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 response dated 04/13/2026 has been considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
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 were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed process prepares jet fuel precursors while the process of Li provides butenes, which are fundamentally different. The argument is not persuasive.
The C2 to C8 alkanes products include jet fuels. Even in the case when butene intermediate products are prepared, such products meet the limitation of jet fuel precursors as claimed. Precursors are intermediates and not the jet fuel hydrocarbons themselves.
Applicant argues that the zirconia-containing catalyst of Li only contain copper ions and not metallic copper as claimed. The argument is not persuasive.
Li teaches the catalyst can comprise copper metal and thus provide metallic copper as claimed.
Applicant argues that Li teaches zeolite catalyst which are different from the catalyst comprising copper with a zirconia support as claimed. The argument is not persuasive.
The zirconia catalyst which can comprise metallic copper as taught by Li provides the claimed catalyst.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights