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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 19106974 filed 2/26/25.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 8/18/26 and 6/13/25 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 2/26/25 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 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 of this title, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AZAM ET AL. (WO2022053916A1; 3/17/2022) in combination with PATEL ET AL. (WO2017109725A1; 6/29/2017) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as AZAM and PATEL.
Regarding claims 1-15:
AZAM teaches in claim 1 - A system for producing linear alpha olefins, the system comprising: two or more reaction units configured to react ethylene, in the presence of a catalyst, and optionally a solvent to produce one or more linear alpha olefins, wherein the two or more reaction units are arranged in parallel, and each of the two or more reaction units comprises a reactor; and a cleaning unit configured for communication with the two or more reaction units, and to flush polymeric deposits from at least one off-stream reaction unit of the two or more reaction units while the remaining reaction units are on-stream for producing the linear alpha olefins.
AZAM teaches in claim 6 - A method for producing linear alpha olefins, the method comprising: flowing a feed stream comprising ethylene into one or more reactors of two or more reaction units, wherein each reaction unit comprises a reactor, and the two or more reaction units are operated in parallel; and reacting, in the one or more reactors, the ethylene in the presence of a catalyst and optionally a solvent under reaction conditions sufficient to produce one or more linear alpha olefins.
AZAM teaches in claim 8 that the solvent includes aromatics, paraffinics, and/or olefinics solvents comprising decaline, toluene, hexane, heptane, octane, xylene, isopentane, cyclohexane, or combinations thereof.
AZAM teaches in claim 20 that the effluent stream comprises 0.1 to 75 wt.% 1-hexene and/or 0.1 to 75 wt.% 1-octene.
AZAM teaches in para [0025] the system for producing Linear Alpha Olefins (LAO) comprises a reaction system, a cleaning unit, a separation unit, and a passivation unit. With reference to FIG. 1, a schematic diagram is shown for system 100, which is used for producing LAO via ethylene oligomerization.
AZAM teaches in para [0032] reaction system 101 comprises separation unit 150 in fluid communication with an outlet of each reactor 102 such that at least a portion of effluent stream 12 from one or more of reactors 102 flows from reactor 102 to separation unit 150. In embodiments of the invention, the at least a portion of effluent stream 12, prior to being flowed to separation unit 150, is mixed with a catalyst deactivating agent configured to deactivate the catalyst in at least a portion of effluent stream 12. In embodiments of the invention, the deactivating agent comprises alcohol, amines, water, caustics, air, or combinations thereof.
AZAM teaches in para [0033] separation unit 150 is configured to separate at least a portion of effluent stream 12 from two or more reactors 102 to produce one or more product streams comprising LAO, a recycle stream of solvents, and ethylene recycle stream 14 comprising primarily ethylene. In embodiments of the invention, separation unit 150 includes a series of distillation columns. The distillation columns of separation unit 150 can include a C2 separation column configured to separate a portion of effluent stream 12 to form ethylene recycle stream 14 and a C3+ stream. Separation unit 150 may comprise a Ce separation column configured to separate the C3+ stream to form a 1 -hexene stream comprising primarily 1- hexene, and a C7+ stream. Separation unit 150 may comprise a C7 separation column configured to separate the C7+ stream to produce a C7 stream to form solvent recycle stream 18 and Cs+ stream. Separation unit 150 may comprise a Cs separation column configured to separate Cs+ stream to form a 1 -octene stream and Cs+ stream. Separation unit 150 may further comprise a cleaning solvent separation column configured to separate the Cs+ stream to form a cleaning solvent stream and a heavies stream. In embodiments of the invention, the cleaning solvent stream can be recycled as the solvent for the cleaning unit. In embodiments of the invention, the heavies’ stream can comprise the catalyst, the deactivating agent, polymers, or combinations thereof. In embodiments of the invention, separation unit 150 is further configured to separate polymers from solvent-polymer stream 15 from cleaning device 120 to produce regenerated solvent stream 16 comprising regenerated solvent. Regenerated solvent stream 16 may be flowed back to cleaning device 120.
AZAM teachings above in combination with PATEL further teaches linear alpha olefin production process.
PATEL teaches in para [0027] The linear alpha olefins produced from the reactor can be directed into the separation train while the reactor equipment is flushed with an appropriate solvent, such as toluene. Examples of desirable organic solvents can include, but are not limited to, aromatic hydrocarbon solvents which can be unsubstituted or substituted, for example, toluene, benzene, ethyl benzene, xylene, mesitylene, monochlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, chlorotoluene, aliphatic paraffin hydrocarbons, for example, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, nonane, decane, alicyclic hydrocarbon compounds, for example, cyclohexane, decahydronaphthalene, and halogenated alkanes, for example, dichloroethane and dichlorobutane, or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing. In some embodiments, the solvent can be toluene, xylene, mesitylene, ethyl benzene, n-pentane, n- hexane, cyclohexane, or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing.
PATEL teaches in claim 10 - A method for producing linear alpha olefins, comprising: feeding ethylene, a solvent, and a catalyst into a reactor; oligomerizing ethylene in the reactor to produce linear alpha olefins and a polymeric material; directing the reactor effluent comprising the linear alpha olefins, solvent, and unreacted ethylene into a separation train configured to separate the linear alpha olefins from the solvent and unreacted ethylene; flushing the reactor with toluene from a toluene source, wherein the flushed toluene contains the polymeric material; directing the flushed toluene into the separation train, wherein the polymeric material is soluble in at least one of the linear alpha olefins; recycling the toluene to the toluene source; and recycling the separated unreacted ethylene and solvent to the reactor.
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
Further, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Additionally, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
Still, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Additionally, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicants have recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 on 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 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.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights