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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. This is the first Office Action on the merits.
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.
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.
Claim 12-16 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.
Claim 12 is considered indefinite for reciting “fermenting starch and/or sugars to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide and providing an inert, carbon dioxide stream.” It is unclear whether “an inert, carbon dioxide stream” is obtained from the carbon dioxide produced in the fermenting step or can be obtained from other sources, since the claim fails to provide a clear link between the carbon dioxide produced and the carbon dioxide provided. If the claim is open to providing a carbon dioxide stream obtained from an external source, then the fermenting step can serve no limitation on the rest of the process. Accordingly, the boundaries of the step are not clearly defined in view of the multiple interpretations.
Furthermore, claim 12 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “an inert, carbon dioxide stream” in line 8. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an inert, carbon dioxide stream” in lines 2-3 or a completely new and independent element. Similarly, the limitation “a charge olefin stream” is recited in line 5 and also in line 6.
For the purpose of examination, claim 12 is construed as follows:
12. A process for oligomerizing an olefin stream comprising:
fermenting starch and/or sugars to produce an alcohol and carbon dioxide and providing an inert, carbon dioxide stream from said carbon dioxide;
converting said alcohol to an ethylene stream;
providing a charge olefin stream from said ethylene stream;
oligomerizing [[a]] said charge olefin stream over an oligomerization catalyst bed to produce an oligomerized olefin stream;
purging said oligomerization catalyst bed with [[an]] said inert, carbon dioxide stream to remove hydrocarbons from the oligomerization catalyst bed; and
regenerating said oligomerization catalyst bed by contact with an oxygen supply gas.
Claim 13-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15, upon which claims 18 and 19 depend, requires fermenting starch and/or sugars to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide and providing said inert gas stream from said carbon dioxide (claim 18) and providing said olefin stream from said alcohol (claim 19). Therefore, claims 18 and 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 Pelrine et al. (US 4,926,004).
Regarding claim 1, Pelrine teaches an oligomerization process comprising:
oligomerizing an olefin stream over an oligomerization catalyst bed to produce an oligomerized olefin stream (col. 8, lines 54-60);
purging said oligomerization catalyst bed with an inert gas stream (“nitrogen”) to remove hydrocarbons from the oligomerization catalyst bed (col. 9, lines 1-2 and 17-20); and
regenerating said oligomerization catalyst bed by contact with an oxygen supply gas (col. 9, lines 2-6 and 20-27).
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, 8, 9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilga et al. (US 2016/0194257 A1), in view of Pelrine et al. (US 4,926,004).
Regarding claim 1, Lilga teaches an oligomerization process comprising:
oligomerizing an charge olefin stream (“ethylene-containing feedstock”) over an oligomerization catalyst bed to produce an oligomerized olefin stream ([0048]-[0054]); and
regenerating said oligomerization catalyst bed by contact with an oxygen supply gas ([0113]).
Lilga does not teach the claimed limitation of purging said oligomerization catalyst bed with an inert gas stream to remove hydrocarbons from the oligomerization catalyst bed.
However, Pelrine, drawn to a process for oligomerizing olefins, teaches purging a spent oligomerization catalyst bed with an inert gas prior to a regeneration step in order to recover unreacted olefin feedstock and oligomer products (col. 8, lines 54-60; col. 9, lines 1-27).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga by purging spent oligomerization catalyst with an inert gas stream to remove hydrocarbons therefrom prior to a regeneration, as taught by Pelrine, because this merely involves application of a known technique to achieve a predictable result. Specifically, the introduction of an inert purge step effectively recovers unreacted feedstock and conversion products from the catalyst bed, thereby increasing overall process efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Lilga teaches that the oligomerization may be conducted in two stages where the oligomerized olefin stream from the first stage is further oligomerized in the second stage to produce an oligomerate stream ([0048]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga by purging spent oligomerization catalyst with an inert gas stream to remove hydrocarbons therefrom prior to a regeneration, as taught by Pelrine, because this merely involves application of a known technique to achieve a predictable result. Therefore, one would have been reasonably motivated to purge the second stage oligomerization catalyst bed, in addition to the first stage oligomerization catalyst bed, in order to recover as much unreacted feedstock and conversion products as possible from the spent catalyst beds.
Regarding claim 17, Lilga teaches an oligomerization process comprising:
oligomerizing an charge olefin stream (“ethylene-containing feedstock”) over a first stage oligomerization catalyst bed to produce an oligomerized olefin stream ([0048]-[0052]);
oligomerizing said oligomerized olefin stream over a second stage oligomerization catalyst bed to produce an oligomerate stream ([0053]-[0054]); and
regenerating said oligomerization catalyst bed by contact with an oxygen supply gas ([0113]).
Lilga does not teach the claimed limitation of purging said first and second stage oligomerization catalyst beds with an inert gas stream.
However, Pelrine, drawn to a process for oligomerizing olefins, teaches purging a spent oligomerization catalyst bed with an inert gas prior to a regeneration step in order to recover unreacted olefin feedstock and oligomer products (col. 9, lines 1-27).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lilga by purging the spent first and second stage oligomerization catalyst beds with an inert gas stream to remove hydrocarbons therefrom prior to regeneration, as taught by Pelrine, because this merely involves application of a known technique to achieve a predictable result. Specifically, the introduction of an inert purge step effectively recovers unreacted feedstock and conversion products from the catalyst bed, thereby increasing overall process efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Lilga teaches pressurizing oligomerization catalyst beds with inert gas prior to reaction, i.e., after regeneration ([0025]-[0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 10, and 11 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.
Claims 12-16, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed feature of purging a spent oligomerization catalyst bed with a carbon dioxide stream as an inert purge stream to remove hydrocarbons from the oligomerization catalyst bed, prior to a regeneration step.
Pelrine et al. (US 4,926,004) or the combination of Liliga et al. (US 2016/0194257 A1) and Pelrine, as applied in the above rejections, only teach using nitrogen as a purge stream to remove hydrocarbons from a spent catalyst bed prior to a regeneration step (see Pelrine: col. 9, lines 1-27) and fail to suggest using a carbon dioxide stream instead.
Inoue et al. (US 2011/0124938 A1) teach a process for oligomerizing ethylene, the process comprising: oligomerizing an ethylene stream over an oligomerization catalyst bed to produce an oligomerized olefin stream ([0067]-[0074]); purging said oligomerization catalyst bed with an inert gas stream to remove hydrocarbons from the oligomerization catalyst bed ([0082]: “the reactor is purged with an inert gas such as helium, nitrogen or argon”); and regenerating said oligomerization catalyst bed by contact with an oxygen supply gas ([0082]: “an inert gas such as helium, nitrogen or argon that contains 0.1 to 20% by volume of oxygen is passed through the reactor at 300 to 700° C”). However, Inoue fails to teach or suggest that carbon dioxide, instead of the inert gases mentioned in the reference, can be used as a purge gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights