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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered.
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 15-16 and 20, 27-34, 36, 38-39 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. In this case, firstly, claim 15 recites “(a) combining (i) an iron species…… the group consisting of manganese, cobalt, zinc, copper, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, a hydroxide thereof and combinations”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what the relationship between such step (a) recited combined iron species, alkali metal or salt thereof, at least one of transition metal species selected from the group consisting of manganese, cobalt, zinc, copper, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, a hydroxide thereof and combinations relationship and instantly claimed “catalyst precursor”, because claim 15 recited step (b)- (e) appears just using a mixture comprising complexing agent and solvent going through heating, calcining to form the catalyst precursor. Nor one of ordinary skill in the art knows the relationship of such recited step (a) as compared to following claim 15 recited step (b), (c), (d), and/or (e). Therefore, such claimed step (a) renders confusion for one of ordinary skill in the art. Secondly, claim 15 recites “the mixture of step (b)”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because previously recited step (b) does not recite a mixture at all. Thirdly, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain how can claim 15 recited step (e) forming a CO2 hydrogenation catalyst precursor when the slurry of paste resulted from heating a homogenous solution with a complexing agent (which being an citric acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid, EDTA, NTA DTPA, HEDAT or a salt of such acid and a solvent, then calcining such acid and solvent, wherein the catalyst precursor appears lack catalytic component thereof. Therefore, such limitations render claim indefiniteness. All claim 15’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-16, 20 and 27-33, 36, 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Tao et al (Effect of incorporation manner of Mn promoter on the performances of iron-based catalysts in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Journal of fuel Chemistry and Technology, issue 3, vol 36, page 326-331, June 2008) (for applicant’s convenience, human assisted machine translation has been used hereof for citations) in view of in view of Tian et al. (CN107684910) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used hereof for citations) and Chong et al (Study of CO hydrogenation on K/Mn/FE complex oxides prepared by Sol-gel and precipitation method, Natural gas chemical engineering, 29 (4) pages 16-19, Oct 21st, 2004) (for applicant’s convenience, human-assisted machine translation has been provided hereof for citations).
Tao et al. teaches a method of preparing a catalyst precursor comprising combining a Fe(NO₃)₂ solution ( an iron species) and Mn(NO₃)₂ solution (a transition metal species of Mn) forming a filter cake, and combining such filter cake with appropriate amount of Mn(NO₃)₂ solution, and shearing (i.e. agitating) and slurrying the mixture, then adding appropriate amount of KHCO3 ( an alkali metal salt) solution into the mixture forming a slurry (i.e. a mixture), and then such slurry (i.e. mixture) being spray dried to obtain a micro- spherical catalyst precursor, then the catalyst precursor being calcined to obtain a molded fresh catalyst (page 2-page 3 1.1 Catalyst preparation section, table 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tao et al. does not expressly teach adding a complexing agent and a solvent, or agitating mixture of (b) comprising complexing agent and a solvent to provide a homogeneous solution.
Chong et al. teaches a method of preparing a catalyst precursor comprising slowing adding citric acid (reads onto the claimed complexing agent) into nitrate solution containing iron and potassium with different K/Fe ratio and stirring such mixed solution to dissolving, heating under 60 °C forming a sol, then drying the sol under 120 °C to obtain the precursor (page 2 section 1.1). Chong et al. disclosed drying apparently leads to partially removing the solution solvent for obtaining a slurry of paste. Since Chong et al. already teaches citric acid being stirred and dissolved into a solution (containing solvent), therefore, adding a complexing agent and a solvent as that of instantly claimed is expected.
Tian et al. teaches a method of producing an iron-based Fischer-Tropsch synthesis catalyst comprising stirring to mix evenly iron nitrate hydrate, copper nitrate hydrate and calcium nitrate hydrate into deionized water (solvent) to form a solution (para. [0052], [0062] etc.), then such evenly mixed solution being flowed in parallel with an evenly mixed barium nitrate aqueously and an evenly mixed aqueously mixed sodium carbonate aqueous solution to form a co-precipitation product, then
immersing such co-precipitation product in an aqueous potassium salt solution (including solvent), while simultaneously flowing in an organic carboxylic acid in, wherein the organic carboxylic acid which is at least one of acetic acid, oxalic acid and citric acid (para. [0023], [0039], claims 2 and 9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adding citric acid into a solvent for completely dissolving thus forming a solution as shown by Chong et al. to modify the catalyst producing process of Tao et al. because adopting such citric acid as carboxylic acid into an iron-based Fischer-Tropsch catalyst can help improving the dispersion of the iron active center and enable potassium to better bind and cover the corresponding crystal plane of iron, thereby increasing the catalytic activity of the catalyst and reducing the selectivity of low-carbon hydrocarbons as suggested by Tian et al. (para. [0013], [0023], comparative example 1, table 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt Tian disclosed stirring evenly to modify the dissolving citric acid into a solvent because adopting such well-known stirring for evenly dissolving the citric acid thus forming a homogeneously solution containing citric acid (complexing agent) and a solvent would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
It is also noted that selection of any order of adding ingredients or prior art process steps is prima facie obvious (see MPEP §2144.04 IV). Therefore, adding citric acid directly into an aqueous solution with solvent and iron, potassium salts for forming a homogenous solution just obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16 and 27-29, 38, such limitations have been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Tao et al. further teaches reducing (i.e., activating) the calcined catalyst precursor in -situ (page 4 section 1.3).
Regarding claim 30, Chong et al. teaches such heating temperature. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known drying temperature as shown by Chong to dry complexing agent and solvent containing solution for help obtaining desired dried product, i.e. a sol containing such complexing agent thus help forming a desired catalyst precursor because applying a known technique of drying temperature to dry complexing agent, solvent and iron containing solution to a known method of producing an iron containing catalyst for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 31-32, Tao et al. further teaches Fe: Mn mass ratio being 100Fe:xMn, wherein x=0, 65, 13, since Fe having molar mass of 56 g/mole, while manganese having molar mass of 55 g/mole wherein such mass ratio corresponding to Fe:Mn molar ratio of about 100:0, 100:65 and 100:13. Tao et al. also teaches Fe:K mass ratio being 100:1.6, since potassium has a molar mass of 39 g/mol, therefore, Fe:K molar ratio being (100/56): 1.6/39=43.5, which is within the claimed molar ratio of Fe:K.
Regarding claim 33, since Tao et al. already teaches both Mn and K can be included into iron containing catalyst precursor, wherein Fe: Mn molar ratio is within the claimed Fe: Mn molar ratio, and Fe:K molar ratio is within the claimed Fe:K molar ratio as well. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that same iron, manganese and K catalyst precursor containing same molar ratio of Fe:Mn and same molar ratio of Fe:K as those of instantly claimed would have same iron content (i.e., 50 to 90% by weight of iron species) in such same catalyst precursor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a same iron content as that of instantly claimed (correspondingly with optimal K and optimal Mn amounts), i.e., an catalyst precursor having from about 50 to 90% by weight of iron, via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining an iron containing Fischer-Tropsch catalyst with desired performance as suggested by Tao et al. (table 1-4, section 2.3).
Regarding claim 36, Tao et al. teaches calcining under 500 °C (page 3 first 2 lines).
Claims 34 and 39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Tao et al (Effect of incorporation manner of Mn promoter on the performances of iron-based catalysts in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Journal of fuel Chemistry and Technology, issue 3, vol 36, page 326-331, June 2008) (for applicant’s convenience, human assisted machine translation has been used hereof for citations) in view of in view of Tian et al. (CN107684910) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used hereof for citations) and Chong et al (Study of CO hydrogenation on K/Mn/FE complex oxides prepared by Sol-gel and precipitation method, Natural gas chemical engineering, 29 (4) pages 16-19, Oct 21st, 2004) (for applicant’s convenience, human-assisted machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO2018205787) (for applicant’s convenience, equivalent US2020/0009540).
Regarding claim 34, Tao et al. in view of Tian et al. and Chong et al. does not expressly teach the at least one transition metal also containing cobalt (Co) or a slat, oxide or hydroxide thereof.
Zhang teaches a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst is at least one selected from iron, cobalt and nickel (para. [0071]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine cobalt as shown by Zhang into the iron-based Fischer-Tropsch catalyst of Tao et al. in view of Tian et al. and Chong et al. because combining prior art elements (Fe and Co) according to known methods of producing a desired Fischer-Tropsch catalyst would yield predictable result (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 39, Zhang further teaches the auxiliary metal is at least one selected from the group comprising manganese, chromium, molybdenum and zinc (para. [0074], claim 16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” zinc as auxiliary metal to modify Tao et al. in view of Tian et al. and Chong et al. disclosed Fe based i.e. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis catalyst because choosing zinc from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of auxiliary metal for providing a desired iron containing catalyst for CO hydrogenation ( i.e. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 § KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of current rejections.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Tao et al. requiring a highly basic medium for preparing a co-precipitated precursor while instantly claimed method not involving a co-precipitation, first of all, such not involving co-precipitation is not claimed. Secondly, instant claims recite open-end language such as “comprising”, such open-end language does not limit any basic medium being used as applicant alleged. Thirdly, even instant claim 15 recites using acidic complexing agent, but nowhere in claim 15 requires pH being maintained below 7 as applicant alleged at all.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Tao teachings are limited to the preparation of catalyst for hydrogenation of carbon monoxide (CO), but claimed method directed to carbon dioxide hydrogenation into long-chain hydrocarbons, it is noted that instant method directed to a process for preparing a catalyst precursor, such argued carbon dioxide hydrogenation into long-chain hydrocarbons just intended use of the instantly claimed catalyst precursor. In this case, Tao teaches a substantially the same process of producing a substantially the same catalyst precursor as that of instantly claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments about catalyst prepared from the claimed method unexpected exhibit lower selectivity for C19+ hydrocarbon (14.1%) than the catalyst prepared according to method disclosed by Tao et al. (26.0-33.6%), the examiner would like to kindly reminder the applicant that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (MPEP § 716.02(d)). In the instant case, instant method directing to make a catalyst precursor and such catalyst precursor having no specific active element being specified at all. Even if assuming applicant’s demonstrated table 23-24 catalyst showing improved results over applied Tao et al. reference, such improved results are linked to specific catalyst composition having Fe-Mn-K with a molar ratio of 10:1:1 (para. [0260], [0269], table 23-25) or Fe-Zn-K having molar ratio of 10:1:1 or Fe-Cu-K having a molar ratio of 10:1:1, but instantly claimed method does not limit the catalyst precursor having such specific molar ratio of such element Fe-Mn (Cu or Zn)-K at all, nor the instantly claimed method even showing the obtained catalyst precursor comprising such Mn, Fe, or K element at all. Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Tian requiring adjusting the mixture of catalyst precursor components to acidic pH, Tian only teaches using carboxylic acid to mixed with co-precipitated components comprising Fe, Mn and alkali metal etc. but does not inherently incompatible with Tao et al. Rather similarly as Tao et al., Tian teaches using basic medium to co-precipitate catalytic active components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732