DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application SN 19/042,497 having an effective date of 31 January 2025 and a provisional priority date of 31 January 2024. A preliminary amendment was filed on 31 January 2025. Claims 1, 40 and 44 are pending, and claims 2-39, 41-43 and 45-85 have been canceled. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pariente et al (US 2013/0217909).
Pariente et al [“Pariente”] disclose a continuous process for obtaining acrolein by catalytic dehydration of glycerol or glycerin, in the presence of an acid catalyst (Abstract).
Pariente discloses that “glycerol” is understood to mean a purified or unpurified glycerol, preferably resulting from biomass [0024]. Pariente discloses that the invention provides for the possible use of a wide range of fluidizable solid acid catalysts for the production of acrolein from glycerol or glycerin, and that it is possible for the operating conditions of the reactor to be adjusted to the conditions for functioning of the acid catalyst used [0033]. Pariente discloses that the dehydration temperature varies from 180 to 500°C [0030].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pariente discloses as nonlimiting examples the acid catalyst can be chosen from zeolites, phosphates, heteropolyacids, which are optionally supported and/or doped with at least one metal, and others [0033].
Thus, the examiner is of the position that Pariente discloses a continuous process for obtaining acrolein by catalytic dehydration of glycerol or glycerin, in the presence of an acid catalyst which may be chosen from zeolite doped with at least one (i.e., one or more) metal, which meets the limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2019/0308922) or Smith (US 2022/0234969).
Smith (‘922) discloses catalytic processes for upgrading crude and/or refined fusel oil mixtures to higher value renewable chemicals, via mixed metal oxide or zeolite catalysts. Smith (‘922) discloses metal doped zeolites or non-metal doped zeolites and/or metal oxides as options to valorize fusel oil mixtures to higher value products including isoprene (Abstract).
Smith (‘922) discloses that in some embodiments, a vaporized stream of crude and/or refined fusel oils is passed over various mixed metal oxide catalysts, metal doped zeolites, or non-metal doped zeolites and/or metal oxides at between 300-500°C to provide higher value products [0009].
Smith (‘969) discloses catalytic processes for upgrading crude and/or refined fusel oil mixtures to higher value renewable 2-methyl-2-butene, via doped alumina catalysts (Abstract).
Smith (‘969) discloses that the process operates at a reaction temperature of 250 to 450°C, and a reaction pressure of 0 psig to 100 psig, including all subranges therebetween [0011]. Smith (‘696) discloses that the weight hourly space velocity (WHSV) for the process can be at least 1 [0011] or at least 2.5 [0042].
Smith (‘969) discloses that crude fusel oil mixtures are characterized by higher levels of residual C2-C4 alcohols and water [0013]. Smith discloses that higher value renewable chemicals comprise, inter alia, isoprene [0013].
Thus, the examiner is of the position that either Smith reference meets the limitations of the claimed processes of conversion to isoprene.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lauriol-Garbey et al (US 2013/0197258) disclose a method for preparing acrolein from glycerol or glycerine, wherein dehydration of the glycerol or glycerine is achieved in the presence of a catalyst based on zirconium oxide (Abstract).
Dubois (US 2012/0283479) discloses a method for synthesizing acrolein from glycerol (Abstract). Dubois discloses that catalysts may be selected from zeolites in the presence of a metal promoter [0033]-[0034]. Debois discloses that examples of solid catalysts include zeolites such as ZSM-5 exchanged with alkali metal [0053]-[0054].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN M MCAVOY whose telephone number is (571)272-1451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am - 7:00 pm EST.
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.
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
EMcAvoy
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights