DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-19 and 21-30 are pending, of which claims 25-30 have been withdrawn.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
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the amount of alkaline earth metal calculated as an element, is between 0.5-5.0% by weight. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest this amount of alkali metal earth in the molding. Examiner agrees, and as such, the prior rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search, an additional reference has been found that renders the claimed invention obvious.
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.
Claims 16-19 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180112856 (“Riedel”, machine translation used for citations, cited in office action of 1/28/26) in view of CN 102441429 (“Lin”, machine translation used for citations).
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, Lin teaches a similar Ti-Si molecular sieve molding that can have an MWW structure as a catalyst for the same epoxidation reaction of propene with hydrogen peroxide (see e.g. paragraphs [0024] and [0056]). Lin teaches that incorporating an alkali earth metal into the molding results in a significantly improved selectivity and hydrogen peroxide conversion rate of the olefin epoxidation catalyst (see e.g. paragraph [0017]). Lin teaches that the alkali earth metal oxide can be included in a ratio of 0.4-1.6 : 81.5-116 with respect to the other materials in the molding, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0028]). 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 Lin.
Riedel does not provide the IR spectrum for the molding. However, the molding of Riedel as modified by Lin 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 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 Lin 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 Lin. Accordingly, the specific concentration of acid sites on the molding are presumed to be the same.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedel in view of Lin as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of CN 106115732 (“Li”, cited in office action of 10/01/25, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 21, Riedel in view of Lin teaches the invention of claim 16 as described above. Riedel does not teach the inclusion of a rare 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 lanthanum, which is a rare earth metal, into the molding with titanium, silicon, and an alkali earth metal 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 lanthanum in the molding of Riedel in view of Lin in order to significantly improve the utilization of hydrogen peroxide in the same reaction as taught by Li.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights