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 .
The amendment dated 01/09/2026 has been considered and entered. The response was considered and found to be persuasive over Zhang et al. (US 2014/0171969) for failing to teach the zirconium: lanthanide type catalyst as claimed. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Li (US 2019/0046967).
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 16, 18 – 26, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0046967)
In regards to claim 1, Li teaches method for producing one or more hydrocarbon from at least one of 2,3-butanediol, acetoin, and ethanol (i.e., alcohols) which is contacted with a catalyst at a temperature of from 100 to 500℃, and wherein the catalyst can be a first catalyst that comprises metal oxide from the group of titanium dioxide, zirconium oxide (i.e., zirconia) cerium oxide, and lanthanum which are lanthanides or a second zeolite catalyst comprising metals such as copper at amounts of from 1 to 30% (abstract).
Li teaches the first zirconia-lanthanide catalyst can be improved by the presence of copper in the core-shell [0008]. Li teaches that either of the two catalysts can comprise copper or silver particles [0016]. While no particular amount of copper for use in the first catalyst is suggested, it would have been obvious to try the effective amounts recited as useful in the second catalyst. Li teaches that the compounds produced include C2 to C8 alkanes [0014].
The method includes using the alcohol(s) at the high temperatures previously recited, and wherein the alcohols can be pure, or can be mixed with a solvent such as water at amounts of from 5 to 80% and contacted with the catalyst [0013]. At the high temperatures which are higher than the boiling point of the water and alcohols, they alcohol/water blend will be vaporized and the amount of the alcohol in the vapor phase would be expected to overlap the claimed range based on the weight converted to molar amounts as the molecular weight of the alcohol is larger than that of the water and a 50:50 mixture of the butanediol (BDO) with water with molar mass ratios of about 90 g/mol and about 18 g/mol respectively provides a ratio of about 1:5, or about 17 mol% of the alcohol in the vapor phase.
The metal oxide is at least one of zirconium oxide (zirconia), cerium oxide, lanthanum oxide etc., and thus can comprise mixtures of the zirconia and lanthanides [0018]. Process parameters such as reaction time and pressure are conditions that are routinely optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art, and would be obvious. The action occurs in a fixed bed reactor [0038, 0045]. The process may be a continuous process or batch [0028].
The products are useful as jet fuel and the reaction can occur in an inert atmosphere or hydrogen [0031].
In regards to claims 2 – 15, Li teaches the process having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regards to claim 16, Li teaches the process having zirconia as claimed. Zirconia is naturally in three forms, tetragonal, monoclinic or cubic and thus the use of either of the forms would be obvious. According to KSR rationale, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a basis for obviousness.
In regards to claim 18, Li teaches the process that can comprise zirconia mixed with one or more of the lanthanide and titanium dioxide, and thus allows for ratios of 1:1 as claimed.
In regards to claim 19, Li teaches the process having the claimed limitations as previously discussed above.
In regards to claims 20, 21, Li teaches the process having the claimed limitation and wherein the reaction can occur in an inert atmosphere or hydrogen. Since both ingredients are useful, their combination would be obvious. KSR teaches that it is obvious to combine prior art elements useful for the same purpose to yield similar results. Thus, combining the gases at about equal molar ratios would be obvious.
In regards to claim 22, Li teaches the process wherein the catalyst can be a powder [0027].
In regards to claim 23, Li teaches the process wherein the product can include methyl ethyl ketone [0006].
In regards to claim 24, Li teaches the process which can comprise products such as acetaldehyde, butene etc. [0041]. Since the process includes a hydrogen gas in the reaction, it appears that hydrogenation of the aldehyde and unsaturated compound such as butene to prepare alkanes which are products of the process would occur.
In regards to claim 25, Li teaches the process and the alcohol as previously stated.
In regards to claim 26, Li teaches the process comprising inert gas, water (i.e., water vapor) as previously stated.
In regards to claim 29, Li teaches the process as previously stated. It is noted that the claim does not require the presence of the ester but merely recites what esters are suitable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27, 28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Li teaches the process but fails to teach the ratios of the zirconium to the lanthanide as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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