CTNF 17/783,004 CTNF 85400 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/26 has been entered. Claim Status The claims are newly amended. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks argue the following: As previously noted, evidence is provided in the specification as originally filed, as well as in supplementary data, showing that the relative amount of oxidic binder from the instant claims brings about surprising results. Looking specifically at data from the as-filed specification, this surprising effect is demonstrated by comparing example 10 with comparative example 9 showing a large increase in the lifetime of the catalyst, which is further improved by examples 11 and 12. Both examples 11 and 12 show an even further improvement in the effect with yet even lower amount binder. The specifics of the testing are described in detail under the discussion of the catalytic testing of example 13 found on pages 25 to 26 of the description. This effect is unexpected, as Braunsmann gives no indication of any form of improvement to lifetime of the catalyst by decreasing the oxidic binder. The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The remarks cite to “example 10” and “comparative example 9”, but the specification only describes a “comparative example 9” and an “example 10”. Therefore, the remarks will be based on these. Examples 9 and 10 of the specification show a very similar zeolite:boehmite ratio, with a ratio of zeolite:beohtmite in example 9 being about 6.2 and the ratio in example 10 being about 6.7. When calculated in terms bind binder to the sum, they range from 13% (Example 9) to 12% (Example 10). Therefore, the ratio of the zeolite to binder in both of these references both fall within the claimed range. Other differences between the two catalysts include a dramatically different amount of acid used in the manufacturing of the two catalysts, with about 124 grams of formic acid used in example 9 and an amount of acid used in example 10 being about 2252g (see example 10). Therefore, the unexpected benefit between the catalysts are not unexpected based on the zeolite to binder ratio. Next, the remarks argues example 11 and 12 and argues that the lower beohtmite provides even further catalytic effectiveness. However, examples 11 and 12 have a zeolite:binder ratio of about 7, which when calculated in terms of binder to the total is about 12.9%, which is also within the claimed amount and not that much more than the ratio of the zeolite: binder of example 10, which is about 12% or example 9, which is 13%. The acid used in examples 11 and 12 is different and is far less than the amount used in example 10. However, the ratio of acid, as compared to examples 9 and 100 are wildly different because the zeolite amounts used, the catalytic component of the catalysts, are very different, 4970g in example 9 and 4900g in example 10, vs. 120 in example 11 and 12. Next, the remarks argue the following features: In addition, supplementary testing was previously provided in a Rule 1.132 Declaration. Supplementary Example A, which comprises 20 weight percent oxidic binder (outside the claimed range just above the upper limit, but well within the range relied upon by the Examiner), shows surprisingly inferior performance when compared to the inventive examples presented in the specification as originally filed. As can be seen in the supplementary figures submitted alongside the declaration, this comparative supplementary example A consistently performs worse than the inventive catalyst across numerous metrics. See Supplementary Figure 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (triangle) each of which consistently show that example performing significantly worse than inventive examples 10-12 from the specification as originally filed. The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The remarks then argue in that the Declaration show unexpectedly inferior results in the Supplementary example A. However, Supplementary Example A in the Declaration disclose the same amount of zeolite used in examples 11 and 12 and a different amount of boehmite, but it also discloses a different amount of nitric acid (less) and uses nitric acid, which differs from examples 9 and 10. The ratio of zeolite: binder used in supplementary example A is below the claimed range. Applicant argues that the lower amount of binder used is unexpectedly beneficial. The amount recited in the remarks of binder used is 20wt %. However, the claims require an amount of binder in ratio to the zeolite (see claim 16) or in ratio with the zeolite and acid (see Claim 16). Therefore, the remarks state that the amount of 20wt% is outside the claimed range and above an upper limit, but this is respectfully disputed. First, the results and tests are not compared with alternative data showing that a lower amount would have superior results. Therefore, the declaration does not adequately show unexpected results. Next, the remarks argue the following: In the most recent Office Action, the Examiner indicated that the data presented was not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant disagrees, but narrows the claims here to be closer in scope to the data presented by (a) requiring that X is Al, (b) requiring an MFI framework structure type, (c) requiring that the zeolitic material comprises silicalite and/or ZSM-5, and (d) requiring that the molding have a crush strength equal or greater than 9 N. As an initial matter, it is respectfully submitted that the specific combination of features brought about by the amendments here are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art in a manner sufficient to form prima facie obviousness. In particular it is noted that the crush strength is not disclosed or suggested anywhere in the cited references. Further, in light of these amendments the synergistic effect described above and below is more narrowly tailored to the claims as amended here, sufficient to overcome any purported prima facie obviousness. Supplementary testing Annex I was submitted in support of nonobviousness of the claimed subject-matter. The difference in the claims in the amount of binder is associated with an unexpected technical effect as illustrated by the examples on file in combination with the additional experimental data submitted during examination. The unexpected technical effect includes the synergistic effect of the increased crush strength of the molding with that of the binder concentration. Hofmann only discloses much higher binder amounts SO that the additional experimental data, relating to only 20 wt.-% binder, below the amounts disclosed in Hofmann, is a very good illustration of the advantages of the present invention as compared to the cited prior art. The effect of the differentiating feature is an increased catalyst activity as evident from comparison of Comparative Example 9 and Examples 10 to 12 (of the application as originally filed) with supplementary Example A which features a catalyst prepared according to the invention except that a binder amount of 20 wt.-% is used (see supplementary testing Annex I Example A). Supplementary Example A is therefore a comparative example to illustrate that an amount of binder higher than the claimed range (of 15 wt.-%), e.g. 20 wt.-%, results in inferior catalyst performance. Supplementary catalyst Example A was tested under identical conditions to those of example 13. The results are therefore directly relatable to those of Comparative Example 9 and Examples 10 to 12 shown in figures 2-5 of the application. The results for supplementary testing Example A are shown in supplementary Figure 1 of Annex I that shows the methanol conversion and product distribution of said catalyst according to the legend given in said figure. The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The remarks reference data submitted in supplementary testing Annex I. Annex I with supplementary testing is submitted on 3/25/24. The Affidavit submitted on 10/30/24, which describes Supplementary testing. It is unclear which sets the supplementary testing Annex I refers to, but the office will attempt to discuss the data based on the information submitted. Based on the data submitted, both of these appears to use similar compositions with a 20wt% of binder. As to the crush strength, Applicant argues that the catalyst with a different binder amount can effect the crush strength. This is known in the field. However, the remarks do not discuss this data is detail, but only state that there is a synergistic effect. The remarks respectfully do not state whether a greater amount causes an increase or the if the relationship is opposite. The remarks do not provide sufficient data to show this. Next, the remarks state that, based on the data between the specification and the supplementary testing Annex I example A, a binder amount above the claimed range of 15wt% results in inferior catalytic performance. The data from the specification is unclear. The data from the Annex I does not show a comparative catalyst with a different binder amount (one within the claimed range). Next, the remarks argue the following on pages 7-8: For the purpose of evaluating a clear effect, the results of the application presented in the figures 2 to 5 were digitized and compared with the results presented in supplementary Figure 1 of Annex I. Supplementary Figure 2 compares the methanol conversion of supplementary Example A (hollow black triangles, black polynomial least squares regression line) with that of Comparative Example 9 (hollow blue squares, blue polynomial least squares regression line), Example 10 (hollow red diamonds, red polynomial least squares regression line), Example 11 (hollow grey circles, grey polynomial least squares regression line) and Example 12 (orange stars, orange polynomial least squares regression line). As may be taken from supplementary Figure 2, Comparative Example 9 and Examples 10 to 12 all out perform supplementary Example A in terms of methanol conversion, e.g. the comparative example with 20 wt.-% binder results in the worst performance of all compared examples. Likewise, Examples 10 to 12 all out perform Comparative Example 9 and show flatter methanol conversion profiles thus demonstrating the synergistic effect of the increased crush strength of the molding with that of the binder concentration. These effects are also mirrored with regards to the desired olefin products as is evident from supplementary Figure 3 showing the olefin total for each of the aforementioned moldings, supplementary Figure 4 showing the propene selectivity for each of the aforementioned moldings, supplementary Figure 5 showing the butene selectivity and supplementary Figure 7 showing the ethylene selectivity. Only the side product alkanes of supplementary Figure 6 show a different selectivity where Comparative Ex 9 shows noticeably higher selectivity than all of the aforementioned moldings indicating a further chemical reactivity difference of catalytic moldings having lower crush strength which is likely due to the pore characteristics that are ultimately represented by said crush strength parameter. Thus, Annex I shows that a catalyst having an amount of binder outside of the claimed range such as 20 wt.-% of supplementary Example A or higher as taught by Hofmann has a drastic effect in catalytic performance when all other features remain relatively similar. The remarks are respectfully not persuasive for the following reasons. First, the remarks state that Fig. 2 to 5 were digitized, but the data must be formally submitted and be on record. Applicant references a webpage where the data is digitized (see point 19 on the Affidavit filed on 10/30/24). The Affidavit does provide a Figure 2 and it is unclear if this is the same as the figure 2 that is digitized, but for purposes of discussion, this figure will be discussed. The graph compares examples 12, 11, 10, 9 and the supplemental data. It shows that Examples 12, 11 and 10 work better than 9 and the supplemental. The ratio of zeolite: binder in examples 11 and 12 are exactly the same (12.9% when based on the total), while the ratio in example 10 is within range (12%) and the comparative example is also within the claimed range (13%). In some instances however, example 9 has very inferior results (see Fig. 2), but the ratio of example 9 is still within the claimed range. Therefore, the data is not persuasive. The same is true for figures 4 and 5. On pages 8-9, the remarks argue the following: In consideration of the effect in view of Hofmann, said document teaches binder amounts of 40 wt. -% within comparative examples 5, 6, and 10 as well as examples 7,8, 9 and 11. No specific teaching other than use of the binder as a necessary adhesive/cohesive agent is described by Hofmann (see page 28 lines 15 to 19 regarding effect of a suitable binder). Thus, a skilled person when following the teachings of Hofmann would be drawn to the improvements made by the "strong synergetic effect" of the invention "due to the specific use of Mg in a zeolitic material as obtainable from a sodium-free synthetic procedure" (see DI Example 12 page 52 lines 12 to 18). More noteworthy from Hofmann is the "far more surprising" teaching that "use of a water treatment procedure for increasing the hydrophobicity of the zeolitic material leads to a considerable increase in the selectivities for both propylene and butylene" (see Example 12 page 52 lines 12 to 18). Thus a skilled person when considering Hofmann would use of Mg in a zeolitic material as obtainable from a sodium-free synthetic procedure and further attempt to increase the hydrophobicity by water treatment of the zeolite. No hint or clue is given in Hofmann regarding the catalytic improvements to be made by limiting the binder as shown in the present invention. Accordingly, Hofmann can be considered to lead away from the present invention in the amount of binder and modifications to the catalyst when attempting to improve said catalyst and silent with regards to the effect that arises from modifying the amount of binder. The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. HofmanN describes a zeolite content of 70-85% and a binder amount of 12-25% (para. 26), which gives a binder content relative to the total of 14-22%, which overlaps the claimed range. Hofmann only provides two examples, but these are not limiting on the entire teaching of the Hofmann reference. The range useable in their invention is the one disclosed in paragraph 26. Hofmann II is relied upon for the limited teaching of employing acetic acid as the acid for treatment. The other features of Hoffman II are not relied upon. Next, the remarks argue the following: Similar to Hofmann, Li teaches that additives such as silylation reagents for increasing the hydrophobicity and/or phosphorous for coke prevention should be included in the molding (see [0252] of Li regarding discussion). The teaching of Li would appear to coincide with Hofmann wherein the water treatment of the catalyst increased hydrophobicity as well. In view thereof, a skilled person when following Li would notice that the same binder to zeolite ratio appears to be 40:60 for all examples that is also applied in Hofmann (see Li [0205] comparative example 1 and the further references thereto throughout the examples). It is noted that the experimental of both documents indicate nearly identical conditions wherein methanol is first converted to dimethyl ether before being passed through the crushed molding dispersed on Si/C which essentially increases the surface area. Therefore, both documents would appear to require reduced amounts of water for catalytic function and a ratio of binder to zeolite of 40:60. In comparison, the present application features 70% water, 20% methanol and nitrogen make with no pretreatment and use of much lower amounts of binder for optimized conditions. Therefore, Li and Hofmann lead away from the present subject-matter and seem to function optimally under very different conditions. Thus the presently related effect is even more surprising in view of the apparent requirement of relatively lower water amounts and high binder amounts, the presently claimed subject-matter involves an inventive step in view of the teachings of both Hofmann and Li. The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The argument above is merely conjecture and since Li teaches the ratio claimed, one of ordinary skill would not further modify Li to reflect Hofmann II. Furthermore, the primary reference, Hofmann I disclose the claimed range of zeolite:binder ratio . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann (US Pub.: 2007/0259770), Hofmann I and in view of Hofmann (EP 1852174), Hofmann II and in view of Li (CN 105665001) and in view of Iida (US Pat.: 5271913) and in view of Shepherd (US Pat.: 6503866) . Hofmann I describes an extruded solid catalyst body (abstract) that is made of an ion-exchanged zeolite (abstract). The zeolite framework can include ZSM-5, which is an MFI framework (para. 18). The extruded material can be considered the molding of Claim 1. The zeolite is a framework made up of alumino-silicate (para. 16). The silicon has an IV oxidation state and the aluminum has a III oxidation state (para. 16) and in the form of silicon oxide and aluminum oxide (para. 17). Hofmann I does not state that the silica and alumina are in the form of YO2 and X2O3. The process of making the extruded body includes combining a zeolite (para. 17, 18) with a binder, plasticizer and other compounds (para. 22). The binder is an oxidic metal (para. 24, 25). The amount of binder added to the mixture is from 10-37% (see claim 21) and can be boehmite (para. 25). The plasticizers can include polyethyleneoxide or polyethylene glycol (para. 22). Hofmann I explains that the mixture is then kneaded and/or mixed in an acid aqueous solution (para. 15, 23) in order to achieve free-flowability for use in extrusion of the starting compound (para. 23). Hofmann I does not describe the acid used in Claim 16 or the ratios of described in Claim 16. Hofmann II describes an extruded catalyst (title). The catalyst includes zeolite (abstract) combined with biners, plasticizers and others (page 4, lines 16-20). The composite may be mixed with an aqueous acidic solution (page 4, lines 24-30). This treatment aids the flowability of the extruded material (page 4, lines 24-30). As to the specific acid, Hofmann II teaches that the acid used may be acetic acid (page 4, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use acetic acid, as taught by Hofmann II for use with the acid used in Hofmann I because acetic acid is a known and effective acid to improve the flowability of the extruded catalyst. As to the ratios, Hofman I and II do not describe the amounts. Li teaches that acids added to the zeolite improve the performance of some aspects of the catalyst using a relatively small amount (page 4, lines 33-36). As to the specific amount, Li teaches use of 70 grams of molecular sieve (50 Beta, plus 20 ZSM-5), added to 20 grams boehmite (example 3) is combined with 8 parts acid (citric and nitric) (example 3), amount to about 8% of acid to molecular sieve and binder. The total acid used is about 5% (in example 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an amount of acid that is about 8% of acid to molecular sieve and binder, as taught by Li for use with the molecular sieve and binder mixture of Hofmann I and Hofmann II because this ratio is known to be effective in improving aspects of the catalyst. As to the silica and alumina being in the form of YO2 and X2O3, Hofmann cites to US Pat.: 5271913 (para. 10), Iida. Iida describes a zeolite that contains SiO2 and Al2O3 (abstract). Therefore, since Hofmann I cites to Iida as an example of a zeolite that contains known zeolites for use as catalysts (para. 10) and Iida describes zeolites as containing SiO2 and Al2O3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the zeolite of Hofmann I contains silica and alumina in the form of SiO2 and Al2O3 because silica and alumina are known to be in these forms in zeolites. As to the crush strength, Shepherd describes a process for preparing a catalyst with a high degree of crush strength (col. 1, lines 11-15). The reference explains that crush strength allows for catalyst particles to maintain their integrity and their “useful life” (col. 1, lines 22-24). In their research, Shepherd explains that crush strength is a very important property for catalysts (col. 1, lines 46-48). The catalyst is shaped with alumina and heated at calcination temperatures (col. 2, lines 27-31). The crush strength of the catalyst is at least 40N/mm (col. 2, lines 31-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a zeolite with a crush strength of about 40N, as taught by Shepherd for use with the zeolite catalyst of Hofmann I, Hofmann II, Li and Iida because this crush strength is effective for maintaining the integrity and useful life of the catalyst material . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann I, Hofmann II, Iida and Shepherd as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Du (CN 104549429) . Hofmann I, Hofmann II, Iida and Shepherd describes use of one acid, such as acetic (see above), but not combining it with another inorganic acid. Du teaches that adding acid has certain adhering effects and ensures good moulding of the catalyst (page 2, para. 2). Therefore, in their process, Du teaches combining a molecular sieve with an alumina binder and other additives (page 4, para. 4). The mixture is then combined with an acidic solution that can be a mixture of organic acids, such as acetic acid with phosphoric acid (page 4, para. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine acetic acid with phosphoric acid, as taught by Du for use with Hofmann I, Hofmann II, Iida and Shepherd because this combination is known to improve the adhering effects of the ensures good moulding of the catalyst , 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann I, Hofmann II, Iida and Shepherd as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Deuerlein (CN 104245583) . The references do not disclose that the catalysts are shaped into strands. Deuerlein describes a catalyst for treating NOx gases (title). The catalyst can contain a zeolite and a binder and shaped into strands using a moulding (para. 169). The catalysts can be moulded into a variety of shapes (para. 132, 134). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the NOx treating catalyst into a variety of shapes, to include strands, as taught by Deuerlein for use with the NOx treating catalyst of Hofmann I, Hofmann II, Iida and Shepherd because it is known to shape NOx catalysts into a number of different shapes to effective use of the catalyst. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Fung Coris 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. /SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 May 28, 2026 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 2 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 3 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 4 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 5 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 6 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 7 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 8 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 9 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 10 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 11 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 12 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 13 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 17/783,004 Page 14 Art Unit: 1732
Prosecution Insights