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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Instantly claimed “average electronegativity” would be given its broadest and reasonable interpretation based on its definition, i.e. such “average electronegativity” is defined according to Sanderson’s expression (see filed specification para. [0018], also the expression in claim 1). Based on such description, such “average electronegativity” is determined by its composition. Therefore, once a same catalyst composition is found in the prior art, the claimed average electronegativity is presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ((a) (1)) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Toledo et al ( Magnesia-supported potassium oxide catalysts for soot combustion: effect of Fe addition on the catalyst activity and stability, Reac Kinet Mech Cat (2014) 113:487–497).
Toledo et al. teaches a catalyst consisting of a MgO supporting potassium (page 489-page 490Experimental section). Toledo et al. also teaches the concentration of Mg and K in such catalyst can be analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) (page 490 Catalysts characterization section, table 2), wherein in the K/MgO catalyst the molar (i.e. atomic) ratio of (K/Mg)XPS being 0.031, while (K/Mg)XPS/ (K/Mg)AAS being 1.39 (table 2), therefore, the atomic i.e. molar ratio of (K/Mg)AAS=(K/Mg)XPS/1.39=0.031/1.39=0.0223, which is 2.23%. Therefore the atomic (i.e. molar) ratio of K/(K+Mg) (in K/MgO catalyst) =0.0223/(1+0.0223)=0.0218%, i.e. 2.18%.
Regarding claim 1, Toledo et al. does not expressly teach the catalyst having an average electronegativity of 2.1 or more and 2.8 or less. However, Toledo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same property or substantially the same property, i.e. average electronegativity as that of instantly claimed based on the recited Sanderson’s expression would be associated or expected.
Regarding claim 3, Toledo et al. already teaches such limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Toledo et al. does not require catalyst having any acid amount, therefore, Toledo et al. disclosed catalyst having 0.3 mmol/g or less acid with respect to 1g of the catalyst. Furthermore, Toledo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same property or substantially the same property, i.e. same acid amount with respect to 1g of the catalyst being 0.3 mmol/g or less as that of instantly claimed would be associated or expected.
Regarding claim 7, as for the claimed catalyst “is used for producing, from isobutanol, at least one dehydrogenated compound selected from the group consisting of isobutyl aldehyde and methacrolein”, it is noted that such limitation does not structurally limit the instantly claimed catalyst composition, rather an intended usage associated with the claimed catalyst composition. Toledo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as discussed above.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ((a) (1)) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schiodt ( US7998897).
Schiodt teaches a catalyst consisting potassium and a mixture of zinc alumina spinel and zinc oxide (col. 2 lines 60-66, claim 1-2). Shiodt also specifically teaches Zn/Al molar ratio is 0.65-0.7, preferably 0.7 and the catalyst contains Zn in an amount of 31-34 wt. % preferably 33 wt%, and K in an amount of 2.7-3.0 wt %, preferably 2.8 wt % (claim 5, col. 4 43-47), based on such Zn amount, for 1 gram of such catalyst, there is 0.33 g of Zn, Zn has a molar mass of 65 g/mol, Zn molar mass is 0.33/65=0.00508 mol, based on Zn/Al molar ratio being 0.7, the Al molar mass will be 0.00508/0.7=0.00725, K (molar mass 39 g/mole) content will be 0.028/39=7.18x10-4 mol, therefore, the K molar ratio to the total metal in the catalyst is 7.18x10-4/(7.18x10-4+0.00508+0.00725)=0.055, which is 5.5%.
Regarding claim 1, Schiodt does not expressly teach the catalyst having an average electronegativity of 2.1 or more and 2.8 or less. However, Schiodt already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same property or substantially the same property, i.e. average electronegativity as that of instantly claimed based on the recited Sanderson’s expression would be associated or expected.
Regarding claim 3-4, Schiodt already teaches such limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Schiodt does not require catalyst having any acid amount, therefore, Schiodt disclosed catalyst having 0.3 mmol/g or less acid with respect to 1g of the catalyst. Furthermore, Schiodt already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same property or substantially the same property, i.e. same acid amount with respect to 1g of the catalyst being 0.3 mmol/g or less as that of instantly claimed would be associated or expected.
Regarding claim 7, as for the claimed catalyst “is used for producing, from isobutanol, at least one dehydrogenated compound selected from the group consisting of isobutyl aldehyde and methacrolein”, it is noted that such limitation does not structurally limit the instantly claimed catalyst composition, rather an intended usage associated with the claimed catalyst composition. Schiodt already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights