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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/27/2025.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4797381A, hereinafter ‘Bartek’.
Regarding Claim 21, Bartek discloses a catalyst composition comprising:
a support (Example 1: a catalyst supported by alumina is disclosed),
catalytically active species comprising a vanadium species, an antimony species, and a tungsten species (Example 1: a catalyst having an empirical formula of VSb5WOx is disclosed), and
optionally, at least one further species chosen from silicon species, zirconium species, titanium species, and cerium species (this limitation is optional, and is therefore not required by the claim – see MPEP 2144.04),
an aluminum species present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 20% by weight, calculated as Al2O3 relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, the aluminum species, and the at least one further species (Col 1, lines 1-31-35: the catalyst has at least 5% alumina and at most 95% of a complex oxide composition – this implies an effective weight range for alumina to the complex oxide of 5-95 wt%, which overlaps and makes obvious the instant claimed range - as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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) – as such, the instant claimed range is obvious over the prior art range);
wherein the tungsten species, calculated as WO3, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount ranging from about 2.5 % to about 15 % by weight, relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, the aluminum species, and the at least one further species, if present (Example 1: the mass of Al2O3 is 71% of 35.3 g, or 25.1 g; the moles of vanadium added via NH4VO3 is 3.24 g / 116.98 g/mol = 0.0277 mol NH4VO3 = 0.0277 mol V, which corresponds to 2.52 g on a basis of V2O5. Assuming all of this vanadium is converted to the catalyst having the formula VSb5WOx, there are 0.0277 moles of tungsten, which corresponds to 6.42 g on a basis of WO3. Therefore, the total mass of the catalyst is 6.42 g WO3 + 2.52 g V2O5 + 20.2 g Sb2O3 + 25.1 g Al2O3 = 54.2 g – accordingly, the tungsten species, calculated as WO3, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount of 11.8 wt%).
Regarding Claim 22, Bartek discloses the vanadium species and the antimony species are in form of oxides of each, in form of a composite oxide comprising vanadium and antimony, or a combination thereof, the tungsten species is in form of an oxide thereof, and the at least one further species if present, is independently from each other, in form of SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2 and CeO2 (as discussed above, the catalyst of Bartek is a composite oxide having the formula VSb5WOx, which comprises antimony, vanadium, and tungsten in the form of an oxide).
Regarding Claim 23, Bartek discloses the support comprises alumina, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 24, Bartek discloses the vanadium species, calculated as V2O5, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount ranging from about 1 % to about 10% by weight, relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, and the at least one further species, if present (Example 1, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 21 above: the vanadium species, calculated as V2O5, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount of 4.65 wt%).
Regarding Claim 25, Bartek makes obvious the antimony species, calculated as Sb2O3, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount ranging from about 0.5 % to about 20% by weight, relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, and the at least one further species, if present – particularly, the catalyst of, for example, Example 1, have a formula, according to the general formula at Col 1, lines 35-40, of VSbmWaOx, where a = 1. The total weight of one mole of the active catalyst may be expressed as 1 mol V, corresponding to 90.94 g V2O5 on an oxide basis, + 1 mol of W, corresponding to 231.84 g WO3 on an oxide basis, + m moles of Sb, corresponding to 145.76m g on a basis of Sb2O3, + the weight of alumina support. Therefore, the wt% of Sb expressed as Sb2O3 is given by:
145.76
m
322.78
+
145.76
m
*
(
1
-
s
)
where s is the wt% of the alumina support. When s is the minimum loading of alumina disclosed by Bartek (0.5 wt%), and m is a value between 0.01 and 20 (Col 1, line 46), the composition of Sb is between 0.42 wt% and 85.5 wt%; for 20% alumina, the composition of Sb is between 0.36 wt% and 72.0 wt%; for 95% alumina, the maximum permitted by Bartek, the composition of Sb is between 0.022 wt% and 45.0 wt%. From this, it is clear that the disclosure of Bartek suggests several permissible ranges of composition for Sb which overlap with the claimed range, such that the claimed range is obvious over those suggested by Bartek.
Regarding Claim 27-29, the instant claims are drawn to further limiting limitations of Claim 21 that are presented in the alternative or as "optional", such that they are not required by the claim. Particularly, “the at least one further species,” deriving antecedent basis from Claim 21, is optional, and the instant claims do not positively require that the one further species is no longer optional by reciting, for example, “The catalyst composition of claim 21, wherein the catalyst comprises the at least one further species, wherein the at least one further species is a silicon species.” Therefore, the at least one further species are not positively required by the instant claims, and are rejected in the same way as Claim 21 above.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US4797381A, hereinafter ‘Bartek’, in view of US4746641A, hereinafter ‘Guttmann’.
Regarding Claim 30, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 21 as shown above. Further, Bartek discloses the catalytically active species consists of a vanadium species, an antimony species, a tungsten species, and an aluminum species, as discussed above. Particularly, while alumina is included within the catalyst support, it is nonetheless considered to comprise the catalytically active materials in the catalyst, since the phrase ‘catalytically active’ is condition specific, and its definition varies by context of use – aluminum would be considered catalytically active in the same way as claimed.
However, Bartek does not disclose that the catalyst comprises SiO2.
Guttmann discloses catalysts for ammoxidation of paraffins and methods of making thereof – particularly, Guttmann discloses catalysts having the same or nearly the same empirical formula of those catalysts disclosed in the examples of Bartek, see Table 1, particularly Example 13. One of skill in the art would have found these references as analogous, as being drawn to subject matter within the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, i.e., catalysts having the same or similar chemical composition. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, as shown in Table 1, both SiO2 and SIAL (SiO2/Al2O3 = 20%/80%) are utilized as support materials for the formulated catalysts. Guttmann discloses preferred support materials for not only improving mechanical stability but also for improving the yield of the desired nitriles are selected from silica-alumina and alumina having 20-100, usually 50-100, preferably 60-100 weight percent alumina (Col 4, lines 49-53). Therefore, both silica-alumina and alumina supports have been shown to be effective in supporting such catalysts.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the alumina-only support disclosed by Bartek with a silica-alumina support as disclosed by Guttmann. Both support materials have been shown to function predictably in providing improved mechanical stability and yield of desired products when supporting a catalyst comprising V, Sb, and W, and one of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying such a substitution as shown by Guttmann.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/11/2025, are acknowledged.
With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 21-23 on grounds of double patenting, the rejection is withdrawn, as the claims of the patent do not reasonably read upon the claimed amount of aluminum required by Claim 21.
With respect to arguments with regard to the rejection of Claim(s) 21-25, 27-30 under section 102, the arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under section 103 in view of Bartek and Guttmann.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached on (571) 270-3591. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736