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 .
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 10, 21 and 22-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 21 the phrase “including but not limited to” makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear what other unlimited options may be present.
Regarding claims 22-25 It is required that a solid acid catalyst is used in the first and second reactors in claim 22. It is unclear if the same acid catalyst must be used in both reactors, if different acid catalysts are to be used in different reactors, or if the contents may be recycled back to a reactor a second time. For the purpose of this office action it is assumed any of these fits the limitations to the claims. This rejections effects all dependent claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13-17, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al (US 2014/0114101 A1) And Rafique et al (US 2015/021610 A1).
Green teaches a method for making fuels including jet fuels (abstract).
The process starts with a feed of a mixture of alcohols, see p 21. This includes ethanol, propanol and others longer chained alcohols. The smaller alcohols are the activators of the instant claims. The alcohols may be all bio-alcohols, see p 25.
This is reacted with a solid acid catalyst under conditions to make an olefin stream. See p 32-36. The olefins produced include less than c12 and greater than c12, and the process may be modified to make the desired carbon range. Thus range of carbons may be majority C8-16. The streams undergo distillation. See p 35-38.
The type of reactor used includes tubular reactors and those with distillations columns at the end, see p 20. Shell in tube reactors are the most common form of tubular reactors, and thus an obvious variant. Multiple reactors may be used, see p 51. Unreacted alcohols may be recycled to undergo the process in the first reactor or another reactor, see p 52.
A reboiler may be used, see p26.
The catalyst used is acidic and includes zeolites, see p 41-42. The catalyst includes metal oxides, see p 47.
Green does not specifically state that the heat energy is transferred from the distillation process to another part of the system.
Rafique teaches a method form making olefins from alcohols (abstract). The reaction may take place in a tubular reactor, see p 96. The process uses heat exchangers in serval parts of the process to take heat energy from one part of the process to use in another part of the process. See p 32-37. This includes reboilers and is thermally connected to the distillation units. See p 197.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat exchanger/reboiler to remove heat energy from one part in the process to use in another part of the process as taught in Rafique in the invention of Green. This has the advantage of lower the total amount of energy needed for the process.
Regarding claims 11 and 12 having the heat exchanger on the inside or outside or both of the reactor is an obvious variant of the invention. Additionally, it is the position of the examiner that the heat exchanger placement is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation. Placement to optimize the amount of heat energy transferred would be due to the physical location and size constraints of the factory. 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(s) 7-12 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al (US 2014/0114101 A1) And Rafique et al (US 2015/021610 A1) and Nesterenko et al (US 2019/0233348 A1)
To see what Green teaches please see above. Green does not state a variety of the catalyst limitations required in claims 7-12 and 18-21.
Nesterenko teaches a process for making mixtures of alcohols into olefins, see abstract.
The process may use a 10 membered ring zeolite catalyst. This includes ZSM-48, Fer, EUO, MTT, SZR and other types of zeolites. See p 43-44. The catalyst may is an acid catalyst. A variety of oxide metals may be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the catalyst of Nesterenko in the invention of Greene. Green already call for use of such catalysts, and they have the advantage of being effective catalyst for the reaction of turning mixtures of alcohols into olefins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights