DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naseri et al. (“The effect of Ce, Zn and Co on Pt-based catalysts in propane dehydrogenation”).
With regard to Claim 1, Naseri teaches a dehydrogenation catalyst for the production of olefins from alkane gases, comprising active metals and an alumina support, wherein the active metals in the catalyst consist of cobalt, zinc, and platinum, and wherein the catalyst is made by a method comprising co-impregnating and supporting precursor solutions of cobalt, zinc, and platinum on the alumina support (Abstract; The catalysts were prepared by sequential impregnation of γ-Al2O3 technique… Pt–Sn–K–Co0.3–Zn0.7/γ-Al2O3 showed better performance in terms of conversion and propylene selectivity). While Naseri discloses the presence of cerium (Ce), the scope of Claim 1 does not exclude, for instance, “secondary active metals” due to the use of “comprising” language in the claim limitation “comprising active metals and an alumina support” in line 2.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Choi et al. (WO 2018/124782 A1, corresponding translation from US 2020/0055028 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Choi teaches a dehydrogenation catalyst for the production of olefins from alkane gases, comprising active metals and an alumina support, wherein the active metals in the catalyst consist of cobalt, zinc, and platinum, and wherein the catalyst is made by a method comprising co-impregnating and supporting precursor solutions of cobalt, zinc, and platinum on the alumina support (Claim 1, A catalyst for producing olefin comprising: a support comprising alumina and a sub-support component; and a metal oxide impregnated on the support, wherein the metal oxide comprises anyone selected from an oxide of chromium, vanadium, manganese, iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, zinc, cerium and nickel, and wherein the sub-support component comprises anyone selected from zirconium, zinc and platinum; Preparation Example 4).
In Preparation Example 4, Choi prepares a chromium oxide/zinc/zirconium-platinum-alumina catalyst. However, the reference discloses that cobalt oxide can be used in place of chromium oxide (Claim 1; Paragraph 0044, The metal oxide comprises anyone selected from an oxide of chromium, vanadium, manganese, iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, zinc, cerium and nickel).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.07, The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, while Preparation Example 4 of Choi discloses the presence of zirconium (Zr), the scope of Claim 1 does not exclude, for instance, “secondary active metals” due to the claim limitation “comprising active metals and an alumina support” in line 2.
With regard to Claim 2, Choi teaches the catalyst calcinated at 700°C to 900°C (Preparation Examples 1-4; Paragraph 0128, The dried support is calcined at 700° C. for 6 hours).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
With regard to Claim 4, Choi teaches the catalyst wherein zinc is supported in an amount of 2 to 10% by weight based on the total catalyst weight (Paragraph 0042, The sub-support component can further comprise 5-15 wt% of zinc base on the total amount of the support).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
With regard to Claim 5, Choi teaches the catalyst wherein platinum is supported in an amount of 0.001 to 0.05% by weight based on the total catalyst weight (Paragraph 0042, The sub-support component can further comprise 0.05-0.5 wt% of platinum base on the total amount of the support).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
Claims 1-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang et al. (CN 108579742 A).
With regard to Claim 1, Wang teaches a dehydrogenation catalyst for the production of olefins from alkane gases, comprising active metals and an alumina support, wherein the active metals in the catalyst consist of cobalt, zinc, and platinum, and wherein the catalyst is made by a method comprising co-impregnating and supporting precursor solutions of cobalt, zinc, and platinum on the alumina support (Claim 1; Paragraph 0012, A dehydrogenation catalyst uses a composite oxide composed of zinc-modified zirconium dioxide and activated alumina as a carrier, Pt as a main active component, and one or more selected from potassium, magnesium, tin, lanthanum, cerium, iron, cobalt, and nickel as auxiliary active components; Paragraph 0042, the auxiliary active component is selected from one or more of potassium, cobalt, tin and cerium).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.07, The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, while Wang discloses the presence of zirconium (Zr), the scope of Claim 1 does not exclude, for instance, “secondary active metals” due to the claim limitation “comprising active metals and an alumina support” in line 2.
With regard to Claim 2, Wang teaches the catalyst calcinated at 700°C to 900°C (Claims 5 and 6, calcining the solid particle powder obtained after spray drying at 500-700° C…calcining the dried product obtained in step 1 at 300-750° C).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
With regard to Claims 3-5 and 17, Wang teaches the catalyst wherein cobalt is supported in an amount of 1 to 5% by weight based on the total catalyst weight (Claim 1; Paragraph 0012, one or more selected from potassium, magnesium, tin, lanthanum, cerium, iron, cobalt, and nickel as auxiliary active components…the mass content of the auxiliary active components in the catalyst is 0%-8%).
Wang teaches the catalyst wherein zinc is supported in an amount of 2 to 10% by weight based on the total catalyst weight (Claim 1; Paragraph 0012, the mass content of zinc in the carrier is 0.1%-20%).
Wang teaches the catalyst wherein platinum is supported in an amount of 0.001 to 0.05% by weight based on the total catalyst weight (Claim 1; Paragraph 0012, the mass content of Pt in the catalyst is 0.01%-10%).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 108579742 A) in view of Han et al. (WO 2018/207992 A1, corresponding translation from US 2020/0122125 A1).
With regard to Claims 19 and 20, Wang is silent to the alumina support having a γ to θ phase at a preparation temperature of from 550 to 850°C and a surface area of 80 to 300 m2/g.
Han teaches the alumina support having a γ to θ phase at a preparation temperature of from 550 to 850°C; and a surface area of 80 to 300 m2/g (Paragraph 0024, a gamma alumina carrier…specific surface area: 210 m2/g… was calcinated at 1020° C. for 5 hours so as to be phase-changed into theta alumina, and the resultant theta alumina carrier was used. The phase-changed theta alumina has physical properties including a specific surface area of 92 m2/g; Paragraph 0022, When the heat treatment temperature is 1000° C. or less, the crystal phase of alumina is in a state in which gamma and theta are mixed with each other). Han discloses that theta alumina has favorable properties which optimize conversion rate and selectivity (Paragraph 0007, The theta alumina has excellent effects on conversion rate and selectivity by minimizing the coagulation between metals because of its high ability to suppress side reactions by eliminating the acid sites using high-temperature heat treatment and its high ability to bind to metals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Wang to teach the alumina support having a γ to θ phase at a preparation temperature of from 550 to 850°C and a surface area of 80 to 300 m2/g, as taught by Han, as theta alumina has favorable properties which optimize conversion rate and selectivity.
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art to this claim is: Wang et al. (CN 108579742 A), Choi et al. (WO 2018/124782 A1), Han et al. (WO 2018/207992 A1), and Naseri et al. (“The effect of Ce, Zn and Co on Pt-based catalysts in propane dehydrogenation”). The prior art does not teach or suggest the catalyst consisting of the alumina support, 4% by weight of Co supported on the alumina support, 8% by weight of Zn supported on the alumina support, and 0.01 % by weight of Pt supported on the alumina support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed November 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Naseri et al. (“The effect of Ce, Zn and Co on Pt-based catalysts in propane dehydrogenation”), Claims 1-2 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Choi et al. (WO 2018/124782 A1, corresponding translation from US 2020/0055028 A1), and Claims 1-5 in view of Wang et al. (CN 108579742 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Furthermore, new grounds of rejection are made over Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang et al. (CN 108579742 A) and over Claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang et al. (CN 108579742 A) in view of Han et al. (WO 2018/207992 A1, corresponding translation from US 2020/0122125 A1).
With regard to Applicant’s arguments on page 8, with regard to the rejection of Claim 1 over Naseri, Applicant argues that “Naseri, on the other hand, discloses catalysts that include active metals such as Ce, which is not one of the presently recited active materials. Since the present claims recite that the active metals "consist of" the recited active metals, and do not recite Ce, it is respectfully submitted that Naseri does not anticipate the presently claimed invention”. Claim 1, line 2 of the instant invention discloses the catalyst “comprising active metals and an alumina support”. While the Examiner concedes that Ce cannot be included as one of the “active metals”, the scope of Claim 1 does not exclude, for instance, “secondary active metals”. Therefore, metals other than cobalt, zinc, or platinum are still within the scope of Claim 1.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments on page 9, with regard to the rejections of Claims 1-2 and 4-5 over Choi, Applicant argues that “Choi does not disclose or suggest the presence of the presently recited active metals. At most, Choi appears to disclose the possible presence of two, but not all three, of the presently recited active metals”. The Examiner maintains that all three metals are included within the scope of the reference (see Claim 1 rejection over Choi).
With regard to Applicant’s arguments on page 9, with regard to the rejections of Claims 1-5 over Wang, Applicant argues that “Wang discloses the presence of Zr, which is not one of the active metals recited in the present claims”. Claim 1, line 2 of the instant invention discloses the catalyst “comprising active metals and an alumina support”. While the Examiner concedes that Zr cannot be included as one of the “active metals”, the scope of Claim 1 does not exclude, for instance, “secondary active metals”. Therefore, metals other than cobalt, zinc, or platinum are still within the scope of Claim 1.
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 ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736