DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3 are amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-18 are pending, with claims 8-18 being withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected.
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 .
Examiner’s Notes
Upon further consideration of page 7 of applicant’s argument regarding Brenzy not in the application field of Seki, the argument is found persuasive. Upon further searches, Moser is brought to the examiner’s attention. The present claims are now rejected under Seki in view of Moser. This Office action set forth below is a second non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
All non-patent literature documents provided in the information disclosure statement filed on 01/04/2024 and 10/10/2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because they lack a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the molding catalyst comprising “a molding support” and “a metal oxide additive includes ceria, and zirconia”, with the content of the metal oxide additive being “0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a molding support”. However, dependent claim 4, which depends on claim 1, further recites “the molding support” itself includes “zirconia”. It is unclear whether zirconia is the molding support, the metal oxide additive, or both. The examiner interprets zirconia as broadly encompassing either or both roles, i.e., as the molding support and/or the metal oxide additive. Under this interpretation, the limitation “0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a metal oxide additive based on 100 parts by weight of a molding support” is understood to correspond specifically to the amount of the additional component within the metal oxide additive, namely ceria, relative to the total weight of the molding support. Clarification is requested.
Claims 3-7, which depend on claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites, the phrase “a content ratio of ceria:zirconia”. It is unclear what type of ratio the ceria:zirconia refers to, e.g., weight ratio, volume ratio, molar ratio, etc. The examiner interprets the content ratio of ceria:zirconia as broadly encompassing any type of ratio (e.g., weight ratio, volume ratio, molar ratio) between ceria and zirconia. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser “Bridging HCI and HBr Oxidation over Heterogeneous Catalysts for Halogen Production” (Moser1) in view of Moser “Supported CeO2 catalysts in technical form for sustainable chlorine production” (Moser 2) and Seki (US 2010/0068126 A1) (Seki).
For clarity and consistency, the examiner’s following analysis is made in view of the interpretation provided above in the §112(b) rejection, where the scope of the amount of the metal oxide additive was discussed.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-6, Moser1 teaches bridging HCl and HBr oxidation over heterogeneous catalysts for halogen production (i.e., a molding catalyst for hydrogen chloride oxidation reaction) (Moser1, Title and Summary).
Moser1 further teaches a catalyst comprising RuO2 (i.e., ruthenium oxide) / TiO2 (i.e., titania) in particulate form (i.e., particle form) and ceria-zirconia mixed oxides (i.e., a metal oxide additive) CeO2 / ZrO2 with a Ce:Zr ratio of 50:50 (i.e., 1) (Moser1, page 134, 8.2. Simulation Details, first paragraph; page 112, 7.2.1. Catalyst, first paragraph; page 118, Table 7.2 – “CZ50-h”), where the number of operation units and the catalyst cost are reduced (Moser1, pages 142-144, 8.3.2. Adiabatic Reactor Cascade).
Moser1 does not explicitly teach (a) the molding catalyst comprising 1 to 10 parts by weight of ruthenium oxide and (b) 0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a metal oxide additive based on 100 parts by weight of a molding support, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference (a), Seki discloses a ruthenium oxide-supported catalyst for oxidization reaction of hydrogen chloride (Seki, Abstract; [0039]-[0040]).
Seki further discloses the catalyst comprising a weight ratio of the ruthenium oxide to the carrier from 0.1/99.9 to 20/80, resulting in the amount of the ruthenium oxide by weight, based on the weight of the carrier (i.e., molding support) from 0.1% (i.e., 0.1 / 99.9 × 100%) to 25% (i.e., 20 / 80 × 100%), i.e., 1 to 25 parts by weight of ruthenium oxide based on 100 parts by weight of the carrier.
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 Seki expressly teaches, the produced ruthenium oxide-supported material has excellent in thermal stability and catalytic life as a catalyst for chlorine production (Seki, [0009]).
Seki and Moser1 are analogous art as they are both drawn to catalyst for hydrogen chloride oxidation reaction.
In light of the motivation of the ruthenium oxide disclosed by Seki as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the catalyst of Moser 1 to have the amount of the ruthenium oxide of Seki, in order to provide excellent in thermal stability and catalytic life as a catalyst for chlorine production, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (b), Moser2 teaches supported catalysts for chlorine production, e.g., the oxidation of HCl to Cl2 (i.e., oxidization reaction of hydrogen chloride) (Moser2, Title and Abstract).
Moser2 further teaches the catalyst CeO2 (i.e., metal oxide additive) with the cerium content being 3-20 wt.% Ce (Moser, Abstract; page 124, 2.1. Catalysts), which corresponds to the content of cerium oxide (i.e., ceria) being 3.69 – 24.57 wt.% (i.e., 3 wt.% / 140 g/mol × (140 +16×2) g/mol) = 3.69 wt.% to 20 wt.% / 140 g/mol × (140 +16×2) g/mol) = 24.57 wt.%) of CeO2.
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 Moser2 expressly teaches, the produced catalyst show reduced chlorine uptake (Moser2, Abstract).
Moser2 is analogous art as it is drawn to catalyst for hydrogen chloride oxidation reaction.
In light of the motivation of having the ceria disclosed by Moser2 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the catalyst of Moser1 to have the amount of the ceria of Moser2, in order to achieve reduced chlorine uptake, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5, Given that Moser1 teaches the catalyst in particulate form (Moser1, page 134, 8.2. Simulation Details, first paragraph; page 112, 7.2.1. Catalyst, first paragraph; page 118, Table 7.2 – “CZ50-h”), therefore, a pellet form having a diameter of 1 to 10 mm (claim 6) is not required.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Given that the catalyst of Moser1 in view of Seki and Moser2 is identical or substantially identical to the present claimed molding catalyst in composition (i.e., 1 to 10 parts by weight of ruthenium oxide and 0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a metal oxide additive based on 100 parts by weight of a molding support, e.g., titania, wherein the metal oxide additive includes ceria and zirconia) and structure (ruthenium oxide, a metal oxide additive, a molding support), with those of the present invention (Originally filed specification, [0061]-[0062]), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the catalyst of Seki in view of Moser would intrinsically have a crushing strength of 5 to 200 N.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 6 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser “Bridging HCI and HBr Oxidation over Heterogeneous Catalysts for Halogen Production” (Moser1) in view of Moser “Supported CeO2 catalysts in technical form for sustainable chlorine production” (Moser 2) and Seki (US 2010/0068126 A1) (Seki) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2009/0239736 A1) (Schmidt).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5, alternatively, Moser1 in view of Seki and Moser2 does not explicitly teach wherein the pellet form has a diameter of 1 to 10 mm, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Schmidt teaches sulfur-poisoned, ruthenium and/or ruthenium compound-containing catalysts for oxidation of hydrogen chloride (Schmidt, Title and Abstract; [0012]). Schmidt further teaches, pelletized (i.e., in pellet form) ruthenium catalysts, e.g., ruthenium oxide supported on TiO2 (i.e., titania) can be prepared (Schmidt, [0019], [0042]). Schmidt further teaches TiO2 pellets has a diameter of 2 mm (Schmidt, [0044]).
As Schmidt expressly teaches, the catalyst pellets prepared are initially introduced into a quartz reaction tube (diameter 10 mm), for further processing e.g., oxidation of hydrogen chloride (Schmidt, [0045]-[0073]). Therefore, it is clear that the catalyst in pellet form would benefit the handling of the catalyst in the reaction tube for oxidation reaction, e.g., oxidation of hydrogen chloride.
Schmidt is analogous art as it is drawn to a catalyst for oxidation of hydrogen chloride.
In light of the motivation of using the catalyst pellets disclosed by Schmidt as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pellet form of the catalyst in Moser1 in view of Seki and Moser2 with the diameter disclosed in Schmidt, in order to provide benefit the handling of the catalyst in the reaction tube for further processing, e.g., oxidation of hydrogen chloride.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claim 1, the previous claim objection is withdrawn.
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, a molding catalyst, “wherein the metal oxide additive includes ceria, and zirconia”, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-7 as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 8 of copending Application No. 17/790,287 (reference application) is withdrawn.
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, a molding catalyst, “wherein the metal oxide additive includes ceria, and zirconia”, it is noted that Seki alone would not meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Seki alone and Seki in view of Brezny, Schmidt, or Maeno are withdrawn. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicants primarily argue:
“D1(Seki) fails to disclose any catalyst comprising both ceria and zirconia…please refer to Example 3 of the present invention, which demonstrates that the molding catalyst comprising ruthenium oxide supported on the molding support and ceria and zirconia as a metal oxide additive exhibits improved catalytic activity, durability, and mechanical strength. These advantages make the catalyst highly suitable for commercial-scale production of chlorine via hydrogen chloride oxidation.”
Remarks, page 7
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Moser1 is used to teach the claimed catalyst comprising both ceria and zirconia. It is noted that while Seki does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Seki is used as teaching reference, namely the molding catalyst comprising 1 to 10 parts by weight of ruthenium oxide, in order to provide excellent thermal stability and catalytic life as a catalyst for chlorine production, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIALAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/J.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights