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 11/7/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-3, 6-7, 13-17 and 20 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 Schwab et al., US Patent No. 6,433,240 (hereinafter referred to as Schwab).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-7, 13-17 and 20, Schwab discloses a process comprising, among other elements, a reactor R01 wherein a mixture of 1-butene and 2-butene (raffinate II) is reacted in the presence of the metathesis catalyst including alumina/aluminum oxide. The product stream is fed to distillation column K101, wherein propene and ethene are removed at the top and 2-pentene, 3-hexene and high boilers are taken off at the bottom. Unreacted raffinate II is taken off at the middle offtake of the column and some of it is returned to said reactor R01. Said reactor R01 and distillation column K101 correspond to the first side reactor and distillation column of instant claim 1 (see Abstract and see Figure 1 and Col. 3-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 13-17 and 20 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 Schwab et al., US Patent No. 6,646,172 (hereinafter referred to as Schwab ‘172).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-7, 13-17 and 20, Schwab ‘172 discloses a similar process as disclosed above wherein a process for the preparation of propene by metathesis of i-butene in the presence of a Re₂O₇/AI₂O₃ catalyst and wherein the reactor R1 and the distillation column D1 of figure 3 correspond to the side reactor and column of the present invention (see Abstract and see Claim 1 of Schwab ‘172 and see Examples 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-5, 8-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab in view of Van Geem et al., EP Publication No. EP0664776B1 (hereinafter referred to as Van Geem).
Regarding claims 4-5, 8-12 and 18-19, Schwab discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the isomerization reactions or claim 4, nor the reaction conditions and configurations of claims 8-12.
Van Geem discloses a process wherein a mixture of butenes is fed to a reactive distillation column wherein a metathesis and an isomerization reaction takes place. Ethylene and propene are obtained in the top stream, while the bottom stream contained mainly C5 and C6 olefins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the process steps of Van Geem in the process of Schwab as it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-5, 8-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab ‘172 in view of Van Geem et al., EP Publication No. EP0664776B1 (hereinafter referred to as Van Geem).
Regarding claims 4-5, 8-12 and 18-19, Schwab ‘172 discloses all the limitations discussed above but does not explicitly disclose the isomerization reactions or claim 4, nor the reaction conditions and configurations of claims 8-12.
Van Geem discloses a process wherein a mixture of butenes is fed to a reactive distillation column wherein a metathesis and an isomerization reaction takes place. Ethylene and propene are obtained in the top stream, while the bottom stream contained mainly C5 and C6 olefins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the process steps of Van Geem in the process of Schwab ‘172 as it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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