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 claims
.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14, 18, 23-25, 27-29, 32, 34-36, 39, 45-52 are pending.
Claims 8-9, 12-13, 15-17, 19-22, 26, 30-31, 33, 37-38 and 40-44 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-11, 14, 18, 23-24, 32, 34-35 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes (US 4,177,135) in view of Wise (US 3,558,468).
With respect to claims 1 and 5-6, Rhodes discloses a method of processing a coal-based feed stock to make a high value product, said method comprising:
providing said coal-based feedstock (18), wherein said coal-based feedstock is at least partially derived from coal (see figure 1, col 3, lines 10-20);
contacting said coal-based feedstock (18) with one or more solvents under solvent treatment conditions for generating a soluble phase product and a remainder insoluble phase product (see figure 1, see col 3 lines 35-50, see col 5 lines 4-20); and
fractionating (separating) said soluble phase product generating one or more precipitated fractions (46) at least two fractions (54, 62) under conditions such that at least one of said fractionated products is said high value product (62) (see col 5, lines 1-56);
Rhodes further discloses wherein contacting step is carried out with benzene at a temperature from 204°C to 371°C, pressure of about 600 psig to 1500 psig (see col 12 lines 40-50, 400°F to 700°F).
Rhodes does not disclose wherein the contacting step is carried out at supercritical fluid conditions.
However, in a related process, Wise discloses utilizing benzene at supercritical conditions to extract coal or coal tar (see abstract), wherein the conditions, pressure of 1000 psig to 5000 psig and temperature of 290°C to about 360°C (see col 3 lines 5-20), allow for production of coal that is either ash-free or substantially reduced (see col 1 lines 30-45).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Rhodes with operating the contacting step at supercritical fluid conditions in view of Wise, as Wise discloses said conditions produce coal that is either ash-free or substantially reduced.
With respect to claim 7, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Wise further discloses utilizing toluene (see col 1 lines 55-65).
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein said one or more solvents at least partial comprises one or more recycle streams derived from a coal treatment process, petrochemical process or any combination of these (see figure 1, recycle solvent, see col 3 lines 35-50 and col 5 lines 5-20).
With respect to claim 11, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the solvent treatment condition include a ratio of volume of solvent to volume of coal from about 1:1 to 10:1 (see col 3 lines 35-45).
With respect to claim 14, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein contacting step is carried out at a temperature from 204°C to 371°C (see col 12 lines 40-50, 400°F to 700°F).
With respect to claim 18, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Rhodes further discloses wherein said contacting step is carried out using a counter current flow (see col 11 lines 1-10).
With respect to claim 23-24, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein said fractionation step is a partial precipitation via flash (see col 5 lines 1-20).
With respect to claim 32, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein said fractionating step further comprises decreasing the amount of solvent in said soluble phase product (see figure 1, solvent recovery train).
With respect to claim 34, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 32.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the amount of solvent in said soluble phase product is decreased by removal of solvent vapor (see figure 1, solvent recovery train).
With respect to claim 35, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 32.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the amount of solvent in said soluble phase product is decreased by flash evaporation (see col 5 lines 1-50).
With respect to claim 39, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein said precipitated fraction include one or more tetralin fraction and one or more soluble fraction (see col 5 lines 1-50, insoluble coal product with entrained solvent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-4 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes and Wise as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schindler (US 4,547,282).
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1. Rhodes further discloses wherein the coal liquefaction feedstock may be produced by any coal liquefaction process (see col 3 lines 10-35).
Rhodes does not disclose wherein the coal liquefaction feedstock is derived from subbituminous coal.
However, in a related process Schindler discloses wherein feedstock for a coal liquefaction process, comprises bituminous, subbituminous or lignite (see col 4 lines 60-65).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to utilize a coal liquefaction feedstock is derived from subbituminous coal with the Rhodes process in view of Schindler, as Schindler discloses that conventional feedstock for a coal liquefaction process, comprises bituminous, subbituminous or lignite.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1. Rhodes further discloses wherein the coal liquefaction feedstock may be produced by any coal liquefaction process (see col 3 lines 10-35).
Rhodes does not disclose wherein the coal liquefaction feedstock is generated by thermal treatment of coal.
However, in a related process Schindler discloses feedstock for a coal liquefaction process goes through a thermal treatment (see col 4 lines 60-68).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Rhodes process with the coal liquefaction feedstock generated by a thermal treatment of coal in view of Schindler, as Schindler discloses that conventional feedstock for a coal liquefaction process goes through a thermal treatment.
With respect to claim 4, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1. Rhodes further discloses wherein the coal liquefaction feedstock may be produced by any coal liquefaction process (see col 3 lines 10-35).
Rhodes does not disclose wherein the coal liquefaction feedstock is generated by mechanical processing of coal.
However, in a related process Schindler discloses feedstock for a coal liquefaction process goes through a pulverization step in the processing of coal (see col 4 lines 60-68).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Rhodes process with the coal liquefaction feedstock generated by a mechanical process of coal in view of Schindler, as Schindler discloses that conventional for a coal liquefaction process, the coal goes through a pulverization step.
With respect to claim 36, the prior combination discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Rhodes further discloses wherein the insoluble portion are separated for further processing (see col 5 lines 1-20).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the process comprises thermally treating the precipitated fractions.
However, in a related process Schindler discloses thermal treating the insoluble fraction to produce hydrogen (see figure 1, and col 5 lines 35-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rhodes (US 4,177,135).
With respect to claim 45, Rhodes discloses a high value product wherein the high value product comprising a non-fuel product (see col 1 lines 35-68 and col 2 lines 1-35).
Examiner notes product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps only the structure implied by steps (see MPEP 2113).
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)
Given that the product is claimed so broadly, the claim is anticipated by Rhodes.
With respect to claim 47, Rhodes discloses a high value product wherein the high value product comprising a high value product (see col 1 lines 35-68 and col 2 lines 1-35).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 46 and 48-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ackerman et al (US 2020/0332197).
With respect to claim 46, Ackerman discloses a high value product comprising a polymer or polymer precursor (see abstract).
With respect to claim 48, Ackerman discloses a high value product comprising a composite material (see abstract).
With respect to claim 49, Ackerman discloses a high value product comprising a graphene product (see abstract).
With respect to claim 50, Ackerman discloses a high value product comprising a building material (see abstract).
With respect to claim 51, Ackerman discloses a high value product comprising a coating material (see abstract).
With respect to claim 52, Ackerman discloses a high value product comprising an agricultural material (see abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 27-29 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 25 and 29, the prior combination (Rhodes and Wise) discloses a substantial portion of the claimed invention.
However, the prior combination fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the process with the claimed cooling step, as claimed.
With respect to claims 27 and 28 the prior combination (Rhodes and Wise) discloses a substantial portion of the claimed invention.
However, the prior combination fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the process by further comprising further comprising isolating said one or more precipitated fractions from said one or more remainder liquid phase fraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached on 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771