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 .
Office Action Summary
This is the initial office action filed 03/20/2024 for application 18/693527.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENTZEL (WO2018007485A1) in view of WANG (USPGPUB 20150141238).
MENTZEL teaches natural gas based mta.
Mta is taught on page 1 to stand for methanol to aromatics.
MENTZEL teaches on page 1 methanol and/or dimethyl ether and other oxygenates are synthesized from synthesis gas. (oxygen-containing organic molecules)
MENTZEL teaches that a feed stream comprising the oxygenates is sent to a reactor wherein an oxygenate to aromatics conversion take place.
The MTA process is taught on page 7 to include a MTA catalyst which comprises a zeolite (aluminosilicates) /zeotype with a metal/oxide function.
The combination of a zeolite function and a dehydrogenation function is taught to result in a high yield of aromatics in the MTA process.
MENTZEL teaches on page 2 that adding a co-feed comprising CO2 leads to higher yields of aromatics. MENTZEL teaches on page 5 that CO2 may react with H2 (in situ generated H2) which reduces the H2 concentration and lead to higher yields of aromatics.
The product produced is taught in page 6 includes aromatics such as benzene, toluene, and xylenes which are monocyclic aromatics.
MENTZEL teaches a process that is substantially similar to what is claimed and the CO2 would be expected to behave in the same manner.
WANG recognizes that aromatic compounds may be formed from the reaction of CO2 and H2 over a catalyst. The catalyst is taught in paragraph 4 of WANG to be Fe/Fe3O4 nanocatalyst supported on a zeolite or alumina.
The process in MENTZEL wherein CO2 is bough into contact with H2 in the process would also be expected to form additional monocyclic aromatics.
Regarding claims 2-3, the process that MENTZEL teaches reacts CO2 with H2 and would be expected to produce CO.
Regarding claim 4, the process in MENTZEL wherein CO2 is brought into contact with H2 in the process would also be expected to form additional monocyclic aromatics.
Regarding claims 5-6, MENTZEL further teaches in page 10 that co-feed comprising CO may be used.
Regarding claim 7, MENTZEL teaches in page 5 that the CO2 is generated from a process that produces synthesis gases and separating the CO2.
Regarding claims 14, MENTZEL teaches in page 7 zeolites may be used and the conditions.
WANG recognizes that aromatic compounds may be formed from the reaction of CO2 and H2 over a catalyst on a zeolite.
Neither MENTZEL nor WANG teaches that the ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 is a limiting factor and one of ordinary skill in the art would use a SiO2 to Al2O3 ratio of between 20 to 50 with a reasonable expectation of success.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 15-17, MENTZEL teaches in page 7 zeolites that include ZSM-5. MENTZEL also teaches in page 6 that the zeolites may comprise a metal/oxide function. The metals are taught on page 7 to include Zn.
Regarding claim 20, the product produced is taught in page 6 of MENTZEL to include aromatics such as benzene, toluene, and xylenes.
Claim(s) 8-10, 11-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENTZEL (WO2018007485A1) and WANG (USPGPUB 20150141238) as applied to claims 1-7, 14-17, and 20 above, and further in view of BLOMMEL et al. (USPGPUB 20130261361A1).
The above discussion of MENTZEL and WANG is incorporated herein by reference.
BLOMMEL et al. teach dehydrogenation of alkanols to increase yield of aromatics.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to produce alkanols from the process that BLOMMEL et al. and use them in the process that MENTZEL teaches.
BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 27 that the alkanol feedstock may be combined with other alcohols. Incorporating the alkanol feedstock produced from BLOMMEL et al. would increase the sources from which oxygenates may be derived from to produce the desired aromatic products.
Regarding claim 8, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 29 that the alkanols may be produced from fermentation.
Regarding claim 9, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 28 that the alkanols may originate from corn.
Regarding claim 10, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 27 that the alkanols include ethanol.
Regarding claim 11, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraphs 28-29 where the alkanol feedstock is produced from. Integrating the alkanol feedstock preparation steps with the alkanol feedstock steps would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
It has been held that making a process integral is prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claims 12-13, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 36 that the alkanol feedstock may be mixed with water wherein the alkanol is present in concentrations greater than 20 wt%.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 18-19, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 27 that the alkanols include ethanol.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLOMMEL et al. (USPGPUB 20130261361A1) in view of WANG (USPGPUB 20150141238).
BLOMMEL et al. teach a process for the production of aromatics from alkanols.
Regarding clams 1-4, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 11 that alkanols contact a dehydrogenation catalyst to produce oxygenates and hydrogen. The oxygenates contact an oxygenate conversion catalyst to form aromatic hydrocarbons.
BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 4 that benzene, toluene and xylenes can be produced.
BLOMMEL et al. recognize in paragraph 56 that the catalyst may be multifunctional and both dehydrogenates and converts oxygenates. The catalyst is taught in paragraph 18 to include ZSM-5.
WANG recognizes that aromatic compounds may be formed from the reaction of CO2 and H2 over a catalyst. The catalyst is taught in paragraph 4 of WANG to be Fe/Fe3O4 nanocatalyst supported on a zeolite or alumina.
BLOMMEL et al. recognize in paragraph 30 that hydrogen produced can be transferred to olefins to general a paraffin and decrease overall aromatic yield as the olefins are the precursors to aromatics.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching s of WANG to produce more aromatics by adding CO2.
WANG recognizes in paragraph 36 how CO2 and CO may be formed from one another in contact with catalyst.
Regarding claims 5-6, WANG teaches that if enough hydrogen is not present, carbon monoxide can be used to produce CO2 and H2.
Regarding claim 7, WANG teaches in paragraphs 6 and 30 that the CO2 may be from the atmosphere or from a synthesis gas process.
Regarding claim 8, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 29 that the alkanols may be produced from fermentation.
Regarding claim 9, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 28 that the alkanols may originate from corn.
Regarding claim 10, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 27 that the alkanols include ethanol.
Regarding claim 11, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraphs 28-29 where the alkanol feedstock is produced from. Integrating the alkanol feedstock preparation steps with the alkanol feedstock steps would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
It has been held that making a process integral is prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claims 12-13, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 36 that the alkanol feedstock may be mixed with water wherein the alkanol is present in concentrations greater than 20 wt%.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 14, BLOMMEL et al. teaches in paragraph 8 zeolites may be used to form benzene and alkyl-substituted aromatics.
WANG recognizes that aromatic compounds may be formed from the reaction of CO2 and H2 over a catalyst on a zeolite.
Neither BLOMMEL et al. nor WANG teaches that the ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 is a limiting factor and one of ordinary skill in the art would use a SiO2 to Al2O3 ratio of between 20 to 50 with a reasonable expectation of success.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 15-17, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 18 that the oxygenate conversion catalyst may comprise ZSM-5 and a metal. BLOMMEL e al. teach in paragraphs 47-48 that the zeolite may further comprise addition of oxides of Fe.
WANG teaches in paragraphs 12 and 24, nanoparticles of Fe/Fe3O4 on a non-reactive support such as a zeolite such as zeolite Y.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to use in the multifunctional catalyst of BLOMMEL et al. with nanoparticles of Fe/Fe3O4 on a zeolite as taught in WANG or incorporate multiple catalysts in different reaction zones in the same reactor.
Regarding claims 18-19, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 27 that the alkanols include ethanol.
Regarding claim 20, BLOMMEL et al. teach in paragraph 26 the production of benzene, toluene and mixed xylenes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ALMUSAITEER (USPGPUB 20200308081) teaches production of aromatics from isopropyl alcohol and carbon dioxide.
IACCINO (USPGPUB 20070249880) teaches production of aromatics from methane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771