DETAILED ACTION
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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites “The process according to claim 1, wherein the aromatic vinyl compounds…” However, the aromatic vinyl compounds are only recited in claim 9, not in claim 1. Thus, for antecedent basis purposes, claim 10 should be amended to recite “The process according to claim 9…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al. (CN 113198519, machine translation provided).
With regard to claims 1-3, 14, and 15, Ren teaches a process for isomerization (Abstract) comprising the following:
a) providing a stream comprising 55.1 wt% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene from the bottom of a distillation column (input stream) to an isomerization reactor (paragraphs [0061]-[0063], Table 2, and Figure). As mol% and wt% are equivalent when talking about isomers, the amount is equivalent to 55.2 mol%, which is within the range of at least 25 mol% of instant claim 1.
b) isomerizing the bottoms stream using a heterogeneous zeolite catalyst to produce a product stream (paragraph [0061]). Ren further teaches that the purpose of the isomerization is to increase the amount of alpha-olefin, which in this case is 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene (paragraph [0005]). Therefore, the proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene in the product stream will be lower than in the input stream, and the proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene will be higher than in the input stream, as claimed.
With regard to claims 2, 3, 14, and 15, Ren further teaches that the product of the isomerization is the feed to the distillation column (Figure), and that the feed to the distillation column includes 68 wt% (68 mol%) 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and 24 wt% (24 mol%) 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene (paragraph [0063], Table). The amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene is within the range of 60 to 80 mol% of instant claim 2 and the range of 65-80 mol% of instant claim 14. The amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene is within the range of 20-40 mol% of instant claim 3 and the range of 20-35 mol% of instant claim 15.
With regard to claim 5, Ren teaches the isomerization is at a temperature of 80°C (paragraph [0061]), which is within the range of 25-90°C of instant claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 113198519, cited on IDS 06/10/2024, machine translation provided by Examiner) in view of Powers (US 2004/0122278, cited on IDS 06/10/2024).
With regard to claim 4, Ren teaches the method above.
Ren is silent regarding the isomerization pressure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine a suitable pressure.
Powers teaches a process for isomerization of internal olefins to alpha olefins (Abstract) in the presence of a zeolite catalyst (paragraph [0024]). Powers further teaches the pressure for the isomerization is a wide range due to the different feeds and catalysts which can be used, but will generally be from about 0 to about 250 psig (0 to 17 bar) (paragraph [0025]), which is within the range of less than 40 bar of instant claim 4.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the pressure range of Powers in the process of Ren, because each of Ren and Powers teaches isomerization of internal olefins to alpha olefins with a zeolite catalyst, Ren is silent regarding the pressure, and Powers teaches that a pressure within the claimed range is known and that one of ordinary skill in the art can determine suitable pressure based on the feed and catalyst as well (paragraph [0025]).
With regard to claim 13, Ren teaches the method above.
Ren is silent regarding the reaction being in liquid phase. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to related art to determine the phase of the reaction.
Powers teaches a process for isomerization of internal olefins to alpha olefins (Abstract) in the presence of a zeolite catalyst (paragraph [0024]). Powers further teaches the isomerization can be in liquid phase (paragraph [0013]). Therefore, Powers teaches that it is known to perform a similar isomerization in liquid phase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform the isomerization of Ren in liquid phase, as claimed, because each of Ren and Powers teaches isomerization of internal olefins to alpha olefins with a zeolite catalyst, Ren is silent regarding the phase, and Powers teaches that it is known to perform the reaction in liquid phase.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 113198519, machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powers (US 2004/0122278, cited on IDS 06/10/2024), Brownscombe (US 4,992,613), and Wadlinger et al. (US 3,308,069).
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Ren teaches the process above, where the process comprises a zeolite catalyst (paragraph [0005]).
Ren fails to teach zeolite beta having a Si:Al ratio from 40:1 to 200:1.
Powers teaches a process for producing alpha-olefins from internal olefins (Abstract). Powers teaches that the process comprises reacting the internal olefin with any isomerization catalyst which promotes double bond shifts, such as the zeolite catalyst in US Pat 4,922,613 (to Brownscombe) (paragraph [0024]).
Brownscombe teaches double bond isomerization over zeolite catalysts, which can be any zeolite including zeolite beta as in 3,308,069 (to Wadlinger), which is incorporated by reference (column 2, lines 48-52). Wadlinger teaches that zeolite beta can have a silica to alumina ratio of 10 to 150. This is equivalent to a Si:Al ratio of 20 to 300, which overlaps the range of 40 to 200 of instant claim 6, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Brownscombe further teaches that basic zeolites provide more selectivity for double bond isomerization (column 1, lines 11-12) and Powers further teaches that the zeolites of Brownscombe are suitable for the isomerization of internal olefins to alpha-olefins (paragraph [0024]), which is the reaction taking place in Ren.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the zeolite catalyst of Powers and Brownscombe in the process of Ren, because each of Ren, Powers, and Brownscombe teaches isomerization with a zeolite catalyst, Powers teaches the zeolite catalyst of Brownscombe is useful to isomerize internal olefins to desired alpha olefins, and Brownscombe teaches that the basic zeolite beta catalyst is selective for the double bond isomerization.
With regard to claim 8, Wadlinger teaches replacing the sodium ions from the synthesis of the beta zeolite with hydrogen ions (column 5, lines 54-55). Thus, the catalyst of Powers in view of Brownscombe and Wadlinger in a H beta zeolite (Z-beta-H) of instant claim 8.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 113198519, machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powers (US 2004/0122278) and Haag (US 3,326,866).
With regard to claims 9-11, Ren teaches the process above using a zeolite catalyst (paragraph [0005]).
Ren fails to teach a sulfonated ion-exchange resin as the catalyst.
Powers teaches a process for producing alpha-olefins from internal olefins (Abstract) comprising reacting the internal olefin with any isomerization catalyst which promotes double bond shifts, such as zeolites or sulfonated resins. Powers further teaches the sulfonated resins are those as in US Pat 3,326,866 (to Haag) (paragraph [0024]). Hagg teaches the sulfonated resins comprise styrene monomers co-polymerized with divinylbenzene (co-oligomers of aromatic vinyl compounds which are styrene and divinylbenzene of instant claims 9-11) (column 2, lines 9-11 and 23-26), where the sulfonated resins have enhanced catalytic activity (column 1, lines 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the sulfonated ion-exchange resin of Powers in view of Haag in the process of Ren, because each of Ren and Powers teach isomerization of internal olefins to alpha olefins with a catalyst, Powers teaches that sulfonated resins and zeolites are each useful catalysts for the process, thus teaching the idea of using sulfonate resins, and Haag teaches that the claimed sulfonated styrene resins formed from the claimed styrene and divinylbenzene aromatic monomers have enhanced catalytic activity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 113198519, machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powers (US 2004/0122278) and Beckmann et al. (US 2004/0097773).
With regard to claim 12, Ren teaches the process above using a zeolite catalyst (paragraph [0005]).
Ren fails to teach a partially neutralized ion-exchange resin as the catalyst.
Powers teaches a process for producing alpha-olefins from internal olefins (Abstract). Powers teaches that the process comprises reacting the internal olefin with any isomerization catalyst which promotes double bond shifts, such as zeolites or sulfonated ion-exchange resins (paragraph [0024]). Thus, Powers teaches that ion-exchanged resins are equally useful to the isomerization reaction as zeolites for the process of Ren.
Powers fails to teach a partially neutralized ion-exchange resin.
Beckmann teaches a process for producing diisobutenes by isomerization with oligomerization, where the isomerization shits the double bond position (paragraphs [0002] and [0085]). Beckmann further teaches using a partially neutralized ion-exchange resin for the double bond shift, which allows the product to have a high purity of the desired olefin (paragraph [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a partially neutralized ion-exchange resin as the catalyst of Ren, because each of Ren, Powers, and Beckmann teaches double bond isomerization over a catalyst, Powers teaches that zeolites and ion-exchange resins are equally useful, and Beckmann teaches that using a partially neutralized ion-exchange resin provides high purity of the desired olefin (paragraph [0086]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 113198519, cited on IDS 06/10/2024, machine translation provided by Examiner).
With regard to claim 16, Ren teaches the temperature for the isomerization is 70-120°C (paragraph [0025]), which overlaps the range of 35-70°C of instant claim 16 at the endpoint, rendering the range prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 7-10 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/739,599 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/739,599 combine to render unpatentable the inventive claims.
Instant claim 1 recites a process for isomerization comprising providing an input stream having at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, and isomerizing the stream over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin catalyst to produce a product having an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Instant claims 5 and 16 recite temperature ranges, instant claims 6 and 7 recite Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite, and instant claim 9 recites types of ion-exchange resins.
Claim 3 of Application 18/739,599 recites a process for isomerization of a residual stream comprising 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene and a depleted amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin. Claim 4 of Application 18/739,599 recites that the product of the isomerization has an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Claims 7 and 15 of Application 18/739,599 recite the identical temperature ranges as instant claims 5 and 6, respectively. Claims 8 and 9 of Application 18/739,599 recite the identical Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite as instant claims 6 and 7, respectively. Claim 10 of Application 18/739,599 recites the same ion-exchange resins as instant claim 9.
The claims of Application 18/739,599 do not explicitly recite that the residual stream comprises at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene. However, claim 1 of Application 18/739,599 recites that the residual stream is formed by separating at least 85 mol% of the 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene from a diisobutene stream into an overhead stream while retaining the 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene in the residual stream, and the background of Application 18/739,599 recites that it is known that the diisobutene stream contains 78-81 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene (paragraph [0003]). Multiplying this by the 85% gives that the overhead stream comprises at least 66.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene. Thus, the residual stream comprises 11.7 mol% or less 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and at least 88.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, which is within the range of at least 25 mol% of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the combination of claims 3 and 4 of Application 18/739,599 with information known to one of ordinary skill in the art renders unpatentable instant claim 1, and claims 7-10 and 15 of Application 18/739,599 render unpatentable instant claims 5-7, 9, and 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 7-10 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/739,433 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/739,433 combine to render unpatentable the inventive claims.
Instant claim 1 recites a process for isomerization comprising providing an input stream having at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, and isomerizing the stream over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin catalyst to produce a product having an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Instant claims 5 and 16 recite temperature ranges, instant claims 6 and 7 recite Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite, and instant claim 9 recites types of ion-exchange resins.
Claim 3 of Application 18/739,433 recites a process for isomerization of a residual stream comprising 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene and a depleted amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin. Claim 4 of Application 18/739,433 recites that the product of the isomerization has an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Claims 7 and 16 of Application 18/739,433 recite the identical temperature ranges as instant claims 5 and 6, respectively. Claims 8 and 9 of Application 18/739,433 recite the identical Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite as instant claims 6 and 7, respectively. Claim 10 of Application 18/739,433 recites the same ion-exchange resins as instant claim 9.
The claims of Application 18/739,433 do not explicitly recite that the residual stream comprises at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene. However, claim 1 of Application 18/739,433 recites that the residual stream is formed by separating at least 85 mol% of the 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene from a diisobutene stream into an overhead stream while retaining the 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene in the residual stream, and the background of Application 18/739,433 recites that it is known that the diisobutene stream contains 78-81 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene (paragraph [0004]). Multiplying this by the 85% gives that the overhead stream comprises at least 66.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene. Thus, the residual stream comprises 11.7 mol% or less 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and at least 88.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, which is within the range of at least 25 mol% of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the combination of claims 3 and 4 of Application 18/739,433 with information known to one of ordinary skill in the art renders unpatentable instant claim 1, and claims 7-10 and 15 of Application 18/739,433 render unpatentable instant claims 5-7, 9, and 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10-14 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/738,400 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/738,400 combine to render unpatentable the inventive claims.
Instant claim 1 recites a process for isomerization comprising providing an input stream having at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, and isomerizing the stream over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin catalyst to produce a product having an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Instant claims 5 and 16 recite temperature ranges, instant claims 6-8 recite specific zeolite details, and instant claim 9 recites types of ion-exchange resins.
Claim 1 of Application 18/738,400 recites a process for isomerization of a stream B comprising 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene and a depleted amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin, producing a product stream having an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to stream B. Claim 6 of Application 18/738,400 recites that the stream B comprises 80-92 wt% (equivalent to mole percent because the stream only comprises isomers of the same compound). Claims 10 and 18 of Application 18/738,400 recite the identical temperature ranges as instant claims 5 and 6, respectively. Claims 11-13 of Application 18/738,400 recite the identical specific zeolite details as instant claims 6-8. Claim 14 of Application 18/738,400 recites the same ion-exchange resins as instant claim 9.
Therefore, the combination of claims 1 and 6 of Application 18/738,400 renders unpatentable instant claim 1, and claims 10-14 and 18 of Application 18/738,400 render unpatentable instant claims 5-9, and 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 7-10 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/739,485 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/739,485 combine to render unpatentable the inventive claims.
Instant claim 1 recites a process for isomerization comprising providing an input stream having at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, and isomerizing the stream over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin catalyst to produce a product having an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Instant claims 5 and 16 recite temperature ranges, instant claims 6 and 7 recite Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite, and instant claim 9 recites types of ion-exchange resins.
Claim 3 of Application 18/739,485 recites a process for isomerization of a residual stream comprising 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene and a depleted amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin. Claim 4 of Application 18/739,485 recites that the product of the isomerization has an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Claims 7 and 16 of Application 18/739,485 recite the identical temperature ranges as instant claims 5 and 6, respectively. Claims 8 and 9 of Application 18/739,485 recite the identical Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite as instant claims 6 and 7, respectively. Claim 10 of Application 18/739,485 recites the same ion-exchange resins as instant claim 9.
The claims of Application 18/739,485 do not explicitly recite that the residual stream comprises at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene. However, claim 1 of Application 18/739,485 recites that the residual stream is formed by separating at least 85 mol% of the 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene from a diisobutene stream into an overhead stream while retaining the 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene in the residual stream, and the background of Application 18/739,485 recites that it is known that the diisobutene stream contains 78-81 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene (paragraph [0004]). Multiplying this by the 85% gives that the overhead stream comprises at least 66.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene. Thus, the residual stream comprises 11.7 mol% or less 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and at least 88.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, which is within the range of at least 25 mol% of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the combination of claims 3 and 4 of Application 18/739,485 with information known to one of ordinary skill in the art renders unpatentable instant claim 1, and claims 7-10 and 15 of Application 18/739,485 render unpatentable instant claims 5-7, 9, and 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 7-10 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/739,543 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application 18/739,543 combine to render unpatentable the inventive claims.
Instant claim 1 recites a process for isomerization comprising providing an input stream having at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, and isomerizing the stream over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin catalyst to produce a product having an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Instant claims 5 and 16 recite temperature ranges, instant claims 6 and 7 recite Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite, and instant claim 9 recites types of ion-exchange resins.
Claim 3 of Application 18/739,543 recites a process for isomerization of a residual stream comprising 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene and a depleted amount of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene over a zeolite or ion-exchange resin. Claim 4 of Application 18/739,543 recites that the product of the isomerization has an increased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and decreased proportion of 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene relative to the input stream. Claims 7 and 16 of Application 18/739,543 recite the identical temperature ranges as instant claims 5 and 6, respectively. Claims 8 and 9 of Application 18/739,543 recite the identical Si:Al ratio and type of zeolite as instant claims 6 and 7, respectively. Claim 10 of Application 18/739,543 recites the same ion-exchange resins as instant claim 9.
The claims of Application 18/739,543 do not explicitly recite that the residual stream comprises at least 25 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene. However, claim 1 of Application 18/739,543 recites that the residual stream is formed by separating at least 85 mol% of the 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene from a diisobutene stream into an overhead stream while retaining the 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene in the residual stream, and the background of Application 18/739,543 recites that it is known that the diisobutene stream contains 78-81 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene (paragraph [0004]). Multiplying this by the 85% gives that the overhead stream comprises at least 66.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene. Thus, the residual stream comprises 11.7 mol% or less 2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene and at least 88.3 mol% 2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene, which is within the range of at least 25 mol% of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the combination of claims 3 and 4 of Application 18/739,543 with information known to one of ordinary skill in the art renders unpatentable instant claim 1, and claims 7-10 and 15 of Application 18/739,543 render unpatentable instant claims 5-7, 9, and 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA L CEPLUCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 am-5 pm, EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Alyssa L Cepluch/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772