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 § 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) 1-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 2021/0130708 a1).
Xu teaches a process to produce BTX products, see abstract.
The process has a feed stream that is 100% aromatics. This includes naphthalene and 3 ring aromatics. All the aromatics maybe alkylated. See p 42. This also includes alkyl indane.
In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
This is passed to a hydrogenation zone. The zone give partial hydrogenation. Given the starting aromatics the resultants would include tetralin and alkyl tetralin. See p 46. This zone functions at 150C to 500C ( p 85). The catalyst used as metals from groups 6-10 including Ni and Mo, see p 109.
This is passed to a fluid cracking zone which dealkylated and opened rings. See p 10 and 40. The reaction temperature is as low as 450C, see p 126. The catalyst used may be MFI with group 6-10 metals, see 131. This specifically includes Pt.
Part of this effluent undergoes transalkylation to form a product, see p 134-135.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 8 each part of the process taught above is done in a zone. It is the position of the examiner that the configuration of the number of beds in each reactor or “zone” is a result effective variable and as such can be optimized without undue experimentation. The variables optimized here can include maximizing heat conservation, or reducing total production time or others. 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)).
In the alternative having differing amount of reactor in different zones is a well-known and obvious variations of a known process. This can be done to optimize heat conservation or reducing total production time or others.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 10 the transalkylation catalyst having the ring opening and dealkylation functions are not taught or possible as the dealkylation is done in a different step.
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