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 – 9 are pending.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the superficial linear velocity" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuya Takuya et al. (JP 2020070266) (Takuya; English translation) in view of Gordon, J.H. (US 5,684,216 = JPH 08-192047) and further in view of Tetsuya Suzuta (US 2007/0297959 = WO2006/035951) (Suzuta et al. and Yada Shuhe et al. (US 20080216915 = JP2003-206244) (Yada).
The rejected claims cover, inter alia, a method for producing an alcohol comprising continuously supplying a raw material gas containing water and an olefin having 2 to 5 carbon atoms to a reactor having a catalyst layer filled with a solid acid catalyst in which a heteropolyacid or a salt thereof is supported on a carrier, and subjecting them to a hydration reaction in a gas phase using the solid acid catalyst to obtain an alcohol, wherein the hydration reaction is carried out with the temperature difference in the catalyst layer of 6°C or less.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 4 and 8 further limit the reactor. Dependent claim 5 – 7 further limit the reaction. Dependent claim 9 further limits the products.
However, Takuya disclose a method for producing alcohol by a hydration reaction of olefins and a catalyst, that is particularly suitable for producing ethanol from ethylene. ([0001]). The method is for supplying an olefin and water to a reactor and producing an alcohol through a hydration reaction of the olefin, wherein a solid acid catalyst in which a Dawson-type heteropolyacid represented by formula (1) is supported on a carrier as used in claim 1 ([0012]), and also indicates that ethylene is used as the olefin, and ethanol is produced through a hydration reaction (claims, claim 9, etc.). Moreover, Takuya (examples) indicates that the hydration reaction of ethylene is carried out by using a tubular reactor (made of SUS316, inner diameter of 10 mm, length of 300 mm) and feeding water and ethylene gas into the reactor ([0040]).
Additonally, Gordon discloses an olefin hydration method in which olefins are hydrated in a gas phase to obtain the corresponding alcohols, the olefins being hydrated in the presence of a catalyst system composed of a heteropolyacid catalyst supported on a siliceous carrier (claims 1 - 11), and also indicates that ethylene is converted to ethanol (claim 4). Moreover, the examples of Gordon indicate that the production of ethanol is carried out under gas-phase continuous flow conditions using a tubular reactor (col. 5, ln 10 to col. 11, ln 60).
The difference between the instantly claimed invention and the teachings of Takuya and Gordon is as follows: the temperature difference in the catalyst layer of 6°C or less.
However, with retard to the temperature difference in the catalyst layer of 6°C or less, the Examiner turns to the teachings of Suzuta and Yada. The prior art of Suzuta discloses a multitubular catalytic gas-phase reaction apparatus. Suzuta indicates that in exothermal reaction using a multitubular reaction apparatus, so-called hot spots may be generated in sites where the efficiency of removal of reaction heat is worsened by drifts of a heat medium flow, or in sites where the catalyst concentration is high and so the reaction speed is high, or the like. In the hot spots, deterioration of a catalyst or a decrease in purity of a reaction product is prone to readily occur due to extreme temperature rises. (pp. 1, [0005]). Yada indicates that portions in which the flow of a heat medium is uneven form in a multi-tube heat exchange-type reactor when a plant is scaled up, and as a result, heat removal becomes poor in some reaction tubes, localized abnormal high-temperature zones (hot spots) are generated, and resulting in a reaction out of control (pp. 1, [0015]). Furthermore, Yada indicates that examples of typical means for preventing the generation of hot spots include: mechanically modifying the reactor, such as by reducing the diameter of a reaction tube, using a heat medium having a large heat capacity, and increasing the amount of the circulating heat medium, in order to lower the temperature of a catalyst layer inside the reaction tube; and modifying the reaction conditions, such as by changing the concentration of a reactant gas (pp. 2, [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to produce an alcohol through a hydration reaction of they type as taught by Takuya or Gordon; then in light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing of the present application (priority date), it is obvious that reaction conditions need to be optimized in order to carry out a desired reaction with high productivity, and the generation of hot spots impairs reaction temperature stability, which is an important reaction condition, and thus a person skilled in the art would obviously strive to suppress the generation of hot spots. Just as discussed in the teachings of Suzuta and Yada. As such, considering the aforementioned matters, in the inventions disclosed in Takuya and Gordon, suppressing the generation of hot spots by known means and consequently carrying out the hydration reaction while maintaining the "temperature difference within the catalyst layer at 6°C or lower" with the objective of carrying out the hydration reaction with high productivity, is merely a matter that could be easily carried out by a person skilled in the art.
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).
Lastly, optimizing various reaction conditions, environments, or the like is also merely a matter that could be appropriately carried out by a person of ordinary skilled in the art, routine experimentation.
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
Prosecution Insights