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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
As previously set forth, claim 1 uses the term “glasslike metal oxide catalyst.” As previously set forth, this term is interpreted as meaning an amorphous metal oxide catalyst.
As previously set forth, claim 1 recites the limitation “a nickel oxide (NiO) physically dispersed in the supported catalyst.” Paragraph 22 of the specification recites “a nickel oxide (NiO) physically dispersed (mixed) in the supported catalyst.” In view of the specification, and because claim 1 is drawn to a composition and not a method, “a nickel oxide (NiO) physically dispersed in the supported catalyst” is interpreted as requiring only that a nickel oxide be physically present with other components throughout the supported catalyst.
Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the reply filed 7 January 2026 have been received and considered for this action. These amendments overcome the prior rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 USC § 102, which are withdrawn.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (Appl. Cat. A, 2020, 589, 117247; including Appendix A: Supplementary data. [Retrieved 29 May 2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0926860X19304028-mmc1.docx>) in view of Tan (Appl. Catal. A, Gen., 580 (2019) ,111–120), and as evidenced by Long et al. (US 2009/0139898 A1), and with respect to claim 10 as further evidenced by Thommes et al. (Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2015, 87(9-10), 1051-1069).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sridhar discloses a composite catalyst used in a dehydroaromatization reaction of methane (abstract), the composite catalyst comprising a glasslike metal oxide catalyst which includes: a supported catalyst including a porous support (zeolite ZSM-5; abstract) and a catalyst of a transition metal oxide supported in the support (MoO3; p. 5, paragraph 2 and p. 2, Section 2.1) and a nickel oxide (NiO) physically dispersed in the supported catalyst (Section 2.1 and p. 6, column 2, paragraph 2). Further evidence that the calcining of nickel nitrate described in Section 2.1 will produce nickel oxide is provided by Long (paragraphs 70-74). With respect to the glasslike nature of the metal oxide catalyst, Sridhar discloses that composite catalysts contain amorphous molybdate species (Section 3.2.2) which would make them “glasslike metal oxides.”
Sridhar further teaches the transition metal content (Mo) being 6 wt%. This corresponds to a wt% of molybdenum oxide of 9%, which lies just outside the claimed range of 10 wt% to 20 wt% of the transition metal oxide based on the total weight of the supported catalyst.
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see 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); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01).
The courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Therefore, the claimed range of 10 wt% to 20 wt% transition metal oxide in claim 1, and 10 wt% to 15 wt% transition metal oxide in claim 5 merely represent obvious variants and/or routine optimizations of the 9 wt% transition metal oxide value disclosed in the Sridhar.
Additionally, Tan also teaches molybdenum oxide dispersed in zeolites for the catalytic dehydroaromatization of methane (abstract and p. 115, col. 2, ¶ 2) and further teaches that increasing the weight percentage of molybdenum from 6 wt% to 10 wt% increases the methane conversion percentage, the reaction rate, and the selectivity for aromatic products (catalytic activity and stability were enhanced with increasing the targeted loading of Mo from 2 to 16 wt% (p. 112, col. 1, ¶ 1 and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite catalyst taught by Sridhar from 6 wt% to 10 wt%, which corresponds to 15 wt% when calculated as the oxide, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention of claims 1 and 5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the conversion percentage of methane, the reaction rate, and the fraction of aromatic products in the dhydroaromatization reaction, as taught by Tan.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1, as analyzed above, wherein the support comprises an aluminosilicate-based molecular sieve and a zeolite (ZSM-5 is a zeolitic aluminosilicate-based molecular sieve; instant specification paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1, as analyzed above, wherein the transition metal comprises molybdenum (abstract and p. 5, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1 wherein the molar content of nickel in the composite catalyst is any of 5.4 mol% (6Mo-0.2Ni), 16 mol% (6Mo-0.6Ni) or 27 mol% (6Mo-1Ni) of the transition metal oxide (Section 2.1), each of which falls in the instantly claimed range of from 1 mol% to 55 mol %.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1, as analyzed above, wherein Sridhar teaches the nickel oxide is dispersed in a silica support (the sequential impregnation method employed to prepare the ZSM-5 supported Mo-Ni catalysts will leave the nickel dispersed, and ZSM-5 (with Si/Al=15) is a silica-rich zeolite that can be considered a silica support; Sridhar, Section 2.1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1, as analyzed above, and in the case of 6Mo0.2Ni-He, also teaches the BTX production yield of the dehydro-aromatization reaction of methane being approximately 5% after 200 minutes, which falls in the instantly claimed range of 4.5% to 6%. In particular, while Figure 1b shows the yield of benzene alone being ~4.8% (after 200 min), Sridhar also teaches that very little toluene and no xylenes are produced (apart from benzene, formation of ethylene, toluene and naphthalene are also observed; page 4, column 2, paragraph 2) and Figures S4(f) and S4(h) show the selectivity of toluene production being ~2.5% while that of benzene is ~40%; therefore toluene production will increase the overall BTX yield from that of benzene alone by a factor of 1.06 (from ~4.8% to ~5%), while xylenes production can be considered negligible (only benzene, ethylene, toluene and naphthalene are noted among the products; page 4, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1, as analyzed above, wherein the reduction rate of the surface area of the composite catalyst before and after the dehydroaromatization reaction of methane is 22% (Table 2, 6Mo-0.2Ni), which falls in the instantly claimed range of 20% to 25%.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1, as analyzed above, and also teaches a reduction in the micropore volume of the composite catalyst before and after the dehydroaromatization reaction of methane being approximately 23%, which lies in the instantly claimed range of 20% to 30%. While the reduction in pore volume is not discussed in the main text of the report, the relative micropore volume before and after the reaction was estimated by comparing the absorption isotherm presented in Figure S7(e) at a value of P/P0=0.4, as evidenced by Thommes (p. 1065, paragraph 3). This comparison shows that the micropores after the reaction have a value that is 23% lower after the reaction (106 cc/g vs. 82 cc/g; the absolute values here are not considered the actual volumes, but their ratio will provide the relative reduction in micropore volume; values used here are averages of the absorption and desorption isotherms and were obtained from the DOCX formatted Supplementary Data for Sridhar; screenshots of mouseover text are included with the provided PDF of this document).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sridhar teaches the composite catalyst being on a support of ZSM-5 (abstract), and the inherent pore diameter in ZSM-5 is ~6 Å (instant specification paragraph 24). Therefore Sridhar also teaches the composite catalyst of claim 1 wherein the pores of the support have an average diameter in the claimed range of 5 Å to 7 Å.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 5-6 of the reply filed 7 January 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive: Sridhar does not anticipate amended claim 1 and its dependent claims. The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 USC § 102 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness of the claimed ranges for transition metal oxide weight in amended claim 1 in view of Hu, pages 6-7, have been 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the unpredictable results obtained by the claimed invention, pages 7-9, been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, it is noted that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results. MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
Additionally, none of the data presented in the reply filed 7 January 2026 regarding unexpected results concerns the similarity expected between a composite catalyst containing 9 wt% of the transition metal oxide, as taught by the prior art, and one containing 10 wt% of the catalyst, as recited in the instant claims.
Furthermore, applicant’s evidence of unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claim. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 716.02(d). Claim 1 covers all transition metal oxides and all porous supports. The provided data show data for only one transition metal oxide (molybdenum oxide) on one porous support (ZSM-5). Additionally, the evidence provided shows only that 18wt% is better than both 9 wt% and 24 wt%, in certain respects, but does not support the entire range of 10-20 wt% being critical; it is further noted that the example provided of 18 wt% lies entirely outside the 10-15 wt% range of claim 5.
Without having demonstrated unexpected results, the obviousness rejections set forth above are appropriate and the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 Merkling can be reached at (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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735