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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II claims in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected Group I claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Parvulescu et al., International Publication No. WO/2019/228132 (hereinafter referred to as Parvulescu – for citation purposes USPG-PUB No. 2021/0253495 is being used).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-11, Parvulescu discloses a method for producing an aromatic hydrocarbon by bringing biomass-derived ethylene in a gaseous state and a biomass-derived furan derivative into contact with a catalyst made of zeolite material in a continuous reactor (see claims 1-5 and 11 and Para. [0007], [0013]-[0015], [0038] and [0223]/Example 1 and see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, the pressure in the reactor is not explicitly stated but it is the position of the examiner that pressure is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation.
You may use this when certain parameter(s) is(are) claimed, but criticality of such parameter(s) is(are) not shown on the record. However, you need to explain why the parameter is result effective. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art and would have been obvious, consult In re Boesch and Slaney (205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parvulescu in view of Rodriguez et al., International Publication No. WO2020/044053 (hereinafter referred to as Rodriguez – for citation purposes USPG-PUB No. 2021/0316331 is being used).
Parvulescu discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not disclose the method for manufacturing a polymer using an aromatic hydrocarbon as a raw material as recited in claim 12.
Rodriguez discloses polymerizing p-xylene to form a polymer (see Claim 1/Example 1 of Rodriguez). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the method steps of Rodriguez in the process of Parvulescu as it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
There were unused Y references from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights