DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-30 are pending, of which claims 25-30 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
On pages 2-3 of Applicant’s response of 12/31/25, Applicant argues that moldings produced by the combination of WO 2018115117 (“Parvulescu”) and CN 106115732 (“Li”) would not exhibit integral extinction units of the IR band at 1490 cm-1 within the claimed range. Applicant argues that a hydrothermal treatment step after formation of the moldings significantly affects the integral extinction units of the IR band at 1490 cm-1, and is not taught by Parvulescu.
Upon review, this argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KR20180112856 (“Riedel”).
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 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180112856 (“Riedel”, machine translation used for citations) in view of CN 106115732 (“Li”).
Regarding claim 16, Riedel teaches a titanium zeolite catalyst with MWW framework (see e.g. page 9, third full paragraph, starting “Preferably, the titanium zeolite…”). The zeolite material of Riedel further includes zinc, and the catalyst also includes a binder (Id.).
Riedel teaches that the molding can be used as a catalyst for the reaction of propene and hydrogen peroxide to yield propylene oxide (see e.g. page 1, first paragraph, starting “The present invention…”). Riedel does not teach including an alkali earth metal in the molding. However, Li teaches a similar Ti-MWW molding as a catalyst for the same reaction of propene with hydrogen peroxide (see e.g. paragraph [0009]). Li teaches that incorporating barium, which is an alkali earth metal, zinc, and lanthanum into the molding significantly improves the utilization rate of the hydrogen peroxide (see e.g. paragraph [0048]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include barium in the molding of Riedel in order to significantly improve the utilization of hydrogen peroxide in the same reaction as taught by Li.
Riedel does not provide the IR spectrum for the molding. However, the molding of Riedel as modified by Li appears to be identical to the claimed invention. Similar to the method disclosed by the instant application, Riedel teaches subjecting a Ti-MWW material to impregnation followed by drying and calcination (see e.g. page 24, first paragraph, starting “In a vessel…” to paragraph spanning pages 24-25). The resulting material after calcination is then kneaded and shaped (see e.g. page 25, 2nd full paragraph, starting “3.5 kg of…”). After shaping the material is subjected to hydrothermal treatment at 145°C for 8 hours, which is the same hydrothermal treatment as the instant application (see e.g. page 25, last paragraph, starting “Starting from the calcined…”).
Per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Here, the compositions of the prior art and the claimed invention appear to be made by substantially identical processes. Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established that the prior art would have the same or substantially similar integral extinction units for the IR band at 1490 cm-1.
Regarding claim 17, Riedel teaches that the molding has a silicon content of 42% by weight, which is within the claimed range (e.g. page 25, last paragraph, starting “Starting from the calcined…”).
Regarding claim 18, Riedel teaches that the molding has a titanium content of 1.4% by weight, which is within the claimed range (e.g. page 25, last paragraph, starting “Starting from the calcined…”).
Regarding claim 19, Riedel teaches that the molding has a zinc content of 1.1% by weight, which is within the claimed range (e.g. page 25, last paragraph, starting “Starting from the calcined…”).
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches that the molding comprises 0.48% barium, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches that the combination of zinc, barium, and lanthanum, which is a rare earth element, when incorporated into the composition, act jointly to improve hydrogen peroxide utilization (see e.g. paragraph [0048]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate lanthanum into the molding of Riedel as taught by Li to improve hydrogen peroxide utilization.
Regarding claim 22, Riedel teaches that the binder is preferably silica, which comprises Si and O (see e.g. page 9, third full paragraph, starting “Preferably, the titanium…”).
Regarding claim 23, Riedel teaches that the pore volume is 1.3 ml/g, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph spanning pages 25-26, starting “Starting from the calcined…”).
Regarding claim 24, Riedel does not provide the concentration of acid sites on the molding. However, as described above, Riedel in view of Li appears to teach a substantially identical molding provided by a substantially identical process to the claimed invention. Per MPEP 2112.01, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Here, the claimed invention is substantially similar to, and produced by a substantially similar method as, the molding of Riedel in view of Li. Accordingly, the specific concentration of acid sites on the molding are presumed to be the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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 at (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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736