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 .
Response to Amendments/Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, 22, 26, 31, 38, 40-41, 46-47, 49, 51, 53-54, 59 and 99, filed on 02/07/2025, are under consideration. Claims 1, 46 and 99 are independent.
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 59 is 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 59 recites the limitation "the second catalyst" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, 22, 26, 31, 40, 46-47, 49, 51, 53, 59 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2022/0227685, published on 07/21/2022).
For claim 1, Smith teaches a process to convert alcohols with 2-5 carbons to olefins with 2-7 carbons (Abstract): “a single stage process for the direct conversion of alcohols … to olefinic mixture (C2-C7) … carried out in a single reactor with two fixed catalyst beds in series… The process transformation of ethanol is comprised of ethanol dehydration to ethylene and water in high yield with the first catalyst in the first reactor … followed by directly feeding the ethylene and water to the … second fixed catalyst bed, with conversion of said ethylene ta a C2-C7 olefinic mixture …”. The one or more C2- C5 linear or branched alcohols can be C2-C4 linear or branched alcohols; and the one or more C2-C7 olefins formed by the processes described herein can be C2-C6 olefins. Further, the mass yield of the one or more C2-C7 olefins can be between 70% to 99% [0010]. These carbon numbers overlap the claimed carbon numbers of 1-5 for the alcohol and 2-5 for the olefins. These overlaps establish a prima facie case of obviousness since the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”—see MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding the catalyst in the reactor, Smith teaches “The second catalyst comprises zeolite catalyst which comprises boron, phosphorus, or both. The second catalyst can also include y -alumina catalyst , W-SiO2 catalyst , or W-Zr catalyst” [0013]. The listed metals including alumina/aluminum, tungsten, and zirconia are considered metal dopants including first and/or second metal dopant.
Regarding the reactor conditions, Smith teaches “In processes which occur in one reactor with two catalyst beds, the temperature, pressure, and WHSV are consistent as the feed stream passes from the first catalyst bed to the second catalyst bed . The temperature of the one reactor processes can be from 300 °C to 400°C including all the subranges in between. The pressure can be from 0 to 10 bar including all subranges in between. The WHSV can be from 0.5 to 10 and all the subranges in between.” [0012]. These conditions overlap the claimed temperature 300-600 °C, pressure of 0-30 bars, and WHSV of 0.25-35 h-1. These overlaps establish a prima facie case of obviousness since the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”—see MPEP 2144.05.I.
For claim 46, the same rejection above applies. The claimed limitation “single reactor” is taught by Smith in [0012].
For claim 99, the same rejection above applies. The claimed limitation “the catalyst consisting essentially of a zeolite and one or more metal dopants” is taught by Smith in [0044]: “The second catalyst … consist of doped zeolites such as crystalline silicates of the group ZSM-5”.
Regarding claims 2 and 59, Smith teaches catalyst bed and thus the following is presumed: prior to contacting the input stream, adding the one or more metal dopants to the catalyst because the catalyst is prepared and installed into the bed of the reactor before it contacts the alcohols.
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches selectivity of 70-99 % [0010] which overlaps the claimed amount not exceeding 98 wt%.
Regarding claims 10-12, Smith teaches boron and phosphorus dopants [0045]; the amounts are viewed as optimizable design variables. The same analysis applies to claims 22 and 26.
For claim 31, the separation of produced olefins is viewed as trivial and commonly practiced in the art since the different olefins have different values and different applications.
Regarding claim 40, Smith teaches including MgO (second dopant being magnesium) into the zeolite [0044].
Regarding claim 47, Smith teaches the catalyst comprises alumina [0044].
For claims 49 and 51, the impregnation of dopants onto the catalyst is assumed implicit in catalyst preparation.
For claim 53, Smith teaches the contacting in series with first then with second catalyst beds [0012].
Claims 38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kojima et al. (US 4,302,357)
It is noted that Smith does not teach the claimed dopants recited in these claims.
However, Kojima teaches a catalyst for converting olefins from alcohols (ethanol to ethylene) the catalyst comprising alumina doped with sodium, sulfur, and iron (Abstract); the catalyst is effective and provides mechanical resilience. These metals read on the claimed dopant being sodium in claim 38 or being iron in claim 41. Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to modify the catalyst of Smith with the disclosure of Kojima to obtain an effective catalyst with high strength and because this involves combining known catalytic compositions with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, as applied to claim 53 above, and in further view of van Dijk (US 5,602,289).
It is noted that Smith is silent about introducing additional input stream(s) downstream of the reactor first reactor bed.
However, staged injection of alcohol feedstock into olefin synthesis sequential reactors/beds is known: see van Dijk at Col 5 lines 44 to Col 6 line 26. This type of modification allows temperature control across reactor beds and is considered an obvious modification to the disclosure of smith.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights