percent; temperature varies no more than +3 °C; oxygen varies by no more than +1.2 volume percent; water concentration varies by no more than -0.4 volume percent; aging is no less than 0.03 kt ethylene oxide/m3 catalyst). Therefore, the ranges in Zhang render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the process of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches following the initial and first reaction, subsequent catalyst reactions can be performed ([0040]; [0067]; [0071]). Zhang further teaches that the reaction temperature during the reaction can be unchanged, while pressure and gas hourly space velocity is applied ([0040]; [0067]). Zhang teaches the reaction feed stream contains an olefin, including ethylene, supplied at an olefin concentration, oxygen supplied at an oxygen concentration, water supplied at a water concentration, and organic chloride such as ethyl chloride provided at an ethyl chloride concentration ([0027]-[0034]). Zhang teaches the initial reaction conditions include a reaction temperature, a reactor pressure, and a gas hourly space velocity ([0040]).
Zhang further teaches for a given catalyst activity and within a certain range of overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness values and reaction temperatures, alkylene oxide production parameters such as the concentration of alkylene oxide in the reactor outlet stream can be adjusted and maintained without substantially sacrificing efficiency by adjusting one of the overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness or the reaction temperature while holding the other variable constant ([0067]). Zhang teaches that based on the initial outlet concentration of alkylene oxide, a reaction temperature and overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness parameter is selected, where the efficiency changes by no greater than -8 percent ([0070]; [0083]). Zhang maintaining the catalyst chloriding effectiveness with no greater than -8 percent change appears to meet the limitation “a first overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness that never exceeds 95 percent of the first efficiency-maximizing, optimum overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value during the first catalyst aging period.”
Zhang further teaches that the reaction temperature during the reaction can be unchanged, while pressure and gas hourly space velocity is applied ([0040]; [0067]). Zhang teaches a skilled artisan may maintain these properties or adjust one variable from the group including temperature, pressure, and gas hourly space velocity to arrive at a desired catalyst chloriding effectiveness ([0066]-[0068]). Zhang teaching the temperature can be maintained meets the limitation of “a first reaction temperature that is no less than the first reference reaction temperature and which varies from the first reaction temperature by no more than +3 °C during the first catalyst aging period.”
Zhang further teaches the oxygen, ethylene and water feed concentrations can be held constant while varying other variables such as temperature and ethyl chloride concentration ([0030]-[0034]; [0092]).
Zhang teaches that the process can use aged catalyst have an age of no greater than 10 kt alkylene oxide/m3 catalyst ([0075]).
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). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zhang (efficiency changes by no greater than -8 percent; temperature can be maintained; oxygen, ethylene and water feed concentrations can be held constant; aged catalyst have an age of no greater than 10 kt alkylene oxide/m3 catalyst) overlaps with the claimed ranges (never exceeds 95 percent; temperature varies no more than +3 °C; oxygen varies by no more than +1.2 volume percent; water concentration varies by no more than -0.4 volume percent; aging is no less than 0.03 kt ethylene oxide/m3 catalyst). Therefore, the ranges in Zhang render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and 2 and Zhang further teaches the reactions can be conducted such than an alklyene oxide production parameter is obtained ([0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang teaches the process can use aged catalysts have an age of no greater than 10 kt alkylene oxide/m3 catalyst ([0075]). 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). In the instant case, the range taught by Zhang (aged catalyst have an age of no greater than 10 kt alkylene oxide/m3 catalyst) overlaps with the claimed ranges (aging is no less than 0.06 kt ethylene oxide/m3 catalyst). Therefore, the range in Zhang renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches that a dimensionless Z* quantity can be calculated to define an “overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value” ([0033]). Zhang teaches the overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value is determined by the concentration of ethyl chloride ppmv plus the concentration of other gaseous chloride promoters, including ethylene dichloride ppmv and vinyl chloride ppmv ([0033]-[0034]). Zhang teaches the Z* quantity also contains the ethane equivalent in mole percent and the ethylene quantity in mole percent ([0035]).
Zhang differs the instant claim in that the Z* quantity in Zhang is represented as a fraction ( ratio of ethyl chloride and chlorided promoter gases over the ethane and ethylene gas concentrations) while the instant invention appears to be a sum of these values. See [0036] in Zhang.
However, Zhang clearly directs a skilled artisan to adjust all of the claimed parameters in order to arrive at an overall catalyst chloride effectiveness value that is desired. Zhang further teaches the term is “dimensionless” and that it is important that the relative effectiveness of the gaseous chlorine-containing promoter and the hydrocarbon dechlorinating species also be measured under the reaction conditions which are being used in the process. Z* will preferably be maintained at a level that is no greater than 20 and which is most preferably no greater than 15 ([0033]-[0035]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the concentrations of ethyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, ethane, and ethylene in the feed gas and would be motivated to do so in order to arrive at a desired overall catalyst chloride effectiveness value. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and 5 and Zhang further teaches that the value of Z* can deviate from an optimum Z* value obtained from the initial optimum reaction and that the optimal overall chloriding effectiveness can be arrived at by optimization of iterative Z* values ([0082]-[0084]; [0090]-[0095]; Fig. 5). While Zhang does not explicitly call the optimum Z* value “Z*opt(1),” Zhang describes an equivalent value by disclosing the calculation of an optimal Z* value based on initial and continued Z* values.
Regarding claims 7-8, Zhang teaches the method of claim 6 and Zhang further teaches the change in Z* is no more than about 0.5% from the optimum efficiency, where the optimum efficiency is 89.8% ([0081]-[0083]). Accordingly, Zhang teaches both that the first overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness never exceeds 95 percent as well as that the effectiveness never falls below 75 percent. 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). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zhang (Z* no more than 0.5% from optimum efficiency of 89.8%; never falls below 75 percent) overlaps with the claimed ranges (optimum efficiency never exceeds 95 percent; optimum efficiency never falls below 75 percent ). Therefore, the range in Zhang renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the change in Z* is no more than about 0.5% from the optimum efficiency, where the optimum efficiency is 89.8% ([0081]-[0083]). While the claim is indefinite for reasons outlined above, Zhang teaching the efficiency never falls below 0.5% from an optimum efficiency (i.e. through subsequent runs after the first), appears to meet the limitation claimed.
Regarding claims 10-12, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the temperature or oxygen concentration can be adjusted over the course of catalytic reactions to obtain a desired value of alkylene oxide production ([0011]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the alkylene oxide production parameter can include oxygen conversion ([0098]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches one selected overall catalyst chloriding effectiveness value can be adjusted (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the first reaction temperature ranges from about 200 to 300 °C ([0040]). 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). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zhang (200 to about 300 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (about 200 to about 300 °C). Therefore, the range in Zhang renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the pressure value ranges from about 506 kPa to about 3.0 MPa ([0040]). 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). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zhang (506 kPa to 3.0 MPa) overlaps with the claimed range (500 kPa to 3.0 MPa). Therefore, the range in Zhang renders obvious the claimed range..
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the gas hourly space velocity ranges from greater than about 3000 hr-1 ([0040]). 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). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Zhang greater than 3000 hr-1) overlaps with the claimed range (at least about 3000 hr-1). Therefore, the range in Zhang renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 and Zhang further teaches the Z* is at least about 1 and is no greater than 20 ([0036]). Examiner notes Zhang calculates Z* with a modified formula, however, as noted above, Zhang teaches the Z* term is “dimensionless” and that it is important that the relative effectiveness of the gaseous chlorine-containing promoter and the hydrocarbon dechlorinating species also be measured under the reaction conditions which are being used in the process. Z* will preferably be maintained at a level that is no greater than 20 and which is most preferably no greater than 15 ([0033]-[0035]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the concentrations of ethyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, ethane, and ethylene in the feed gas and would be motivated to do so in order to arrive at a desired overall catalyst chloride effectiveness value. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights