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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 5/3/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NPL citing No. 2-11 are missing from the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant traverses the restriction requirement and argues that Groups I (claims 1–19) and II (claims 20–25) are linked by a common “special technical feature” (STF), namely the supported heteropolyacid (HPA) scavenger. This argument is not persuasive. Under 37 CFR 1.475 and PCT Rule 13.2, unity of invention requires that the claimed inventions share a common technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art. As set forth in the restriction requirement, the alleged common feature (i.e., the apparatus/system including the scavenger or its use) does not constitute a special technical feature because it does not provide a contribution over the prior art in view of US 2008/0135455 A1, which teaches an apparatus system for removing contaminants from hydrocarbon streams using solid materials (see Coupard, e.g., ¶¶ [0032]–[0033]).
Applicant’s argument that the STF is instead the “supported heteropolyacid scavenger” is not persuasive because the claims of Group I and Group II do not share a common inventive concept limited to a specific composition that demonstrably distinguishes over the prior art. Rather, the purported STF is broadly recited and encompasses known classes of solid materials used for contaminant removal in hydrocarbon streams. The mere recitation of a particular class of materials (e.g., heteropolyacids) does not, by itself, establish a contribution over the prior art absent a demonstrated technical distinction or unexpected result.
Applicant further argues that Coupard does not disclose heteropolyacids and addresses different contaminants (arsenic vs. catalyst residues) and concentration ranges. However, these arguments are not persuasive with respect to unity because the unity analysis does not require the prior art to disclose the identical material or contaminant, but rather to show that the alleged common feature does not constitute a technical contribution over the prior art. Coupard demonstrates that removal of contaminants from hydrocarbon streams using solid materials in an apparatus system was known, thereby rendering the alleged common feature insufficient to establish unity.
Additionally, differences in contaminant type (arsenic vs. catalyst residues), concentration ranges (ppb vs. ppm), or operating conditions do not establish a special technical feature where the underlying concept—removal of contaminants from hydrocarbon streams using solid materials—is already known. Such differences are considered variations in application of known techniques rather than evidence of a unifying inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims of Group I (process) and Group II (apparatus/system) are directed to distinct inventions lacking a single general inventive concept, and the restriction requirement is therefore maintained.
Additionally, the special feature common to all independent claims is rendered obvious by the references as applied to the §103 rejections below. The two inventions do not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concepts exist. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite because the phrase “homogeneous catalyst-related contaminants” fails to clearly define the scope of the claimed subject matter. It is unclear whether the term encompasses only metal-containing catalyst residues, ligand species, decomposition products, or other materials associated with a homogeneous catalyst, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 1–19 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of enablement because the claims are drawn to a broad genus encompassing a wide variety of hydrocarbons, catalyst-derived contaminants, heteropolyacids, supports, and process conditions, while the specification does not provide sufficient guidance or representative examples to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation, particularly with respect to achieving the recited contaminant reduction levels across all embodiments.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 8,753,535 B2) in view of Garcin et al. (US 5,288,849), and further in view of EP 1982761 A1.
Claim 1
Kumar teaches a process for treating a hydrocarbon/polymer solution by contacting the stream with a solid adsorbent (e.g., activated alumina) to remove organometallic catalyst-related contaminants via adsorption, including passing the stream through an adsorbent bed to obtain a purified hydrocarbon product (Kumar, col. 2, lines 20–35; col. 5, lines 10–35; col. 6, lines 15–40).
Kumar does not expressly teach that the adsorbent is a supported heteropolyacid scavenger, that the catalyst-related contaminants are specifically reduced from 100 ppm or greater to 10 ppm or less, or that the hydrocarbon product includes the specific linear internal structure recited in claim 11.
Garcin teaches that hydrocarbon/polyolefin products prepared using coordination catalysts are contaminated with metal catalyst residues (e.g., Ti, V, Zr) and that it is necessary to remove such metallic residues via adsorption using solid adsorbents such as alumina (see, e.g., , p. 2, lines 10–30: “polyolefins… contaminated by metallic residues… necessary to purify… use… adsorbents, in particular aluminas”). Garcin further teaches that such adsorbents remove contaminating catalyst metal values from polyolefin products (Abstract, p. 1).
EP ’761 teaches supported heteropolyacid materials, including phosphotungstic acid and Keggin-type heteropolyacids supported on substrates such as silica, alumina, zeolites, and carbon (EP ’761, paragraphs [0015]–[0025], [0035]–[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adsorbent used in Kumar to comprise a supported heteropolyacid as taught by EP ’761, in view of Garcin’s teaching that metal catalyst residues in hydrocarbon/polyolefin systems are removed by adsorption using solid adsorbents, in order to employ an alternative solid, surface-active adsorbent material for removing catalyst-related contaminants. Such substitution represents the predictable use of one known solid adsorbent material for another to perform the same function (adsorption) to obtain expected results.
Regarding the recited concentration reduction (≥100 ppm to ≤10 ppm), Garcin teaches removal of contaminating catalyst metal values from polyolefin systems, and Kumar teaches adsorption-based purification of hydrocarbon streams; optimization of contaminant levels constitutes a result-effective variable that would have been obvious.
Claims 2–3 recite that the contaminants comprise metals and/or metal carbene catalyst-related species.
Garcin explicitly teaches metal catalyst residues originating from coordination catalysts (e.g., Ti, V, Zr) (, p. 2, lines 10–20), and Kumar teaches removal of organometallic catalyst residues (col. 2, lines 20–35). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the contaminants include metal-containing catalyst species and decomposition products thereof.
Claims 4–5 recite regeneration of the scavenger and recovery of metal.
Kumar teaches use of adsorbent beds for removal of contaminants (col. 6, lines 15–40), and regeneration or replacement of such adsorbents is conventional in adsorption processes.
Garcin likewise contemplates industrial purification systems using adsorbents. Recovery of adsorbed metals from solid adsorbents is a routine process step.
Claims 6–9 recite hydrocarbon types and ranges.
Kumar teaches treatment of hydrocarbon/polymer solution streams and olefin-containing hydrocarbons (col. 3, lines 5–25), which inherently encompass hydrocarbons within the claimed carbon-number and melting-point ranges. Therefore, these limitations are met or obvious.
Claims 10–12 recite that the hydrocarbon comprises at least one linear internal olefin, including a structure represented by R¹–CH=CH–R², wherein R¹ and R² are alkyl groups.
Kumar teaches treatment of olefin-containing hydrocarbon streams derived from polymerization processes (col. 3, lines 10–30). Linear internal olefins are well-known and common constituents of such hydrocarbon mixtures. The recited structure represents a generic internal olefin, which would have been inherently present or at least obvious in the known hydrocarbon streams treated by Kumar. Accordingly, the recited structure does not patentably distinguish over the applied prior art.
Claim 13 recites metals including Cu, Ru, Fe, Co, Ni, Pd, Pt, Rh, or W. Garcin explicitly teaches metal catalyst residues (e.g., Ti, V, Zr) (, p. 2), and such metals fall within the class of transition metal catalysts.
Kumar broadly teaches removal of organometallic catalyst residues. The recited metals are well-known catalyst metals, and their selection represents a routine choice within a known class.
Claim 14 recites a weight ratio of contaminants to scavenger.
Kumar teaches contacting hydrocarbon streams with an adsorbent bed (col. 5, lines 10–35), inherently involving ratios of contaminant to adsorbent. Optimization of such ratios is a result-effective variable that would have been obvious.
Claims 15–19 recite specific supported heteropolyacid compositions, including substrates (alumina, silica, zeolite, activated carbon), specific heteropolyacids (phosphotungstic acid, silicotungstic acid), Keggin structures, and substituted forms.
EP ’761 explicitly teaches:
supported heteropolyacids on silica, alumina, zeolites, and carbon, and
phosphotungstic acid and Keggin-type heteropolyacids(EP ’761, paragraphs [0015]–[0025], [0035]–[0045]).
Therefore, these limitations are expressly taught or would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights