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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the legend on the right of Figure 1 is illegible in both PE2E and the PGPUB. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 4, the phrase “the atomic ratio of Mo/W between 2:1” is likely intended to read “the atomic ratio of Mo/W is between 2:1”.
Regarding claim 5, line 3, the term “area” is likely intended to be “surface area” to be consistent with the previous claims and the claim does not end with a period.
Claims 2-8 all depend from claim 1 and thus are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 3, the term “the active phase” lacks antecedent basis. A skilled artisan would not necessarily conclude a catalyst has a discreet active phase, as the entirety of a catalyst could be the active component which is contrary to the suggestion of an active phase, which is interpreted as a portion of the catalyst contributing to activity. Regarding claim 1, line 7, the term “the surface area” is unclear because it is not clear from the claim what material the surface area is limiting such as the active phase, the catalyst, the nickel, molybdenum, tungsten, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7, 11, and 13, the term “it” is unclear because it is not certain what is being referred to. For example, in line 11, the phrase “it contains an alkali metal…” could be referring to the bulk form, the active phase, the refractory oxide, and/or any combination thereof.
In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the instances in line 7 and 11 are interpreted to be referring to further properties of a refractory oxide support. See [0050] in the instant specification. The instance in line 13 is interpreted as requiring a promoter being present with a NiMoW active phase, where a support oxide is not necessarily present. See [0041] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7-8, the phrase “it presents itself in bulk form or uses refractory oxide supports, with a surface area greater than 15 m2/g, in the proportion of…” is unclear. It is unclear if the bulk form material has a surface area of greater than 15 m2/g, if the refractory oxide support has a surface area greater than 15 m2/g, or if the combination of the bulk form and refractory oxide have a surface area greater than 15 m2/g. This limitation as written is further made unclear by the preceding limitation “the surface area is in the range between 20 and 150 m2/g” such that from the claim it is not certain if the limitation at issue is attempting to broaden the preceding range or implement a further limitation to the refractory oxide support. Identical interpretation issues exist for the “proportion of 95% to 65%...” limitation.
In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the limitation is interpreted such that if a refractory oxide support is used, the surface area of the refractory oxide has a surface area of greater than 15 m2/g. NiMoW-containing catalyst materials, either in bulk form or supported on a refractory oxide, are interpreted to require a surface area in the range between 20 and 150 m2/g to meet the claimed invention. The proportion of 95% to 65% by weight is interpreted to be referring to the proportion of optional refractory oxide support in the total composition. These interpretations are supported in at least [0050] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 1, lines 13-14, the phrase “selected from the group comprising Pt, Rd, Ru and Rh, and by combinations thereof in any proportions, in a concentration in the range of 0.01 to 1% by weight” is unclear and is grammatically incorrect. In particular, the phrase “and by combinations thereof in any proportions” is worded such that some additional process or combination exists where proportions are arrived at “by combinations”. Additionally, the listing of “Ru and Rh” without a comma (as in “Ru, and Rh”) is unclear if the group may comprises Ru or Rh or if both Ru and Rh are required. This issue is generated as a result of the phrase “and by combinations thereof in any proportions” that proceeds it.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the promoter noble metal can be “in any proportions” while also being in a concentration range of 0.01% to 1% by weight. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “in any proportions”, and the claim also recites “in a concentration range of 0.01% to 1% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the limitation is interpreted such that if a refractory oxide support is used, the surface area of the refractory oxide has a surface area of greater than 15 m2/g. NiMoW-containing catalyst materials, either in bulk form or supported on a refractory oxide, are interpreted to require a surface area in the range between 20 and 150 m2/g to meet the claimed invention. These interpretations are supported in at least [0050] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the final catalyst composition optionally contains from 95% to 65% by weight of refractory oxide supports, with an area between 20 m2/g and 100 m2/g” is unclear. It is unclear if the area is referring to the final catalyst composition or if the area is limiting the optional refractory oxide support. The clear interpretation of the claim is exacerbated by the comma after supports and by the area range hypothetically limiting both of the surface area ranges presented in independent claim 1. Both of these factors ultimately make the claim unclear. Additionally, Applicant is encouraged to use consistent language throughout the claims, where “area” is likely intended to be “surface area”, as is presented in claim 1.
In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, both of the limitations in claim 5 of “contains from 95% to 65% by weight of refractory oxide supports, with an area between 20 m2/g and 100 m2/g” are interpreted as being directed at the refractory oxide support. This interpretation is based on [0050] in the instant specification. Furthermore, in light of the claim interpretation only limiting an optional component (i.e. the refractory oxide support), claim 5 was examined broadly and not seen as a required component of a catalyst satisfying the requirements of claim 1 sans a refractory oxide support.
Claims 2-8 all depend from claim 1 and thus, are also rendered indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “an atomic ratio of Ni/(Mo+W) between 4:1 and 3:1.2 and atomic ratio of Mo/W between 1.2:1 and 0.8:1” broadens and does not further limit the range presented in independent claim 1 of “the atomic ratio of Ni/(Mo+W) is between 6:1 and 5:1 and the atomic ratio of Mo/W between 2:1 and 1:1.” The atomic ratio of Ni/Mo+W is outside of the range presented in claim 1 and the range 0.8:1 is outside the range of Mo/W.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “an atomic ratio of Ni/(Mo+W) between 3:1 and 0.5:1 and atomic ratio of Mo/W between 0.8:1 and 0.05:1” broadens and does not further limit the range presented in independent claim 1 of “the atomic ratio of Ni/(Mo+W) is between 6:1 and 5:1 and the atomic ratio of Mo/W between 2:1 and 1:1.”
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 Wang et al. (Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15, 12571 – 12575).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner first notes that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for generation of hydrogen and/or syngas through the steam reforming process of hydrocarbons” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations or serve to limit the structure of the claimed catalyst. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Wang teaches a trimetallic NiMoW sulfide catalyst where the bulk material includes a NiMoW active phase and displays locations with a Ni:Mo:W atom ratio of 11.4:1:1 (equivalent to Ni/(Mo+W) = 5.7:1 and Mo/W = 1:1) (Abstract; Title; Pg. 12574, left col; Pg. 12573, Figure 3a; Pg. 12573, left col.). Wang further teaches the catalyst has a surface area of 56 m2/g (Pg. 12572, Table 2). Wang describes the material as a nanoparticle material and depicts it as a bulk powder (Pg. 12573, Figure 3a; Pg. 12573, left col.), which is consistent with the material presenting itself “in bulk form”. The term “bulk form” is not given a special definition in the instant specification (see [0036], [0041], [0046], [0050], [0057], and [0064] for all instances of “bulk form”) and the art accepted general meaning of a granular material, as evidenced by Sommer et al. (see Pg. 4, Preface; Pg. 8-9 of Introduction), was applied in the claim interpretation.
The remaining claim limitations “or uses refractory oxide supports, with a surface area greater than 15 m2/g, in the proportion of 95% to 65% by weight in relation to the total composition; d) optionally, it contains an alkali metal in a concentration ranging from 0.2% to 15% by weight; and e) optionally, it contains a promoter noble metal, selected from a group comprising Pt, Pd, Ru and Rh, and by combinations thereof in any proportions, in a concentration in the range of 0.01% to 1% by weight, calculated as a metallic element” are listed as optional components of the catalyst of claim 1. While not indefinite, use of the word “optionally” does not constitute necessary aspects required by the claim and are not considered as required in the above rejection over Wang.
Calculations:Ni/(Mo+W): Ni:Mo:W =11.4:1:1; Ni/(Mo+W) = 11.4/(1+1) = 5.7:1
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 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.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eijsbouts et al. (CA2359906C) in view of Ren et al. (CN1554728A English).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner first notes that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for generation of hydrogen and/or syngas through the steam reforming process of hydrocarbons” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations or serve to limit the structure of the claimed catalyst. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Eijsbouts teaches a catalyst comprising nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W), where the catalyst composition does not comprise sulphided forms of a compound of the formula NibMocWodOz, with b/(c+d) being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 - 3 and c/d being in the range of 0.1 - 10 or even being equal to or greater than 0.01, and z = [2b+6(c+d)]/2 (Pg. 32, par. 3). Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can be used in virtually all hydroprocessing processes, including process hydrocarbon feedstocks to provide hydrogen (Pg. 34-35, Use according to the invention). Eijsbouts teaches the catalysts have a surface area of at least 10 m2/g (Pg. 13, par. 4-Pg. 14, par. 1). Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can be present as bulk catalyst particles (i.e. presenting itself in bulk form) and that the surface area of the oxidic bulk catalyst particles is at least 60% of the surface area of the metal component relative to the bulk (Pg. 12, par. 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Eijsbouts (Mo/W from 0.1-10; surface area greater than 10 m2/g; surface area of metal oxide to bulk material of at least 60%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Mo/W between 2:1 and 1:1; b) the surface area is in the range between 20 and 150 m2/g; it presents itself in bulk form or uses refractory oxide supports, with a surface area greater than 15 m2/g, in the proportion of 95% to 65% by weight in relation to the total composition). Therefore, the ranges in Eijsbouts renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim limitations “or uses refractory oxide supports, with a surface area greater than 15 m2/g, in the proportion of 95% to 65% by weight in relation to the total composition; d) optionally, it contains an alkali metal in a concentration ranging from 0.2% to 15% by weight; and e) optionally, it contains a promoter noble metal, selected from a group comprising Pt, Pd, Ru and Rh, and by combinations thereof in any proportions, in a concentration in the range of 0.01% to 1% by weight, calculated as a metallic element” were considered optional components of the catalyst of claim 1. While not indefinite, use of the word “optionally” does not constitute necessary aspects required by the claim and are not considered as required in the above rejection over Wang.
The claim further requires “the atomic ratio of Ni/(Mo+W) is between 6:1 and 5:1,” where Eijsbouts teaches a Ni/(Mo+W) value being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 – 3 (Pg. 32, par. 3), which lies outside the claimed range.
Ren teaches a catalyst for hydrogenation that comprises 5.0-18.0% of nickel oxide, 1.0-11.0% of tungsten oxide, 0.1-8.0% of molybdenum oxide, 1.5-19.0% of titanium oxide, and 44.0-44.0% of aluminum oxide (Abstract). Converting the metal oxide to metal contents gives a taught range of nickel of 3.8 to 14.1, molybdenum of 0.88 to 9.8, and tungsten of 0.07 to 5.3, which affords a Ni/(Mo+W) ratio ranging from 0.27 to 16.5 taught in Ren (see calculations below). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Ren (Ni/Mo+W) ranging from 0.27 to 16.5) overlaps with the claimed range (Ni/(Mo+W) is between 6:1 and 5:1). Therefore, the range in Ren renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the metal combination and quantities in Ren improve the surface properties of the carrier, make more suitable pore size distributions, and provide a catalyst with very high activity (Pg. 3, par. 9-13).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a Ni/(W+Mo) ratio of between 0.26 to 14.9 in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve the surface properties of the carrier, make the pore size distributions more suitable, and provide a catalyst with very high activity, as taught by Ren.
Calculations:
NiO molar mass: 74.69 g/mol; Ni molar mass = 58.69 g/mol
MoO3 molar mass: 143.94 g/mol; Mo molar mass = 95.95 g/mol
WO3 molar mass: 231.84 g/mol; W molar mass = 183.84 g/mol Ni in NiO = 58.69/74.69 = 0.79
Mo in MoO3 = 95.95/143.94 = 0.67
W = WO3 = 183.84/231.84 = 0.79
Ni range taught in Ren = 5 to 18%; low end = 5*0.79 = 3.92; high end = 18 *0.79 = 14.1
W range taught in Ren = 1 to 11%; low end = 1*0.79 = 0.79; high end = 11 *0.79 = 8.72
Mo range taught in Ren = 0.1 to 8%; low end = 0.1*0.67 = 0.07; high end = 8 *0.67 = 5.3
High Ni/(Mo+W) = 14.1/(0.79+0.07) = 16.5; Low Ni/(Mo+W) = 3.92/(8.7+5.3) = 0.28
Regarding claim 2, Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts further teaches the catalyst can be supported on a binder material including alumina, zirconia, and titania (Pg. 19, par. 1-2; Pg. 43, Example 7).
Regarding claim 3, Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts teaches a catalyst comprising nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W), where the catalyst composition does not comprise sulphided forms of a compound of the formula NibMocWodOz, with b/(c+d) being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 - 3 and c/d (i.e. Mo/W) being in the range of 0.1 - 10 or even being equal to or greater than 0.01, and z = [2b+6(c+d)]/2 (Pg. 32, par. 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Eijsbouts (Ni/(Mo+W) 0.5 to 3; Mo/W from 0.1-10) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Ni/(Mo+W) between 4:1 and 3:1.2 (2.5:1); Mo/W between 1.2:1 and 0.8:1). Therefore, the ranges in Eijsbouts renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts teaches a catalyst comprising nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W), where the catalyst composition does not comprise sulphided forms of a compound of the formula NibMocWodOz, with b/(c+d) being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 - 3 and c/d (i.e. Mo/W) being in the range of 0.1 - 10 or even being equal to or greater than 0.01, and z = [2b+6(c+d)]/2 (Pg. 32, par. 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Eijsbouts (Ni/(Mo+W) 0.5 to 3; Mo/W from 0.1-10) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Ni/(Mo+W) between 4:1 and 3:1.2 (2.5:1); Mo/W between 1.2:1 and 0.8:1). Therefore, the ranges in Eijsbouts renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts further teaches the catalyst can be supported on a binder material including alumina, zirconia, and titania, where the binder is generally present in the range of 0 to 75 wt% and displays a surface area in the range of 50-600 m2/g (Pg. 19, par. 1-2; Pg. 20, par. 1; Pg. 43, Example 7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Eijsbouts (0-75 wt.% of the total composition is binder; 50-600 m2/g) overlaps with the claimed ranges (95% to 65% refractory oxide support; 20 to 100 m2/g). Therefore, the ranges in Eijsbouts renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts further teaches the catalyst can include transition metal additives including platinum (Pg. 22, par. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eijsbouts et al. (CA2359906C) in view of Ren et al. (CN1554728A English) and further in view Adsetts (US3926584).
Regarding claim 6, Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
The claim further requires the optional component of “an alkali metal” from claim 1 to be present in a concentration ranging from 1% to 7% by weight, calculated as K2O,” to which Eijsbouts and Ren are silent.
Adsetts teaches a nickel catalyst supported on alumina that contains an alkali metal compound, calculated as K2O, from 0.05 to 3.5% (Abstract; col. 2, lines 1-21). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Adsetts (0.05 to 3.5% calculated as K2O) overlaps with the claimed ranges (1% to 7% by weight, calculated as K2O). Therefore, the range in Adsetts renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, potassium incorporation extends the useful lifetime of the catalyst (col. 1, lines 4-28).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an alkali metal at a concentration of 0.05 to 3.5%, calculated as K2O, in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve useful lifetime of the catalyst as taught by Adsetts.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eijsbouts et al. (CA2359906C) in view of Ren et al. (CN1554728A English) and further in view Vannauker et al. (US20120318712A1; cited in IDS dated 12/12/2022).
Eijsbouts in view of Ren teach the catalyst of claim 1.
The claim further requires the optional component of “a promoter noble metal” from claim 1 to be present in concentrations ranging from 0.01% to 0.2% by weight, calculated as a metallic element.,” to which Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can include transition metal additives including platinum (Pg. 22, par. 1) but does not discuss the concentration. Ren is silent regarding this limitation.
Vannauker teaches a catalyst that comprises Ni, W, and Mo that can further include a metal including Pt, Pd, Rh, and combinations thereof in a concentration of at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt% ([0027]; [0067]; [0071]). Vannauker teaches the metals as elemental metals (i.e. Pt) and meets the limitation of calculating the concentration “as a metallic element”. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Vannauker (at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (0.01% to 0.2% by weight). Therefore, the range in Vannauker renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, a catalyst comprising the metals taught by Vannauker allows for operation over a wider range of temperatures that provides catalysts with commercially viable run length (i.e. catalyst lifetimes) ([0027]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a promoter noble metal, including Pt, Pd, or Rh, in a concentration of at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt% in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve operation over a wider range of temperatures and provide catalysts with commercially viable run lengths, as taught by Vannauker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738