CTNF 18/730,247 CTNF 84760 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 5, 7 – 20, 23 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramhold et al. (On the Formation and Thermolysis of Isomeric Tricyclopentadienes) In regards to claim 1, Ramhold recites Diels-Alder reaction for the formation of tricyclopentadienes (TCPD) by codimerization of cyclopentadiene (CPD) with endo- and exo-dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) (page 924). The TCPD mixtures have structures 1 to 16, wherein the structures 10, 9, 1, and 5 are each present at amounts of from 9.1 to 17.2%, 3 to 12.5%, 1.2 to 82.8% and 5.1 to 84.7% respectively, and are each analogous to the claimed structures TCPD-3, TCPD-7, TCPD-1 and TCPD-5 respectively (pages 925 – 926). The reaction product contained 97.4 In regards to claims 2, 11, Ramhold teaches the reaction process wherein DCPD and CPD are reacted under conditions to reduce excessive dimerization of the CPD, and also to prevent oligomerization of the DCPD to less than 5%, thus providing reactants at mole ratios of DCPD and CPD of >5 (page 928). Since DCPD can be present in the products, it would be obvious to recycle them and reuse them in the feed. The feed can comprise DCPD and CPD at weight amounts of from 95.5%: 8.5% to 97.7% to 0.3% respectively (page 933). The steps of providing a feed, reacting them, separating them and reusing (recycling) at least a portion of the products are provided by Ramhold. In regards to claim 12, Ramhold teaches the reaction products as previously discussed. In regards to claims 3 – 5, 7 – 10, 13, 14, Ramhold teaches the composition and process, and wherein reaction conditions are intended to limit the presence of non-desired products to less than 5%, and thus the claimed amount of TCPD is results effective and would be routinely optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. In regards to claims 15, 16, Ramhold teaches the process having the claimed limitations as previously discussed. In regards to claims 17 – 19, Ramhold teaches the process wherein the process conditions are optimized to provide maximal amounts TCPD in the products and thus makes it obvious to routinely optimized the process parameters. Therefore, the operating conditions such as temperature, pressure, time etc., are results effective variables. For instance, concentration and time provides for optimizing the production of TCPD are provided in Figs 1 and 2. In one embodiment, the reaction occurs at a temperature of 170℃ (page 927). In Table 1, the results are for reactions occurring at 180℃ at varying retention times. In one embodiment, the reaction occurs at higher temperatures of 300℃ and a pressure of 6MPa (page 924). The reaction conditions can be varied to limit the production of DCPD and oligomeric CPD in the products. In regards to claim 20, Ramhold teaches the process as previously discussed. In regards to claims 23 – 27, Ramhold teaches the process for providing a high selectivity of TCPD and a low selectivity of DCPD and oligomers, and thus would have been obvious to have separated the products into different steams in order to isolate the TCPD and each of the other products. The process of separation includes distillation which would intrinsically separate the products into various streams by their boiling points essentially providing the claimed limitations (page 927, Examples). The diluent useful in the distillation process includes toluene, ethylbenzene (see Examples). Again, Ramhold is focused on increased selectivity of TCPD over other products . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatara et al. (WO 2012/077546 A1) In regards to claim 11, Tatara teaches a method of preparing tricyclopentadiene (TCP) in a Diels Alder reaction of cyclopentadiene (CPD) and dicyclopentadiene (DCP), and wherein the product comprises 0 to 5% DCP, TCP mixtures at 80 to 90%, and CPD tetramer at 0 to 5%, and wherein the unreacted DCP and the CPD tetramer are removed from the products (specification). While recycling of the unreacted DCP back to the reactor is not particularly stated, it would have been obvious to use them as part of the reaction feed . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6, 21, 22, 28 ae objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ramhold fails to particularly recite the amounts of each of the ingredients or their ratios in the products as claimed, and neither recites the further steps of stripping oxygen . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm. 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. /TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 Application/Control Number: 18/730,247 Page 2 Art Unit: 1771 Application/Control Number: 18/730,247 Page 3 Art Unit: 1771 Application/Control Number: 18/730,247 Page 4 Art Unit: 1771 Application/Control Number: 18/730,247 Page 5 Art Unit: 1771 Application/Control Number: 18/730,247 Page 6 Art Unit: 1771
Prosecution Insights