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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/045721 which is a continuation of and claims the benefit of US Provisional Application 63/253,560 with an effective filing date of 08 October 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 20 November 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. The CN1931824 reference appears to not be attached and the Li et al. reference is attached as a foreign reference instead of as non-patent literature (NPL).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 states “the system”. The remainder of claim 1 states “the reactor system”. For consistency amongst the claim language, claim 1, line 11 should also state “the reactor system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
In the Spirit of Compact Prosecution
While the examiner has attempted to identify all objections and clarity issues amongst the claims, applicant is advised that some objections and clarity issues may still remain. Going forward, the examiner respectfully requests applicant to perform a detailed review of the claims regarding clarity, grammar, antecedent basis, word spacing, and spelling issues.
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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krill et al. (US20160068464, published 10 March 2016, hereinafter Krill) in view of Kraptchetov et al. (WO2019022883, published 31 January 2019, hereinafter Kraptchetov).
Krill is in the known prior art field of “a process for producing methyl methacrylate” (MMA) “with a relatively low energy usage” and “a high level of protection of the environment”; while, improving the “overall yield of MMA, based on the raw materials used”, see Abstract; Paras. [0017]-[0019];[0022]-[0027]; Figs. 1-3.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1-4 and 7, Krill teaches “a process for producing MMA, comprising the following steps: A) producing methacrolein from propanal and formaldehyde and B) reacting the methacrolein obtained in step A) in an oxidative esterification reaction to give MMA”, see Paras. [0022]-[0024], where propanal aka propionaldehyde is “obtained by reaction of ethylene with carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2)” , see Paras. [0006];[0066];[0070]-[0074];[0133], meeting:
The process of producing MMA and step a)producing propionaldehyde in instant application claim 1;
Where “[f]ormaldehyde (FA) and propanal (PA)” are reacted “to give methacrolein (step A)”, see Paras. [0135]-[0137]; Figs. 1-2, at a “reaction pressure” “in the range from 2 to 300 bar, preferably from 5 to 250 bar, particularly preferably from 10 to 200 bar, advantageously from 15 to 150 bar”, see Paras. [0055]-[0057], meeting:
Step b) reacting FA and PA to produce methacrolein in instant application claim 1;
Within the pressure range of the methacrolein production step b) in instant application claim 1, in instant application claim 2, and in instant application claim 3;
The obtained methacrolein “is reacted in a direct oxidative esterification reaction to give MMA” by “any conventional manner, for example in a liquid-phase reaction or trickle-bed reaction” in “any known reactor, e.g. a bubble-column reactor, a tubular reactor with air stream or a stirred reactor” in the presence of “[h]eterogeneous oxidation catalysts preferably comprise at least one noble metal … [g]old- and/or palladium-containing catalysts are particularly preferred”, see Paras. [0075]-[0083];[0110];[0127], meeting:
The step c) liquid phase reaction in a reactor with a heterogenous noble metal catalyst in instant application claim 1;
The specific noble metal gold in instant application claim 7;
The “oxidative esterification reaction according to step B) preferably takes place with a molar ratio of methanol to methacrolein in the range from 1:1 to 50:1, particularly preferably from 1.5:1 to 25:1 and specifically preferably from 2:1 to 10:1”, see Para. [0108], at “a reaction pressure in the range from 2 to 100 bar”, see Para. [0111], meeting:
Within the methanol to methacrolein molar ratio in instant application claim 1;
Within the pressure range of the MMA production step c) in instant application claim 4;
In the process “a molar ratio of methanol to methacrolein in the range from 1:1 to 50:1, particularly preferably from 1.5:1 to 25:1 and specifically preferably from 2:1 to 10:1”, see Para. [0108], and a “42.9% solution of methacrolein (from Example 1) in methanol was introduced continuously at a flow rate of 420 g/h into a mechanically stirred 2.5 L stirred-tank reactor with a catalyst separator to which 255 g of catalyst 3 had been charged. An NaOH solution in methanol (from 1 to 4% by weight) was added at a flow rate of 40 g/h to maintain the pH of the reaction mixture at about 7”, see Paras. [0217]-[0218], i.e., methanol solutions are introduced with the methacrolein and with the NaOH resulting in less than 42.9% or 40 wt% of methacrolein based on the total weight of the methacrolein and methanol in the reactor, meeting:
Within the range of the average concentration of methacrolein in the reactor system in instant application claim 1; and,
“The amount of air introduced continuously into the reactor at 5 bar and 80° C. was sufficient to give a residual proportion of oxygen in the exhaust gas of about 4% by volume of O2”, see Para. [0218], i.e., the vapor space top phase contains about 4% by volume of oxygen, meeting:
Within the range of oxygen in the vapor phase in instant application claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 6, Krill teaches the heterogenous catalyst comprises a titanium support and titanium along with the noble metals gold and/or palladium on the support, see Paras. [0083]-[0084];[0091];[0096]-[0099], meeting:
The specific titanium, palladium, and gold catalyst in instant application claim 6.
Krill does not teach:
The instant application claim 1 limitations of the molar ratio of methanol to methacrolein is based on an average amount of methanol and methacrolein entering and exiting the system, wherein the average concentration of methacrolein in the reactor system is the average of the concentration of methacrolein entering and exiting the reactor system and specifically the concentration of oxygen in the vapor space is maintained in the reactor system at 2.5 mol% to 7.5 mol% relative to the total amount of the vapor phase;
The specific pressure range limitations in instant application claim 5; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 8 and 9.
Kraptchetov is in the known prior art field of methods “for preparing methyl methacrylate from methacrolein and methanol” by “contacting a mixture comprising methacrolein, methanol and oxygen with a heterogeneous catalyst comprising a support and a noble metal”, see Abstract, “while avoiding a flammable headspace atmosphere” “with a gas feed containing a sufficiently low oxygen mole fraction to ensure the oxygen concentration in the vapor headspace is below the limiting oxygen concentration (LOC)”, see Pg. 5, Lns. 12-31, where “the support is a particle of an oxide material; preferably” titania and the noble metal is gold, see Pg. 1, Lns. 9-31.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1, 8, and 9, Kraptchetov teaches the “process for producing methyl methacrylate (MMA) comprises treating methacrolein with methanol in an oxidative esterification reactor (OER)” with an “average concentration of methacrolein” in the reactor of “at least 15 wt%”, “at least 17 wt%, preferably at least 20 wt%; preferably no greater than 50 wt%, preferably no greater than 40 wt%”, “the methacrolein concentration at the inlet is at least 40 wt%, preferably at least 35 wt%, preferably at least 25 wt%; preferably no greater than 65 wt%, preferably no greater than 55 wt%” and “methanol and methacrolein are fed to the reactor containing the fixed bed in a methanol:methacrolein molar ratio from 1:10 to 100:1, preferably from 1:2 to 20:1, preferably from 1:1 to 10:1”, see Abstract; Pg. 4, Lns. 9-33, where the “average of the concentration of methacrolein in the liquid entering and exiting the reactor” is 8.6 wt% to 43 wt%, see Pg. 6, Ln. 1-Pg. 7, Ln. 5 and the Tables, meeting:
Within the average ratio of methanol to methacrolein based on the reactants entering and exiting the reactor system in instant application claim 1;
Within the range of the average wt% concentration of methacrolein based on the methacrolein entering and exiting the reactor system in instant application claim 1, in instant application claim 8, and in instant application claim 9; and,
“In order to address process safety considerations, a means to operate a trickle bed reactor while avoiding a flammable headspace atmosphere is operation with a gas feed containing a sufficiently low oxygen mole fraction to ensure the oxygen concentration in the vapor headspace is below the limiting oxygen concentration (LOC)”, where “the feed oxygen concentration in nitrogen should not exceed 7.4 mol%”, and the “oxygen concentration at a reactor outlet is at least 0.5 mole %, preferably at least 2 mole %, preferably at least 3 mole %; preferably no more than 7 mole %, preferably no more than 6.5 mole %, preferably no more than 6 mole %”, see Pg. 5, Lns. 1-31, meeting:
Within the reactor system vapor space oxygen concentration in instant application claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 5, Kraptchetov teaches the “process for producing methyl methacrylate (MMA) comprises treating methacrolein with methanol in an oxidative esterification reactor (OER)” takes place in a reactor with a catalyst bed, where “the catalyst bed is at a pressure from 0 to 2000 psig” aka 0 bar to 138 bar, see Pg. 3, Ln. 28-Pg. 4, Ln. 8, meeting:
Within the pressure range of the MMA production step c) in instant application claim 5.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the MMA production process reactant concentrations and pressures of Krill, see MPEP 2144.05, to use the MMA production process reactant concentrations and pressures as taught by Kraptchetov with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of safely and efficiently producing MMA in an OER with high conversion of methacrolein by applying knowledge of the LOC “for the fuel mixture, temperature, and pressure” of the OER in order to reduce the possibility of initiating “a deflagration, which could lead to loss of primary containment and harm to the physical infrastructure and personnel in the vicinity”, see Kraptchetov, Pg. 4, Lns. 9-28; Pg. 5, Ln. 12-Pg. 6, Ln. 17, Table.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the MMA production process reactant concentrations and pressures of Krill by applying the known technique of knowledge of the LOC to use the MMA production process reactant concentrations and pressures as taught by Kraptchetov with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of safely and efficiently producing MMA in an OER with high conversion of methacrolein by applying knowledge of the LOC “for the fuel mixture, temperature, and pressure” of the OER in order to reduce the possibility of initiating “a deflagration, which could lead to loss of primary containment and harm to the physical infrastructure and personnel in the vicinity”, see Kraptchetov, Pg. 4, Lns. 9-28; Pg. 5, Ln. 12-Pg. 6, Ln. 17, Table; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
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”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Krill and Kraptchetov both teach the production of MMA with environment and safety concerns, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Krill by relying upon Kraptchetov before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the safe environmentally friendly production of MMA art, see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of safely and efficiently producing MMA in an OER with high conversion of methacrolein by applying knowledge of the LOC “for the fuel mixture, temperature, and pressure” of the OER in order to reduce the possibility of initiating “a deflagration, which could lead to loss of primary containment and harm to the physical infrastructure and personnel in the vicinity”, see Kraptchetov, Pg. 4, Lns. 9-28; Pg. 5, Ln. 12-Pg. 6, Ln. 17, Table; and, MPEP 2141 and 2143 I. B-D.
As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied,
426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field
or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is
already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set
of percentage ranges”, such as the concentration of the reactants, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Selection of a known material, such as a heterogenous OER catalyst, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as pressures and reactant concentrations, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6 of copending Application No. 18698828 to Limbach et al. (hereinafter Limbach) in view of Kraptchetov et al. (WO2019022883, published 31 January 2019, hereinafter Kraptchetov).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 1, the claims of Limbach recite a process for producing methyl methacrylate, see claim 1, comprising:
a) producing propionaldehyde from ethylene, see Claim 1;
b) reacting the propionaldehyde with formaldehyde to produce methacrolein, see Claim 1;
c) reacting the methacrolein in an oxidative esterification reaction to produce methyl methacrylate, see Claim 1; wherein:
step b) is performed at a pressure above 1 bar, see Claim 1;
step c) is a liquid phase reaction and is carried in a reactor system comprising one or more reactors and is performed in the presence of a heterogeneous noble metal-containing catalyst, see Claim 1, wherein an average ratio of methanol to methacrolein in the reactor system is less than 20:1 based on an average amount of methanol and methacrolein entering and exiting the system, see Claim 1, and an average concentration of methacrolein in the reactor system is less than 40 wt% based on the total weight of the methanol and methacrolein in the reactor system, see Claim 1, and wherein oxygen is maintained in a vapor space in the reactor system in a concentration ranging from 2.5 mol% to 7.5 mol% relative to the total amount of the vapor phase, see Claims 2-4.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 2 and 3, the claims of Limbach recite the production of methacrolein is performed at a pressure of above 1 bar which includes a range of 1 to infinity, see Claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 7, the claims of Limbach recite wherein the noble metal is gold, see Claim 6.
The claims of Limbach do not recite:
The instant application claim 1 limitation of wherein the average concentration of methacrolein in the reactor system is the average of the concentration of methacrolein entering and exiting the reactor system; and,
The limitations of instant application claims 4-6, 8, and 9.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 1, 8, and 9, Kraptchetov teaches the “process for producing methyl methacrylate (MMA) comprises treating methacrolein with methanol in an oxidative esterification reactor (OER)” with an “average concentration of methacrolein” in the reactor of “at least 15 wt%”, “at least 17 wt%, preferably at least 20 wt%; preferably no greater than 50 wt%, preferably no greater than 40 wt%”, “the methacrolein concentration at the inlet is at least 40 wt%, preferably at least 35 wt%, preferably at least 25 wt%; preferably no greater than 65 wt%, preferably no greater than 55 wt%” and “methanol and methacrolein are fed to the reactor containing the fixed bed in a methanol:methacrolein molar ratio from 1:10 to 100:1, preferably from 1:2 to 20:1, preferably from 1:1 to 10:1”, see Abstract; Pg. 4, Lns. 9-33, where the “average of the concentration of methacrolein in the liquid entering and exiting the reactor” is 8.6 wt% to 43 wt%, see Pg. 6, Ln. 1-Pg. 7, Ln. 5 and the Tables, meeting:
Within the average ratio of methanol to methacrolein based on the reactants entering and exiting the reactor system in instant application claim 1;
Within the range of the average wt% concentration of methacrolein based on the methacrolein entering and exiting the reactor system in instant application claim 1, in instant application claim 8, and in instant application claim 9; and,
“In order to address process safety considerations, a means to operate a trickle bed reactor while avoiding a flammable headspace atmosphere is operation with a gas feed containing a sufficiently low oxygen mole fraction to ensure the oxygen concentration in the vapor headspace is below the limiting oxygen concentration (LOC)”, where “the feed oxygen concentration in nitrogen should not exceed 7.4 mol%”, and the “oxygen concentration at a reactor outlet is at least 0.5 mole %, preferably at least 2 mole %, preferably at least 3 mole %; preferably no more than 7 mole %, preferably no more than 6.5 mole %, preferably no more than 6 mole %”, see Pg. 5, Lns. 1-31, meeting:
Within the reactor system vapor space oxygen concentration in instant application claim 1.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claims 4 and 5, Kraptchetov teaches the “process for producing methyl methacrylate (MMA) comprises treating methacrolein with methanol in an oxidative esterification reactor (OER)” takes place in a reactor with a catalyst bed, where “the catalyst bed is at a pressure from 0 to 2000 psig” aka 0 bar to 138 bar, see Pg. 3, Ln. 28-Pg. 4, Ln. 8, meeting:
Within the pressure range of the MMA production step c) in instant application claim 4 and in instant application claim 5.
Regarding the limitations of instant application claim 6, Kraptchetov teaches the catalysts support “is a particle of an oxide material; preferably” titania and the noble metal is gold, see Pg. 1, Lns. 9-31, meeting:
The catalyst limitations in instant application claim 6.
In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the MMA production process reactant concentrations, pressures, and catalyst of the claims of Limbach, see MPEP 2144.05, to use the MMA production process reactant concentrations, pressures, and catalyst as taught by Kraptchetov with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of safely and efficiently producing MMA in an OER with high conversion of methacrolein by applying knowledge of the LOC “for the fuel mixture, temperature, and pressure” of the OER in order to reduce the possibility of initiating “a deflagration, which could lead to loss of primary containment and harm to the physical infrastructure and personnel in the vicinity”, see Kraptchetov, Pg. 4, Lns. 9-28; Pg. 5, Ln. 12-Pg. 6, Ln. 17, Table.
A rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Another rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the MMA production process reactant concentrations, pressures, and catalyst of the claims of Limbach by applying the known technique of knowledge of the LOC to use the MMA production process reactant concentrations, pressures, and catalyst as taught by Kraptchetov with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of safely and efficiently producing MMA in an OER with high conversion of methacrolein by applying knowledge of the LOC “for the fuel mixture, temperature, and pressure” of the OER in order to reduce the possibility of initiating “a deflagration, which could lead to loss of primary containment and harm to the physical infrastructure and personnel in the vicinity”, see Kraptchetov, Pg. 4, Lns. 9-28; Pg. 5, Ln. 12-Pg. 6, Ln. 17, Table; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D.
In addition, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is
already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set
of percentage ranges”, such as the concentration of the reactants, “is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05.
Selection of a known material, such as a heterogenous OER catalyst, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07.
In addition, “[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as pressures and reactant concentrations, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is (571) 270-3456. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time.
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 Yen-Ye 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.
/YO/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights