DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14-26 are pending, of which claims 24-26 have been withdrawn.
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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/3/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical feature of the catalyst support of claim 14 is a special technical feature. Applicant argues that this catalyst support leads to catalysts with higher selectivity. However, the selectivity of the catalyst formed from the support is not actually recited in Group I. Further, as all limitations of the invention of Group I are known in the art, no special technical features can be shared between this group and any other group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 3, 2025.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the packed tube" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 14 and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160354760 (“Suchanek”).
Regarding claim 14, Suchanek teaches a porous catalyst support (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). The support of Suchanek is greater than 80%, and up to 99% alpha alumina, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0044]). The pore volume of the support is between 0.3 and 1.2 mL/g, almost the entirety of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0044]). Suchanek teaches a tortuosity that is in certain embodiments 3 or less, and down to close to 1, which overlaps significantly with the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0056]). Although Suchanek does not specifically describe the effective diffusion parameter, Suchanek does describe that the effective diffusion is a function of tortuosity and porosity (see e.g. paragraph [0037]). Given that the tortuosity and porosity of Suchanek is the same as that in claim 1, it is understood that the effective diffusion would also likely be the same. Although Suchanek does not provide any specific examples meeting all of the limitations of claim 1 simultaneously, given the significant overlap in the ranges for each recited parameter, the porous catalyst carrier of claim 1 is obvious over Suchanek. Examiner notes that Suchanek does not use the recited image analysis techniques to determine the tortuosity or effective diffusion parameter. However, the specific method by which these parameters are measured would likely not have any significant on the measured results.
Regarding claim 16, Suchanek teaches that the surface area of the porous carrier is 0.3 to 3.0 m2/g, which is almost entirely within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claims 17-23, these claims are each product-by-process claims. As noted in MPEP §2113(I), even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Here, Suchanek teaches or suggests the porous catalyst carrier of claim 14, and as such, claims 17-23 are likewise obvious even if Suchanek teaches a different method for making the carrier.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchanek as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 20040225138 (“McAllister”).
Suchanek teaches the porous catalyst carrier of claim 14 as described above. Suchanek does not teach that the density of the carrier inside of a packed tube is greater than 450 g/L. Examiner notes, the density of the packed carrier will depend on the method of packing, as well as the size and shape of the catalyst. McAllister teaches a similar system to that of Suchanek for the catalytic conversion of ethylene to ethylene oxide, which is the same reaction as used with the catalyst of Suchanek (see e.g. paragraph [0018]). McAllister teaches that for the catalytic reaction, the catalytic performance increases with increased density, and should be above 550 kg per cubic cm, or over 550 g/L, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraphs [0003] and [0034]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a catalyst carrier that would have a density inside of a packed reactor tube of greater than 550 g/L as taught by McAllister in order to improve catalyst performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736