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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 2/5/24.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 23-26 and 30-32 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 13-14, 16, 19-20 and 23-25, drawn to a method for the production of phenol.
Group 2, claim(s) 26 and 30, drawn to the use of 20 parts by weight or less of a carbohydrate contained in a biomass for the production of 1 part of phenol.
Group 3, claim(s) 31-32, drawn to a method for the synthesis of a bisphenol compound.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The method of Group 1 clearly lacks a special technical feature being obvious over Lu et al. (EP 3828158 A1, pub date June 2, 2021), in view of Spindler et al. (US 5100791, pub date Mar. 31, 1992), further in view of Ichikawa (US 3299125, pub date Jan. 17, 1967), further in view of Taketomo (Air Oxidation of Aromatic Aldehyde VI. Air Oxidation of Benzaldehyde in the Presence of Benzonitrile, Nagasaki University Faculty of Education Natural Science Research Report No. 32, 79-82, 1981), further in view of Zhou et al. (Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 181, 118-126, 2016), and further in view of Zhang (CN1557543A, pub date Dec. 29, 2004) (also see the English Translation). (Please see the 103 rejections below)
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Tsukeda on 6/18/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13-14, 16, 19-20 and 23-25. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 26 and 30-32 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
As a result, claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13-14, 16, 19-20 and 23-25 are being examined in this Office Action.
Priority
The applicant claims benefit as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
50
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following:
Claim 19 is objected to because of the informal claim language “said transition metal catalyst being an element chosen from the elements of groups 8 to 10.” A catalyst comprising an oxide of a transition metal is not itself an element. It appears that “said transition metal catalyst” should read “said transition metal.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Rejection I
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (EP 3828158 A1, pub date June 2, 2021), in view of Spindler et al. (US 5100791, pub date Mar. 31, 1992), further in view of Ichikawa (US 3299125, pub date Jan. 17, 1967, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24), and further in view of Zhang (CN1557543A, pub date Dec. 29, 2004, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24) (also see the English Translation).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Lu teaches a method for producing benzyl alcohol and homologues thereof from short-chain alcohols by catalytic conversion. Lu teaches that short-chain alcohols such as methanol and ethanol are increasingly available through biomass fermentation and teaches development of a green and sustainable route for producing benzyl alcohol using methanol and ethanol as mixed raw materials. (Lu, paragraphs [0003]-[0007]).
Lu teaches introducing a mixture of ethanol and methanol into a reactor packed with transition metal-hydroxyl phosphate catalyst to produce benzyl alcohol by a one-pot coupling-aromatization reaction. Lu further teaches that the transition metals are selected from Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Ir, Zn and Y, and that the hydroxyl phosphate is preferably Ca10(OH)2(PO4)6. Thus, Lu teaches step (B) of independent claim 1 and the transition metal catalyst and hydroxyapatite support of claim 7. (Lu, paragraphs [0007]-[0013], claims 1-3).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Lu is deficient in the sense that Lu does not teach step (A), producing the ethanol used in step (B) from biomass.
However, Spindler teaches producing ethanol from plant biomass by forming a substrate from plant biomass including cellulose and hemicellulose hydrolysates, inoculating the substrate with the yeast Brettanomyces custersii CBS 5512, fermenting sugars of the biomass-derived substrate to ethanol, and recovering the ethanol from the fermented substrate. Thus, Spindler teaches producing the ethanol starting material from biomass as required by step (A) of claim 1. (Spindler, Abstract, col. 1-col. 2, claims 1 and 7).
Lu in view of Spindler is deficient in the sense that the combination does not teach step (C) of independent claim 1, wherein the benzyl alcohol and/or benzaldehyde produced in step (B) is reacted with oxygen to produce benzoic acid.
However, Ichikawa teaches a process for preparing aromatic carboxylic acids by reacting an aromatic compound having an oxidizable methyl, hydroxymethyl or aldehyde group with molecular oxygen, such as oxygen or air. Ichikawa expressly identifies benzyl alcohol as a hydroxymethyl-substituted aromatic starting material and benzaldehyde as an aldehyde-substituted aromatic starting material. Therefore, Ichikawa teaches reacting benzyl alcohol and/or benzaldehyde with molecular oxygen to produce the corresponding aromatic carboxylic acid, i.e. benzoic acid, as required by step (C). (Ichikawa, col. 1, paragraphs 1-3; col. 3, starting materials; claims 1 and 9).
Lu in view of Spindler and Ichikawa is deficient in the sense that the combination does not teach step (D) of independent claim 1, wherein the benzoic acid produced in step (C) is reacted with oxygen to produce phenol.
However, Zhang teaches a process for preparing phenol by gas-phase oxidative decarboxylation of benzoic acid. Zhang teaches introducing preheated benzoic acid into a fixed-bed reactor containing catalyst while introducing air, and teaches conversion of benzoic acid of 43-82% and phenol selectivity of 46-88%. Thus, Zhang teaches reacting benzoic acid with oxygen to produce phenol as required by step (D) of claim 1. (Zhang, English Translation, claims 8-10; Description, paragraphs [0001]-[0004]).
With regard to claim 2, Spindler further teaches that the biomass-derived fermentation substrate contains sugars including glucose and galactose, which are monosaccharides, and that such sugars are fermented to ethanol. Therefore, Spindler teaches or suggests the monosaccharide-containing carbohydrate limitation of claim 2. (Spindler, claims 7 and 18).
With regard to claim 4, Spindler teaches that the reaction producing ethanol is a fermentation reaction employing the yeast Brettanomyces custersii CBS 5512 in a fermentation medium. Therefore, Spindler teaches the fermentation and microorganism limitations of claim 4. (Spindler, Abstract; claims 1 and 7).
With regard to claim 7, Lu teaches that the reaction between ethanol and methanol takes place in the presence of a transition metal-hydroxyl phosphate catalyst, wherein the transition metal is selected from Co, Ni, Cu, Ag, Ir, Zn and Y and the hydroxyl phosphate is preferably hydroxyapatite having the formula Ca10(OH)2(PO4)6. Therefore, Lu teaches the catalyst limitations of claim 7. (Lu, paragraphs [0007]-[0013], claims 1-3).
With regard to claims 19 and 20, Zhang teaches gas-phase oxidative decarboxylation of benzoic acid to phenol using a vanadium pentoxide multi-component composite metal oxide catalyst. Zhang teaches V2O5 as the main component and metal oxide co-catalysts including ferric oxide, nickel oxide and sodium oxide. Zhang further specifically exemplifies a V2O5-NiO-Fe2O3-Na2O multi-component composite catalyst for oxidative decarboxylation of benzoic acid to phenol. Therefore, Zhang teaches the transition-metal oxide catalyst of claim 19 and the Fe2O3, NiO, V2O5 and Na2O catalyst of claim 20. (Zhang, English Translation, claims 1-5; paragraphs [0009]-[0010]; Example 9).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Lu by obtaining the ethanol starting material from biomass according to Spindler, oxidizing the benzyl alcohol produced by Lu with molecular oxygen according to Ichikawa to produce benzoic acid, and thereafter converting the benzoic acid to phenol according to Zhang.
Lu teaches a green and sustainable process using ethanol and methanol and expressly recognizes the increased availability of short-chain alcohols through biomass fermentation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to obtain Lu’s ethanol starting material by the known biomass fermentation process of Spindler. The benzyl alcohol product of Lu is expressly identified by Ichikawa as a suitable starting material for oxidation with molecular oxygen to an aromatic carboxylic acid, and the resulting benzoic acid is the starting material used by Zhang for oxidative conversion to phenol. Thus, the product of each known reaction provides the starting material for the following known reaction, with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing phenol.
With regard to claims 2 and 4, one of ordinary skill in the art using Spindler to provide biomass-derived ethanol for Lu would have found it obvious to use the disclosed biomass-derived sugar fermentation feed and Brettanomyces custersii fermentation process because Spindler teaches these features for the same purpose of producing ethanol from plant biomass.
With regard to claim 7, no further modification is required because Lu teaches the claimed transition metal-hydroxyapatite catalyst for the ethanol and methanol reaction.
With regard to claims 19 and 20, one of ordinary skill in the art using Zhang to convert the benzoic acid intermediate to phenol would have found it obvious to employ Zhang’s disclosed oxide catalyst, including the specifically exemplified V2O5-NiO-Fe2O3-Na2O catalyst, because Zhang teaches the catalyst for the same benzoic acid-to-phenol reaction.
Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 19-20 are obvious over Lu in view of Spindler, further in view of Ichikawa, and further in view of Zhang.
Rejection II
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (EP 3828158 A1, pub date June 2, 2021), in view of Spindler et al. (US 5100791, pub date Mar. 31, 1992), further in view of Ichikawa (US 3299125, pub date Jan. 17, 1967), and further in view of Zhang (CN1557543A, pub date Dec. 29, 2004), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tibbitt et al. (CN101437610A, pub date May 20, 2009, in applicant’s IDS filed 2/5/24) (also see the English Translation).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art and
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
Lu in view of Spindler, Ichikawa and Zhang teaches the process of claim 1 as set forth above.
The combination is deficient in the sense that it does not teach the particular supported catalyst system recited in claims 13, 14 and 16 for step (C), including platinum as the transition metal catalyst and bismuth as the co-catalyst on a common support.
However, Tibbitt teaches oxidation of aromatic feedstocks with oxygen to produce aromatic carboxylic acids in the presence of metal catalyst compositions. Tibbitt teaches that the catalyst may be heterogeneous, that the metal catalyst composition may be selected from platinum, bismuth and mixtures thereof, and that a heterogeneous catalyst may be carried on an inert support such as carbon, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, zirconium dioxide or alumina. Thus, Tibbitt teaches supported metal catalyst compositions encompassing platinum and bismuth on a common support for oxygen oxidation reactions producing aromatic carboxylic acids. (Tibbitt, English Translation, claims 1 and 6-9; Description, catalyst section).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the supported catalyst teachings of Tibbitt in the oxygen oxidation step taught by Ichikawa. Both references relate to oxidation of aromatic feedstocks with oxygen to produce aromatic carboxylic acids, and Tibbitt teaches platinum and bismuth-containing heterogeneous catalyst compositions supported on an inert support. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to select the known platinum/bismuth supported catalyst composition for the oxidation step with a reasonable expectation of successfully catalyzing the oxidation.
With regard to claim 13, Tibbitt teaches a heterogeneous metal catalyst composition supported on an inert support. With regard to claim 14, Tibbitt teaches platinum as a catalyst metal. With regard to claim 16, Tibbitt teaches bismuth and mixtures of the disclosed catalyst metals, thereby suggesting use of bismuth with platinum in the supported catalyst composition.
Thus, claims 13-14 and 16 are obvious over Lu in view of Spindler, further in view of Ichikawa and Zhang, and further in view of Tibbitt.
Rejection III
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (EP 3828158 A1, pub date June 2, 2021), in view of Spindler et al. (US 5100791, pub date Mar. 31, 1992), further in view of Ichikawa (US 3299125, pub date Jan. 17, 1967), and further in view of Zhang (CN1557543A, pub date Dec. 29, 2004), as applied to claim 1 above.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art and
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Prior Art and the Claims
Lu in view of Spindler, Ichikawa and Zhang teaches the chemical reaction sequence of claim 1 as set forth above. Claims 23-25 further require separation of the intermediate or product following each reaction step and recycling of unconverted ethanol or methanol following step (B).
With regard to sub-steps (A-1) and (A-2) of claim 23, Spindler teaches producing ethanol by fermentation of a biomass-derived substrate and thereafter separating or recovering the ethanol from the fermented substrate. Thus, Spindler teaches production and separation of the ethanol from the first reaction medium. (Spindler, col. 5-col. 6; claims 1 and 7).
With regard to sub-steps (B-1) and (B-2), Lu teaches reacting ethanol and methanol to produce benzyl alcohol and teaches that the benzyl alcohol product is easily separated using distillation technology. Thus, Lu teaches the production and separation of the step (B) product. (Lu, paragraphs [0007] and [0013]).
With regard to sub-steps (C-1) and (C-2), Ichikawa teaches oxidizing benzyl alcohol and benzaldehyde with molecular oxygen to produce aromatic carboxylic acids. Ichikawa further evidences separation of the resulting aromatic carboxylic acid product from an oxidation reaction mixture, including separation by centrifugation. Thus, separation of the benzoic acid product following the corresponding oxidation would have been within the ordinary skill in the art. (Ichikawa, col. 1, paragraphs 1-3; col. 3, starting materials; Example I).
With regard to sub-steps (D-1) and (D-2), Zhang teaches reacting benzoic acid with air in a fixed-bed reactor to produce phenol and collecting the reaction products exiting the reactor through a condenser. Thus, Zhang teaches production of phenol from benzoic acid and collection or separation of the resulting product from the reaction stream. (Zhang, English Translation, claims 8-10; paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
With regard to claims 24 and 25, Lu teaches incomplete conversion of ethanol and methanol in the step (B) reaction and therefore leaves unconverted ethanol and methanol in the reaction stream. Lu further teaches separation of the benzyl alcohol product by distillation. (Lu, paragraphs [0013] and [0020]-[0022], Tables 2-3).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to separate the reaction product or intermediate following each of the known sequential reactions. The isolated product of one reaction is the feed material for the next reaction: ethanol for Lu, benzyl alcohol and/or benzaldehyde for Ichikawa, benzoic acid for Zhang, and ultimately phenol as the desired product. Spindler, Lu, Ichikawa and Zhang themselves teach recovery, separation or collection of the respective reaction products. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to employ the known separation operations between the sequential reactions to provide the intermediate feed for the following reaction with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claims 24 and 25, because Lu teaches incomplete conversion of both ethanol and methanol and teaches separation of the desired benzyl alcohol product, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to separate and return the remaining unconverted ethanol and methanol to the same reaction rather than discard the valuable unreacted feed. Recycling the separated unreacted feed would predictably increase overall utilization of the starting materials and overall conversion without changing the chemical reaction taught by Lu. Ichikawa further evidences the known practice of recycling remaining reaction material following separation of the desired product. (Lu, paragraphs [0013] and [0020]-[0022], Tables 2-3; Ichikawa, Example I).
Thus, claims 23-25 are obvious over Lu in view of Spindler, further in view of Ichikawa and Zhang.
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. See 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.2d438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24 and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18681459, in view of Zhang (CN 1557543, pub date Dec. 29, 2004) (also see the English Translation).
The claims of copending Application No. 18681459 recite producing ethanol from biomass, reacting the ethanol with methanol to produce benzyl alcohol and/or benzaldehyde, and reacting the benzyl alcohol and/or benzaldehyde with oxygen to produce benzoic acid. Claims 2, 4, 7, 13, 14 and 16 further recite the same monosaccharide, fermentation microorganism, step (B) catalyst, and step (C) platinum and bismuth catalyst limitations recited in the corresponding instant claims. Claims 19-21 further recite the same step (A)-(C) separation operations and recycling of unconverted ethanol and methanol recited in instant claims 23-25. (Copending Application No. 18681459, see claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 19-21).
The claims of copending Application No. 18681459 are deficient in the sense that they do not recite further reacting the produced benzoic acid with oxygen to produce phenol, the catalyst limitations of instant claims 19 and 20, or the step (D) production and separation operations of instant claim 23.
However, Zhang teaches gas-phase oxidative decarboxylation of benzoic acid to phenol by reacting benzoic acid with air in a fixed-bed reactor and collecting the resulting product through a condenser. Zhang teaches conversion of benzoic acid of 43-82% and phenol selectivity of 46-88%. (Zhang, claims 8-10).
Zhang further teaches a multi-component catalyst comprising vanadium pentoxide as the main component and metal oxide co-catalysts including ferric oxide, nickel oxide and sodium oxide. Zhang specifically exemplifies a V2O5-NiO-Fe2O3-Na2O multi-component composite catalyst for the oxidative decarboxylation of benzoic acid to phenol. (Zhang, claims 1-5; Example 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of the claims of copending Application No. 18681459 by further reacting the produced and separated benzoic acid with oxygen according to Zhang to produce and separate phenol. The benzoic acid product of the copending claims is the starting material used by Zhang, and the modification merely applies a known downstream conversion to the product of the claimed process with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing phenol.
With regard to claims 19 and 20, it would have been obvious to utilize Zhang’s oxide catalyst because Zhang teaches the same benzoic acid-to-phenol reaction using the claimed transition-metal oxides and specifically exemplifies the claimed Fe2O3, NiO, V2O5 and Na2O catalyst.
With regard to claims 23-25, claims 19-21 of copending Application No. 18681459 teach the corresponding step (A)-(C) separation operations and ethanol and methanol recycling operations, while Zhang teaches the additional step of converting the separated benzoic acid to phenol and collecting the resulting phenol-containing product.
Thus, the claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of copending Application No. 18681459 in view of Zhang.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection, because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER C SAWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights