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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to for improper English grammar.
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites “conditions suitable produce” which is improper English. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites “residual butenes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the produced C4 hydrocarbons.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koduru (US 2022/0025283).
With respect to claim 1, Koduru discloses a process for hydrocracking a residue, such as a vacuum residue, to produce hydrocarbons and an unconverted oil (equivalent to “pitch” as claimed). The unconverted oil is then thermally cracked to produce gaseous hydrocarbons, naphtha, distillates, and coke (see Koduru, Fig. 2; and paragraphs [0019]-[0023], [0027], [0051], and [0052]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koduru (US 2022/0025283).
With respect to claim 3, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. Koduru is not specifically limited with respect to the weight percentages of gaseous hydrocarbons, naphtha, distillate, and coke produced (see Koduru, entire disclosure). Moreover, inasmuch as Koduru acknowledges that the process covers embodiments using various feed constituents as well as differences in processing severity (see Koduru, paragraphs [0019], [0020], and [0054]), it follows that the person having ordinary skill in the art could easily adjust and manipulate these variables in order to achieve any desired weight percentage of the various product components. The person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Claims 2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koduru (US 2022/0025283) in view of Axelrod (US 10,364,204) and Convers (FR 2520356).
With respect to claims 2 and 4-12, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. The limitations of claims 2 and 4-12 are considered straightforward alternatives and/or falling within mere routine experimentation and are considered obvious especially in view of the lack of any objective evidence in the specification to demonstrate unexpected results obtained as a direct consequence of the claim limitations. Here, it is noted that MTBE production, hydrogenation, and isomerization of C4 fractions as well as alkylation and steam cracking are all known and common processes in the petroleum refining industry as clearly evidenced by Axelrod and Convers (see Axelrod, Abstract; and claims 1 and 2) (see Convers, claim 1; page 1, lines 27-32; and page 2, lines 1-17). Moreover, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Koduru to incorporate one or more of the above-referenced known processes, such modification providing for a greater diversity of salable products, the quantity of which could be easily modified and adjusted as desired in order to meet market demands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Peters (US 2006/0122444). Peters generally discloses a process for producing butene oligomers and tert-butyl ethers from C4 hydrocarbon streams (see Peters, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights