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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 68 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 68, “condition” should be “conditions”.
In line 6 of claim 72, “constitute” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 63-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 63-65, 67-68, 70-72, 74, 78, and their dependent claims recite “preferably” in numerous places. This renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following “preferably” are part of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitations following “preferably” have been disregarded.
In lines 10-11 of claim 67, there is no antecedent basis for “the cation exchange”. The examiner recommends that “the” be deleted.
In the last step of claim 67, it is unclear what qualifies as “activating” the dried product of step (3), noting that the remaining limitations for this step are preceded by “preferably”.
In line 7 of claim 69, there is no antecedent basis for “the simulated moving bed apparatus”. The examiner recommends that “the” be replaced by “a”.
Claim 73 is split into multiple sections, separated by line breaks, but there is no “and” or “or” conjunction between the sections indicating whether the claim requires the limitations of all the sections, or of just one of the sections. Some of the sections recite redundant or contradictory limitations. For example, the first section of the claim recites “each pipeline is provided with an on-off valve”, indicating one on-off valve per pipeline, but then future sections go on to recite “multiple parallel on-off valves are set up on the pipeline” and “the withdrawing and injection pipelines of each adsorbent bed are provided with 6-7 on-off valves”, indicating multiple valves per pipeline. Similarly, the first section of the claim indicates that each adsorption bed contains multiple pipelines, while the next section recites that each absorption bed is equipped with one withdrawing and injection pipeline. For the purposes of examination, meeting the limitations of one section of the claim is therefore considered to meet the claim. It is noted that page 33 lines 9-25 of the current specification indicates that each section of the claim represents a separate embodiment.
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 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 63-68 and 77-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (CN 110508240 A).
An English-language machine translation of Gao, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the translation.
In paragraphs 12-15 Gao discloses a method of preparing an adsorbent, comprising mixing X-type molecular sieves (NaX or NaKX) with a matrix material (kaolin minerals), and crystallizing the kaolin minerals in situ, followed by cation exchange with a solution containing Group IIa or Group Ia metal compounds. In paragraph 27 Gao discloses that the Group IIa and Group IIa metals can be various metals recited in claim 63. The adsorbent of Gao therefore comprises the X-type molecular sieve, the matrix, and the cations recited in claim 63. In paragraph 30 Gao discloses that the adsorbent comprises 95.0-99.8% by weight of the X-type molecular sieve and 0.2-5.0% by weight of the matrix, overlapping the ranges recited in claim 63.
In Table 1 (original Chinese version only) Gao discloses adsorbents (Examples 1 and 3-5) having a crushing rate at 130 N and a bulk density within the ranges recited in claim 64.
In paragraph 21, Gao discloses that the particle size of the X molecular sieve is preferably 0.2 to 3.0 micron, encompassing the range recited in claim 65, and the molar ratio of silica to alumina is preferably 2.0 to 2.4, within the range recited in claim 65. Gao further discloses in paragraph 21 that the kaolin mineral is selected from the types recited in claim 66.
In paragraphs 12-15, Gao further discloses that the method involves a step of combining the X-type molecular sieves with the kaolin minerals in a range of mass ratios overlapping the range recited in step (1) of claim 67, calcining at a temperature range of 500 to 700° C, encompassing the range recited in step (1) of claim 67, treating the calcined particles with an alkali solution (mixed solution of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide) having a hydroxide ion concentration of 0.1 to 2-0 mol/L, encompassing the range recited in step (2) of claim 67, and subjecting the resulting particles to cation exchange, where the cations can be the cations recited in step (3) of claim 67, as discussed above. In paragraph 29 Gao discloses an activation step, as recited in step (4) of claim 67.
In paragraph 25 Gao discloses that the liquid/solid ratio and crystallization temperature in the crystallization step are in the ranges recited in claim 68, and that the particle size after drying is 300 to 850 micron, overlapping the range recited in claim 68. In paragraph 27 Gao discloses that the Group IIa and Ia metal compounds used in the cation exchange step are preferably nitrates or chlorides, as recited in claim 68.
In paragraphs 4, 31, and 61-63 Gao discloses that the method can be carried out in a simulated moving bed. In paragraphs 35 and 62 Gao discloses using the adsorbent for separating aromatic hydrocarbons in a method that includes contacting a raw material with the adsorbent, and then desorption with a desorbent, indicating that the apparatus of Gao meets the limitations of the adsorption desorption unit of claim 77, which is the only required unit of the claim. In paragraph 62 Gao discloses that the simulated moving bed apparatus has a structure meeting the limitations of claim 78, where the buffer zone between he raffinate and the desorbent corresponds to the isolation zone of claim 78.
The difference between Gao and the currently presented claims is that some of the ranges of Gao overlap or encompass the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
While Gao does not specifically disclose the adsorbent as being for trimethylbenzene-based compounds, since the adsorbents of Gao meet the compositional limitations of the claimed adsorbent they will be capable of performing the intended use as an adsorbent for trimethylbenzene-based compounds.
In light of the above, claims 63-68 and 77-78 are rendered obvious by Gao.
Claims 69-72 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao as applied to claims 63-68 above, and further in view of Rosenfeld (U.S. Pat. No. 4,376,226).
The discussion of Gao in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Gao discloses an adsorbent meeting the limitations of claim 63. In paragraphs 35 and 62 Gao discloses using the adsorbent for separating aromatic hydrocarbons in a method that includes contacting a raw material with the adsorbent, as recited in the adsorption separation step of claim 69, and then desorption with a desorbent, meeting the limitations of the separation in the adsorption separation step of claim 69. In paragraphs 4, 31, and 61-63 Gao discloses that the method can be carried out in a simulated moving bed. In paragraph 63 Gao discloses that the flow rate of the raw material is 1747 ml/h. As the raw material predominantly comprises C8 aromatics, the density of the raw material will be about 0.86 g/ml, leading to a flow rate of about 1502 g/h, or about 1.502 kg/h. In paragraph 62 Gao discloses that the amount of adsorbent is 3300 ml, and in table 1 Gao discloses that the adsorbent can have a bilk density of about 0.83 g/ml, leading to an amount of adsorbent of about 2739 g, or about 2.739 kg. The flow rate of raw material relative to the amount of adsorbent is therefore about 0.5484 kg/(h∙kg adsorbent), within the range recited in claim 70. In paragraph 62 Gao discloses that the simulated moving bed apparatus has a structure meeting the limitations of claim 71, where the buffer zone between he raffinate and the desorbent corresponds to the isolation zone of claim 71.
In paragraphs 35 and 62 Gao discloses maintaining the pressure of the adsorption system at 0.8 MPa and the temperature at 177° C, within the ranges recited in claim 72. In paragraph 63 Gao indicates that the desorbent and raw material flow rates are in a ratio of about 1.189 in terms of volume, and since the densities will be similar (both are predominantly C8 aromatics, the mass flow rate ratio will also be similar, falling well within the range recited in claim 72.
The simulated moving bed apparatus disclosed by Gao for performing the method of Gao meets the limitations of claims 77-78, which are analogous to the method requirements of claims 63 and 71.
The difference between Gao and the currently presented claims is that Gao does not specifically disclose performing the method on a raw material containing trimethylbenzene-based compounds.
Rosenfeld, in column 1 lines 7-15, discloses the separation of ortho aromatic isomers from a hydrocarbon feed stream containing a mixture of aromatics by use of a specific crystalline aluminosilicate adsorbent, and in column 2 lines 27-32 discloses that the adsorbent is a cesium-containing zeolite. As discussed in paragraph 8 above, Gao discloses that cesium is a suitable group Ia cation for incorporation into the adsorbent of Gao. In column 2 lines 47-59 Rosenfeld discloses that in order to increase the selectivity, the adsorbent is exchanged with cations, including calcium, strontium, and cobalt, bivalent Group IIa cations recited in claim 63 and disclosed in paragraph 27 of Gao. In Example II (column 6 line 58 through column 7 line 25), Rosenfeld discloses the use of the zeolite to separate a raw material feed containing trimethylbenzene-based isomers. The use of the method and adsorbent of Gao on a C9 hydrocarbon containing raw material, as in example II of Rosenfeld, meets the limitations of the method of claims 69-72. Additionally, since the adsorbent of Gao meets the limitations of the claimed adsorbent, and the method of Gao and Rosenfeld meets the limitations of the method steps of the claims, the trimethylbenzene-based compounds obtained will have a purity meeting the limitations of claim 75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use of the method and adsorbent of Gao on a trimethylbenzene-containing C9 hydrocarbon-containing raw material, as in Rosenfeld, since Rosenfeld teaches that a zeolite containing cesium and a bivalent cation in accordance with Gao is effective in adsorbing and separating certain trimethylbenzene-based hydrocarbons.
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Rosenfeld as applied to claims 69-72 and 75 above, and further in view of Wang (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0155674)
The discussions of Gao and Rosenfeld in paragraphs 8-9 above are incorporated here by reference. Gao and Rosenfeld disclose a method meeting the limitations of claim 69 and using a simulated moving bed apparatus, but do not disclose a simulated moving bed apparatus having the features recited in claim 73.
In paragraph 1 Wang discloses a process and device for separating isomers by simulated moving bed adsorption. In paragraphs 29-34 and Figures 1-2 Wang discloses that the simulated moving beds comprise adsorption beds having the features recited in the first, third, and fourth sections of claim 73. As noted in paragraph 4 above, meeting the limitations of one section of the claim is therefore considered to meet the claim. Performing the method of Gao and Rosenfeld in the simulated moving bed apparatus of Wang therefore meets the limitations of claim 73.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the simulated moving bed apparatus of Wang as the simulated moving bed apparatus in the method of Gao and Rosenfeld, since Wang teaches that it is a suitable simulated moving bed apparatus for use in the separation of hydrocarbon isomers.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Rosenfeld as applied to claims 69-72 above, and further in view of Yamada (EP 0165470 A2)
The discussions of Gao and Rosenfeld in paragraphs 8-9 above are incorporated here by reference. Gao and Rosenfeld disclose a method meeting the limitations of claim 69, and Rosenfeld teaches separating hemimellitene (1,2,3-trimethylbenzene), pseudocumene (1,2,4-trimethylbenzene), and mesitylene (1,3,5-trimethylbenzene), from a mixture of C9 hydrocarbons, where the hemimellitene and pseudocumene are preferentially obtained. Gao and Rosenfeld do not disclose the additional steps recited in claims 74-75.
On pages 11-12 and Figure 1, Yamada discloses distillation of an aromatic mixture through multiple distillation columns to separate mesitylene, pseudocumene, and hemimellitene, corresponding to the distillation step of claim 74 where the mesitylene is produced in the first distillation column, pseudocumene is produced in the second distillation column, and hemimellitene is produced from a third distillation column. Based on the composition of the fractions reported on page 12 of Yamada, the mesitylene is recovered in an amount of 97%, the pseudocumene in an amount of 99%, and the hemimellitene in an amount of 96%, all within the ranges recited in claim 74.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to distill the mixture of trimethylbenzene isomers produced by the method of Gao and Rosenfeld according to the method taught by Yamada, in order to efficiently produce useful aromatics, as taught on pages 2-3 of Yamada, with high purity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 76 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above, does not disclose of render obvious the additional method steps of claim 76. In particular, while the isomerization of trimethylbenzene isomers is known in the prior art, the prior art does not provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to return the adsorption separation step of the claims for separation, rather than separating by the mixture of C9 aromatics by another means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771