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 the Application
Claims 1-15 are pending and under current examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cui (US 20200157021 A1).
Cui discloses a process for preparing aromatics comprising:
Obtaining raw material gas mixture comprising CO and/ CO2 and H2 from syngas (produced from biomass, coal etc., reads on instant claims 13-15) to manufacture aromatic compound mixture with the reaction composite catalyst, which is a mixed catalyst Zn, Cu etc., with ZSM-5-type zeolite carrier (i.e. metal is present in the oxide form and it is the same catalyst used in example 2 of the instant specification) at a reaction temperature of 300-500C and reaction pressure of 1-10 MPa (same as step A of the instant claims);
Using syngas coming from any biomass, fossil resource etc., to manufacture aromatic mixture (same as step B of the instant claims);
Obtaining a combined aromatic mixture from step (1) and (2) as above (same as step C of the instant claims);
And separating a desired aromatic compound from step 3 mixture and purifying the aromatic compound (same as step D of the instant claims) (entire application, especially, figures, examples and claims):
PNG
media_image1.png
764
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
688
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The cited prior art discloses a gas-liquid separation unit for separating a gas phase containing unreacted gas (high boiling component) by cooling the produced gas mixture and liquid component comprising water phase containing water soluble component/s and oil phase comprising aromatic compound mixture; a step of separating gas mixture to unreacted gas (comprising hydrogen, CO2, CO) and liquified gas (i.e., gas phase is purged) and a circulation step of mixing at least a part of unreacted gas (same as raw material mixture gas with same composition as in the instant claims to step A; separating liquid phase to oil phase and the water phase using conventional method (conventional method is relative density difference between oil and water (an inherent property) that leads to separation of oil from water); separating aromatic compounds from oil (pooled from Step 1 and 2; i.e. oil phase separated from 1 and 2 steps is present in the combined form) (entire application, especially, figures, examples and claims). Since the raw material gas is present in the produced gas mixture, the heat difference between two mixtures if any is expected to be exchanged. This is because heat is always exchanged between two mixtures in contact having any difference of temperature (second law of thermodynamics). The cited prior art further discloses step 2 (same as step B) aromatizing an olefin and excess hydrogen generated is separated and circulated to step (1) (same as step A of the instant claims) forming a raw material mixture (reads on instant claim 12).
With regards to limitation of claim 11 of catalytically reforming heavy naphtha in step B-Since the cited prior art teaches same step B using same reactant and catalyst, the heavy naphtha, light naphtha or any other reactant present is expected to be reformed with the catalyst whether or not recognized by the cited prior art. Thus, the cited prior art reads on limitation of the instant claims.
Since the cited prior art reads on all the limitations of the instant claims 1-5, 7-15, these claims are anticipated.
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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US 20200157021 A1).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Cui discloses a process for preparing aromatics comprising:
Obtaining raw material gas mixture comprising CO and/ CO2 and H2 from syngas (produced from biomass, coal etc., reads on instant claims 13-15) to manufacture aromatic compound mixture with the reaction composite catalyst, which is a mixed catalyst Zn, Cu etc., with ZSM-5-type zeolite carrier (i.e. metal is present in the oxide form and it is the same catalyst used in example 2 of the instant specification) at a reaction temperature of 300-500C and reaction pressure of 1-10 MPa (same as step A of the instant claims);
Using syngas coming from any biomass, fossil resource etc., to manufacture aromatic mixture (same as step B of the instant claims);
Obtaining a combined aromatic mixture from step (1) and (2) as above (same as step C of the instant claims);
And separating a desired aromatic compound from step 3 mixture and purifying the aromatic compound (same as step D of the instant claims) (entire application, especially, figures, examples and claims):
PNG
media_image1.png
764
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
688
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The cited prior art discloses a gas-liquid separation unit for separating a gas phase containing unreacted gas (high boiling component) by cooling the produced gas mixture and liquid component comprising water phase containing water soluble component/s and oil phase comprising aromatic compound mixture; a step of separating gas mixture to unreacted gas (comprising hydrogen, CO2, CO) and liquified gas (i.e., gas phase is purged) and a circulation step of mixing at least a part of unreacted gas (same as raw material mixture gas with same composition as in the instant claims to step A; separating liquid phase to oil phase and the water phase using conventional method (conventional method is relative density difference between oil and water (an inherent property) that leads to separation of oil from water); separating aromatic compounds from oil (pooled from Step 1 and 2; i.e. oil phase separated from 1 and 2 steps is present in the combined form) (entire application, especially, figures, examples and claims). Since the raw material gas is present in the produced gas mixture, the heat difference between two mixtures if any is expected to be exchanged. This is because heat is always exchanged between two mixtures in contact having any difference of temperature (second law of thermodynamics). The cited prior art further discloses step 2 (same as step B) aromatizing an olefin and excess hydrogen generated is separated and circulated to step (1) (same as step A of the instant claims) forming a raw material mixture (reads on instant claim 12).
With regards to limitation of claim 11 of catalytically reforming heavy naphtha in step B-Since the cited prior art teaches same step B using same reactant and catalyst, the heavy naphtha, light naphtha or any other reactant present is expected to be reformed with the catalyst whether or not recognized by the cited prior art. Thus, the cited prior art reads on limitation of the instant claims.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Cui teaches applicants process of making aromatic compounds, but fails to teach the step of using purged gas as a part of fuel for a heating furnace in the step B or D.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
With regards to above limitation-Although Cui teaches same purge gas (liquified gas) comprising same components as in the instant claims, the cited prior art is silent about using purged gas as a part of fuel for a heating furnace in the step B or D. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cui’s process by using the purge gas as fuel instead relieving it into the air to save the cost of fuel. Thus, the cited prior art meets limitation of the instant claims.
Based on the above established facts, it appears that teachings of above cited prior art read applicants’ process.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled person in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met: (1) the prior art reference must teach or suggest all the claim limitations; (2) there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; and (3) there must be a reasonable expectation of success; and (MPEP § 2143).
In this case, Cui teaches applicants process of making aromatic compounds using steps 1-4.
In KSR International Vo. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on a combination of elements found in the prior art,” (Id. At 1395) and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (Id. At 1395). See MPEP 2143 - Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-9].
In this case at least prong (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would apply.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, there is a reasonable expectation of success that purge gas separated by the cited prior art may be used in any method, such as step B or D as a fuel or a reactant or fuel in another process etc. and can be made by teachings of the above cited prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by taking the advantage of the teaching of the above cited references and to make the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying such parameters is prima facie obvious because an ordinary artisan would be motivated to develop an alternative process for economic reasons or convenient purposes from a known individual reaction steps, and to arrive applicants process with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is within the scope to modify the process through a routine experimentation.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US 20200157021 A1) and Suzuki et al (JP2019205969A, as provided by the applicant on IDS dated 01/18/2024; Machine English translation is used for this rejection) in combination.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Cui discloses a process for preparing aromatics comprising:
Obtaining raw material gas mixture comprising CO and/ CO2 and H2 from syngas (produced from biomass, coal etc., reads on instant claims 13-15) to manufacture aromatic compound mixture with the reaction composite catalyst, which is a mixed catalyst Zn, Cu etc., with ZSM-5-type zeolite carrier (i.e. metal is present in the oxide form and it is the same catalyst used in example 2 of the instant specification) at a reaction temperature of 300-500C and reaction pressure of 1-10 MPa (same as step A of the instant claims);
Using syngas coming from any biomass, fossil resource etc., to manufacture aromatic mixture (same as step B of the instant claims);
Obtaining a combined aromatic mixture from step (1) and (2) as above (same as step C of the instant claims);
And separating a desired aromatic compound from step 3 mixture and purifying the aromatic compound (same as step D of the instant claims) (entire application, especially, figures, examples and claims):
PNG
media_image1.png
764
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
688
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The cited prior art discloses a gas-liquid separation unit for separating a gas phase containing unreacted gas (high boiling component) by cooling the produced gas mixture and liquid component comprising water phase containing water soluble component/s and oil phase comprising aromatic compound mixture; a step of separating gas mixture to unreacted gas (comprising hydrogen, CO2, CO) and liquified gas (i.e., gas phase is purged) and a circulation step of mixing at least a part of unreacted gas (same as raw material mixture gas with same composition as in the instant claims to step A; separating liquid phase to oil phase and the water phase using conventional method (conventional method is relative density difference between oil and water (an inherent property) that leads to separation of oil from water); separating aromatic compounds from oil (pooled from Step 1 and 2; i.e. oil phase separated from 1 and 2 steps is present in the combined form) (entire application, especially, figures, examples and claims). Since the raw material gas is present in the produced gas mixture, the heat difference between two mixtures if any is expected to be exchanged. This is because heat is always exchanged between two mixtures in contact having any difference of temperature (second law of thermodynamics). The cited prior art further discloses step 2 (same as step B) aromatizing an olefin and excess hydrogen generated is separated and circulated to step (1) (same as step A of the instant claims) forming a raw material mixture (reads on instant claim 12).
With regards to limitation of claim 11 of catalytically reforming heavy naphtha in step B-Since the cited prior art teaches same step B using same reactant and catalyst, the heavy naphtha, light naphtha or any other reactant present is expected to be reformed with the catalyst whether or not recognized by the cited prior art. Thus, the cited prior art reads on limitation of the instant claims.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Cui teaches applicants process of making aromatic compounds, but fails to teach the step of using purged gas as a part of fuel for a heating furnace in the step B or D; and oxide of metal Cu, Cr etc.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
With regards to above limitation-Although Cui teaches same purge gas (liquified gas) comprising same components as in the instant claims, the cited prior art is silent about using purged gas as a part of fuel for a heating furnace in the step B or D. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cui’s process by using the purge gas as fuel instead relieving it into the air to save the cost of fuel. Thus, the cited prior art meets limitation of the instant claims.
With regards to above limitation of oxide of Cu, Cr etc., in the mixed catalyst- Cui teaches the reaction composite catalyst, which is a mixed catalyst Zn, Cu etc., with ZSM-5-type zeolite carrier (i.e. metal is present in the oxide form as doped in the carrier and it is the same catalyst used in example 2 of the instant specification).
This limitation is further cured by Suzuki.
In the same field of endeavor of making aromatic compounds using CO2 and H2-Suzuki discloses a process of conversion of a mixed gas of carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst containing ZSM-5 coated with silicalite and zin/chrome oxideclaim 2 to produce a product containing paraxylene and others including water by-product under the condition of temperature of from 200 to 500 degree C and a pressure of from 0.8 to 3.5 MPaclaim 3 (the abstract; the third paragraph on page 3 of the translation; see “Method for producing para-xylene” on page 9 of the translation).
Thus, with the guidance provided by Cui and Suzuki, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Cui’s catalyst may be substituted with Suzuki’s catalyst to achieve the same result.
Further, Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Thus, the cited prior art meets all limitations of the instant claims.
Based on the above established facts, it appears that teachings of above cited prior art read applicants’ process.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled person 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 at the time of the invention.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met: (1) the prior art reference must teach or suggest all the claim limitations; (2) there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; and (3) there must be a reasonable expectation of success; and (MPEP § 2143).
In this case, Cui teaches applicants process of making aromatic compounds using steps 1-4. Suzuki discloses a process of conversion of a mixed gas of carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst containing ZSM-5 coated with silicalite and zin/chrome oxideclaim 2 to produce a product containing paraxylene and others including water by-product under the condition of temperature of from 200 to 500 degree C and a pressure of from 0.8 to 3.5 MPa.
In KSR International Vo. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on a combination of elements found in the prior art,” (Id. At 1395) and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (Id. At 1395). See MPEP 2143 - Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-9].
In this case at least prong (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would apply.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, there is a reasonable expectation of success that purge gas separated by the cited prior art may be used in any method, such as step B or D as a fuel or a reactant or fuel in another process etc. and can be made by teachings of the above cited prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by taking the advantage of the teaching of the above cited references and to make the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying such parameters is prima facie obvious because an ordinary artisan would be motivated to develop an alternative process for economic reasons or convenient purposes from a known individual reaction steps, and to arrive applicants process with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is within the scope to modify the process through a routine experimentation.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 in the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12617739 B2, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The claims of instant application and claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12617739 B2 are drawn to same process of making aromatic compound using same steps, reactant, catalysts and reaction conditions with a difference in wording.
The difference of wording, however, does not constitute a patentable distinction, because the claims in the present invention simply fall within the scope of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12617739 B2. For the foregoing reasons, the instantly claimed process is made obvious.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See also MPEP § 804.
Conclusion
No Claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PANCHAM BAKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3463. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 7-4.30 EST.
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, Milligan Adam can be reached at 571-2707674. 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.
/PANCHAM BAKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights