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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 3, 5-8, 10 and 12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 5-8, 10 and 12 are rejected because the claim recites a broad concentration range such as “preferably” and “more preferably” within the claim. The claim would be better understood as separate dependent claims.
4. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 as being unpatentable over Sarin et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0266635 (hereinafter referred to as Sarin) in view of Caranoni et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0114104 (hereinafter referred to as Caranoni).
Regarding claims 1, 3-13 and 16, Sarin discloses a reactor design and configuration and a process for the catalytic dehydration of ethanol to ethylene where the reactor train is comprised of a multi-stage single reactor vessel and the reaction takes place with a catalyst, such as, alumina, at a temperature ranging from about 300°C or above and a pressure ranging from 2 bar and above wherein water is removed in the process and ethylene is recovered and purified in a cryogenic distillation step (as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 6-13 – reads on claim 8 as water is removed therefore the water content will be close to 0 wt%) (see Abstract and Para. [0004], [0008], [0027]-[0029] and [0042]).
Sarin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 the use of membrane separation for the removal of water as recited in claim 1.
Caranoni discloses a method of producing ethylene comprising: a) subjecting a feedstock to steam cracking to produce a first olefin containing stream; b) heating an ethanol containing stream with heat from a steam cracker; c) passing the heated ethanol containing stream over a dehydration catalyst at a temperature between 200°C to 500°C to produce a second olefin containing stream; d) combining the first and second olefin containing streams to give an initial product stream comprising ethylene; and e) subjecting the initial product stream to purification comprising at least i) water content reduction through the use of a platinum membrane and carbon dioxide reduction (as recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 3-5 and 16) (see Abstract and Para. [0042]-[0044] and [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the membranes disclosed in Caranoni as a water removal mechanism in the process disclosed by Sarin as it is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results as membranes are well-known to be used in separation steps.
Regarding claim 17, see discussion above.
Conclusion
8. There was an unused X reference from the ISR report. The examiner is of the position that the prior art cited adequately reads on the claims as instantly recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights