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 .
This application is in response to a RCE filed on 07/08/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are under examination. Claims 10 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/08/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel Stevenson et al (USPGPUB No.: 20150018590 A1, IDS cited reference) in view of Wattanakit et al (US PGPUB No.: 20210322961 A1).
As per Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, Stevenson discloses a catalyst for producing light olefins (paragraphs 0053-0054) from catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon having 2 to 12 carbon atoms (abstract, paragraphs 0003, 0009 , 0011) wherein said catalyst comprises zeolite, which can be medium or large pore zeolite based catalyst (paragraph 0022 i.e., FER-ferrierite inherently includes 8 to 10 silicon atoms, meets claim 5 limitation) and said catalyst comprising element having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state (i.e., germanium (group 14) and boron (group 13) and zirconium (group 4) paragraph 0023) in amount of 0.1 to 25 wt% (paragraph 0037, meets presently claimed 1, 7-9 limitation of element having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state and amount of element). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Stevenson does not explicitly disclose or suggest hierarchical zeolite comprising 0.1 to 2 nm micropore, 2 to 50 nm mesopore and more than 50 nm macropore wherein the mesopore and macropore are 40 to 60% of the total pore volume.
However, Wattanakit discloses catalyst for producing light olefin from C4-C7 hydrocarbon (abstract) comprising zeolite having hierarchical zeolite (i.e., FER which inherently includes 8 to 10 silicon atoms, paragraph 0032, meets also claim 5 limitation) comprising of micropore with size of 0.3 to 0.6nm (meets claim 1 and 3 limitation), mesopore with size between 2 to 10nm (meets claim 1 and 3 limitation) and macropore size of more than 50 nm wherein mesopore and macropore are 15 to 60% or more based in total pore volume (paragraphs 0029-0030 and with molar ratio of 2 to 250 (paragraph 0031, abstract). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Given Stevenson and Wattanakit are direct to catalyst for producing the light olefins, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the catalyst of Stevenson to include zeolite with 0.3 to 0.6 nm micropore, 2 to 10 nm mesopore and >50nm of macropore and wherein the mesopore and macropore are 15 to 60% of total pore volume of Wattanakit which provides good production efficiency of light olefins and provides high selectivity to light olefin product as taught by Wattanakit (abstract, paragraph 0012).
As per claim 2, Stevenson discloses pore size from 5 to 20 angstrom (overlaps claimed range of 0.35nm to 0.54 nm, paragraph 0047 and see claim 26). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 per Claim 6, Steven discloses atomic ratio (i.e., molar ratio) from 15:1 to 200:1 (paragraph 0034). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Wattanakit discloses molar ratio of 2 to 250 (paragraph 0031, abstract). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/08/2025, see remarks on pages 2-10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 over Stevenson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0018590) in view of Wattanakit et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0322961) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s argument related to Stevenson in view of Wattanakit that Stevenson does not disclose zeolite being a hierarchical structure with tailored porosity characteristic for catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon having C4-C7 as presently claimed.
However, the fact remains that Steven does disclose catalytic cracking hydrocarbon having C2-C10 (see abstract, paragraphs 0003,0009,0011) wherein said catalyst comprises zeolite which can be medium or large pore zeolite based catalyst (i.e., FER-ferrierite- reads on zeolite having 8-10 silicon atoms) and also further discloses elements having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state (germanium, boron, zirconium, paragraph 0022-0023). As previously stated in the office action dated 10/09/2024 that Stevenson did not explicitly suggest zeolite comprising 0.1-2 nm micropore, 2-50nm mesopore and more than 50 nm macropore wherein the mesopore and macropore are 40 to 60% of the total pore volume. But however, Wattanakit discloses catalyst from C4-C7 hydrocarbon (abstract) comprising zeolite having hierarchical zeolite (i.e., FER) comprising of 0.3-0.6 nm micropore, 2-10nm mesopore and more than 50 nm macropore wherein the mesopore and macropore are 15 to 60% of the total pore volume (paragraphs 0029-0031, abstract). Therefore the combination does disclose the presently claimed invention.
b. Wattanakit merely discloses hierarchical zeolite having wide range of mesopore & macropore fraction and does not disclose about the catalyst stability or catalyst deactivation behavior. Further, Wattanakit does not say anything regarding the defect of hierarchical structure of zeolite having high mesopore & macropore fraction. Thus, it could be seen that Wattanakit does not suggest or teach the technical solution for solving the problem of unstable hierarchical structure of zeolite having high mesopore & macropore fraction.
However, Present claimed invention only requires a catalyst from catalytic cracking hydrocarbon having 4 to 7 carbon atoms, wherein said catalyst comprises zeolite having 8 to 1 silicon atoms arranged in ring and hierarchical zeolite comprising 0.1-2 nm micropore, 2-50nm mesopore and more than 50 nm macropore wherein the mesopore and macropore are 40 to 60% of the total pore volume and said catalyst comprising element having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state of 0.1 to 3% by weight of the catalyst which is taught by Stevenson in view of Wattanakit as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and there is nothing in the presently claimed invention that requires anything about unstable hierarchical structure of zeolite having high mesopore and macropore fraction. Further presently claim discloses FER as one of the zeolite and if FER zeolite gives this unstable structure then it conflicts with the presently claimed invention. If process is critical then applicant needs to incorporate the process steps and also show the side by side comparison in declaration form of unstable structure or deactivation behavior as stated.
c. Further applicant argument regards to Wattanakit or Stevenson not teaching addition with elements having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state for optimizing and balancing the acid strength and density of catalyst to be suitable for catalytic cracking in terms of conversion and selectivity and that Stevenson does not show or suggest catalyst performance of light olefins production from catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon C4-C7.
However presently claim is product claim and is not process claim therefore all the arguments related to process such as optimizing and balancing the acid strength are moot and not required in the present claimed invention. Present claimed invention only requires a catalyst from catalytic cracking hydrocarbon having 4 to 7 carbon atoms, wherein said catalyst comprises zeolite having 8 to 1 silicon atoms arranged in ring and hierarchical zeolite comprising 0.1-2 nm micropore, 2-50nm mesopore and more than 50 nm macropore wherein the mesopore and macropore are 40 to 60% of the total pore volume and said catalyst comprising element having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state of 0.1 to 3% by weight of the catalyst which is taught by Stevenson in view of Wattanakit as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Stevenson clearly discloses elements having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state such as germanium, boron, zirconium (see paragraph 0022-0023, substantially similar elements having 2+ to 4+ oxidation state to applicant’s specification on page 7) therefore performance, selectivity and conversion of catalyst would be expected. Further, performance, selectivity and conversion of catalyst are not required in the presently claimed invention therefore arguments are moot and if this is critical then applicant needs to incorporate into the presently claimed limitation and further show unexpected result with side by side comparison in form of declaration.
d. Applicant argument that Wattanakit catalyst performance of ferrierite having mesopore and macropore are 44% of the total pore volume which is lower than that of catalyst according to the present invention. However, presently claimed invention claims mesopore and macropore are 40 to 60% of the total pore volume where 44% would encompass the claimed range and further whether it’s lower side but still within the claimed range. If applicant consider this as lower side which would lead to low selectivity, then it conflicts with the presently claimed range of 40 to 60% of total pore volume.
In addition, applicant arguments related to yield of light olefins product according to Wattanakit versus presently claimed invention yield of light olefins are moot since yield of light olefins are not presently claimed and further if this critical in the catalyst product, then applicant needs to show side by side comparison in the declaration format and also incorporate into presently claimed invention.
Therefore, the rejection of Stevenson in view of Wattanakit are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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 Fung can be reached at 5712705713. 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 09/18/2025