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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In general the term recognized by the art “storage modulus” is referred to as storage modul on multiple occasions. Additionally as understood by the examiner storage modulus is measured under a certain angular frequency which is commonly measured in rad/s. However both rad/s and rad (without a time unit) are used interchangeably. A best attempt has been made to note all the instances of these typos however more may remain and should also be corrected if found. The instances found are:
Page 11, line 33 “storage modul”
Page 11, line 34 “at 10 rad.” and “storage modul”
Page 34, line 21 “at 10 rad.”
Page 37, line 6 “at 10 rad.”
Page 37, line 17 “at 10 rad.”
Furthermore at Page 34 line 7 and Page 35 line 20 the phrase “(Bi1W2O7.5 = ½ Bi2W2O9·1WO3)” appears, however the left and right hand side of the equal sign are not equal. Perhaps Bi1W2O7.5 = ½ Bi2W2O9·2WO3 was intended? Regardless correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 recites “storage module” instead of storage modulus.
Claim 30 recites “storage modul” instead of storage modulus.
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 21, 24-26, 29-30, and 32 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.
Claim 21 recites “450 mm or less and in particular in the range from 300 to 400 mm.”. This is indefinite because the same Claim recites two different ranges and it is unclear which range is meant to be limiting the scope of Claim 21. MPEP 2173.05(c). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111.03), for the purpose of this office action the broadest range of “450 mm or less” is interpreted as the limit to the scope of Claim 21.
Claim 24 recites “a plurality of drying zones, in particular 2, 3 or 4 drying zones.”. This is indefinite because the same Claim recites two different ranges and it is unclear which range is meant to be limiting the scope of Claim 24. MPEP 2173.05(c). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111.03), for the purpose of this office action the broadest range of “a plurality of drying zones” is interpreted as the limit to the scope of Claim 24.
Applicant is hereby advised that, as dependent claim 24 is rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 80 USPQ 504, 504-05 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
Claim 29 recites “a storage module in the range from 2 106 Pa to 5 107 Pa at 10 rad.”. However storage modulus is not measured relative to an angle, but rather an angular frequency. To be consistent with what is disclosed by the specification (see Page 34, lines 4-5 for an example) for the purpose of this Office Action Claim 29 is being interpreted as reciting “a storage modulus in the range from 2 106 Pa to 5 107 Pa at 10 rad/s.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites “a storage modul, determined at 10 rad and 23 °C”. Similarly to Claim 29, Claim 30 is being interpreted as reciting “a storage modulus, determined at 10 rad/s and 23 °C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally regarding Claim 30, the claim recites “a residual moisture content in the range from 12 to 18 % by weight”. This is indefinite because Claim 17 (upon which Claim 30 depends) includes a drying step. It is therefore not clear if the moisture content required by Claim 30 is required immediately after being extruded, after being dried, or if the extrudates may be as high as 18% moisture and not dried below 12% by the end of the process.
Claim 32 recites “the heat treatment”. This lacks antecedent basis. Claim 31 (upon which Claim 32 depends) recites “a thermal treatment”. The antecedent basis problem can be cured by referring to either a/the heat treatment or a/the thermal treatment in both Claims such that there is consonance between the Claims.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 19, 22, 24, 27-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190224651 A1 Amakawa et al. Claim 17 requires “A method for producing a multimetal oxide catalyst”. Amakawa et al. discloses “The present invention relates to multimetal oxide compositions comprising Mo, Bi, Fe and Cu” [0001].
Claim 17 further requires “comprising preparation of a precursor composition, exposing said precursor composition to elevated temperatures to activate the composition, and grinding the activated composition”. Amakawa et al. discloses preparing a precursor composition “A temperature-controllable cylindrical stainless steel (EN 1.4541) stirred vessel (capacity 5 L) equipped with an anchor stirrer was initially charged with 1808 g of an aqueous cobalt(II) nitrate solution in nitric acid … which were heated to 60° C. while stirring (150 rpm). With continued stirring (150 rpm) and continued heating to 60° C., 669 g of an iron(III) nitrate nonahydrate melt at 60° C. … were metered in, and the mixture was stirred (150 rpm) at 60° C. for a further 10 min. While maintaining the 60° C. and with continued stirring (150 rpm), 25.5 g of copper(II) nitrate hydrate … were added to the resulting aqueous solution, and then the mixture was stirred (150 rpm) at 60° C. for a further 10 min. 631 g of an aqueous bismuth nitrate solution in nitric acid at 60° C.” [0500], calcination to activate “1000 g of the shaped unsupported catalyst precursor bodies produced, … were applied in an air circulation shaft oven … Subsequently, while maintaining the air flow (including its inlet temperature), the temperature in the air circulation shaft oven was varied as follows … Heating was effected from 25° C. to 130° C. within 72 min. This temperature was maintained for 72 min and then increased to 190° C. within 36 min. The temperature was kept at 190° C. for 72 min before being increased to 220° C. within 36 min. The temperature was kept at 220° C. for 72 min before being increased to 265° C. within 36 min. The temperature was kept at 265° C. for 72 min before being increased to 380° C. within 93 min. The temperature was kept at 380° C. for 187 min before being increased to 430° C. within 93 min. The temperature was kept at 430° C. for 187 min before being increased to the final calcination temperature of 480° C. within 93 min. This was maintained for 463 min.” [0510], and grinding the final product “Advantageously for application purposes, the procedure here will be, for example, to grind the calcined multimetal oxide (active) composition of the general stoichiometry I to a finely divided powder.” [0178].
Claim 17 further requires “the preparation of the precursor composition comprises: a) forming a plasticized precursor composition from the constituents of the composition”. Amakawa et al. discloses “For example, the compacting shaping can be effected by strand pressing, tableting or extrusion. The finely divided precursor composition (the finely divided intimate dry mixture) used here is preferably dry to the touch. However, it may comprise, for example, up to 10% of its total weight of added substances that are liquid under standard conditions (25° C., 1 atm (1.01 bar)).” [0136]. It is understood from the present application specification (“A plasticized precursor composition useful in the invention is obtainable by kneading a dry powder of precursor constituents with water or a water-soluble organic solvent or a mixture thereof.” [Page 9, Lines 26-29]) that the inclusion of 10% by weight water, or another organic solvent (that is liquid under standard conditions) with a dry powder yields a plasticized precursor composition.
Claim 17 further requires “b) discharging the plasticized precursor composition from an extruder having at least one die to form extrudates”. Amakawa et al. discloses “For example, the compacting shaping can be effected by strand pressing, tableting or extrusion.” [0136]. Although Amakawa et al. does not disclose at least one die, this is understood as implicit to the method of extrusion. See MPEP 2112 regarding use of implicit disclosure. Further, Amakawa et al. discloses shaping the bodies by extrusion and one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the shape of the extrudates is controlled, in part, by the shape of the die.
Claim 17 further requires “c) allowing the extrudates to drop onto a transfer surface disposed beneath the at least one die whereby the extrudates break into pieces which come to rest on the transfer surface;”. Amakawa et al. discloses a belt calciner “Advantageously in accordance with the invention, the thermal treatment (for example the calcination) is effected in a belt calciner apparatus as recommended by DE-A 10046957 and WO 02/24620.” [0172]. The belt calciner is identified as a transfer surface. Although Amakawa et al. does not explicitly disclose a drop this is understood to be conventional to extruding soft bodies and therefore implicit in the disclosure of extruded powder mixtures. MPEP 2112 (implicit disclosure).
Claim 17 further requires “d) transferring the pieces to at least one drying chamber”. Amakawa et al. discloses “The thermal treatment can of course also be executed under reduced pressure.” [0170]. Although a chamber is not explicitly disclosed, it must necessarily be present to dry under reduced pressure, otherwise nothing would hold back ambient atmosphere.
Claim 17 further requires “e) moving the pieces through the at least one drying chamber on an air permeable drying conveyor belt”. Amakawa et al. discloses “calcination atmosphere are conveyed through the calcination material on a gas-permeable conveyor belt that bears the calcination material (these assure very substantial homogeneity of the calcination temperature in the calcination material).” [0172].
Claim 17 further requires “steps b) through d) are carried out under reduced pressure.”. Amakawa et al. discloses “The thermal treatment can of course also be executed under reduced pressure.” [0170].
Claim 19 requires “the transfer surface is an air permeable drying conveyor belt.”. Amakawa et al. discloses “calcination atmosphere are conveyed through the calcination material on a gas-permeable conveyor belt that bears the calcination material (these assure very substantial homogeneity of the calcination temperature in the calcination material).” [0172].
Claim 22 requires “the pieces are dried with hot air having a temperature in the range from 150 to 200 °C”. Amakawa et al .discloses “1000 g of the shaped unsupported catalyst precursor bodies produced, … were applied in an air circulation shaft oven … Subsequently, while maintaining the air flow (including its inlet temperature), the temperature in the air circulation shaft oven was varied as follows … Heating was effected from 25° C. to 130° C. within 72 min. This temperature was maintained for 72 min and then increased to 190° C. within 36 min.” [0510]. Considering that the extruded bodies may contain up to 10% moisture (see Claim 17) it is understood that this heating would have dried them. Amakawa et al. does disclose further heating above the temperatures claimed, however Claim 17 uses open ended claim language (comprising) and therefore it not required that the temperature remain within the claimed range for the entire process, merely that it comprises the claimed range.
Claim 24 requires “the drying chamber comprises a plurality of drying zones, in particular 2, 3 or 4 drying zones.”. Amakawa et al. discloses “Hotspot formation within the material to be treated (within the calcination material) is very substantially prevented here in that, with the aid of ventilators”. The present specification suggests that each drying zone has its own air supply and vent (“Each drying zone has its own hot air supply and its own exhaust system for discharging the humid air.” [Page 18, Lines 4-5]), therefore it is understood that the disclosure of a plurality of ventilators satisfies a plurality of drying zones.
Claim 27 requires “step a) is carried out by kneading a dry powder of precursor components with water or a water-soluble organic solvent or a mixture thereof.”. Amakawa et al. discloses “In principle, the compaction can alternatively be effected in moist form. For example, the spray powder can be kneaded with addition of water.” [0121].
Claim 28 requires “the dry powder of the precursor components is obtainable by spray drying an aqueous solution or suspension of the starting materials.”. Amakawa et al. discloses “Appropriately in accordance with the invention, the total content in the aqueous mixture M to be dried (preferably spray-dried)” [0112].
Claim 31 requires “the dried pieces are subjected to a thermal treatment at a temperature in the range from 100 to 1100 °C.”. Amakawa et al. discloses thermally treating the pieces between 25 and 480 °C (see Claim 17).
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190224651 A1 Amakawa et al. in view of US 2004034249 A1 Arnold et al. Regarding Claim 23, Amakawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 22. Claim 23 further requires “the hot air is fed vertically onto the air permeable drying conveyor belt and is exhausted together with the humidity.”. Amakawa et al. discloses “Advantageously in accordance with the invention, the thermal treatment (for example the calcination) is effected in a belt calciner apparatus as recommended by DE-A 10046957 and WO 02/24620.”. US 2004034249 A1 Arnold et al. is the US patent corresponding to DE-A 10046957 and is used as a translation of DE-A 10046957 herein. Arnold et al. discloses “FIG. 2 a cross section through a novel belt calcination apparatus.” [0087] and from that cross section (reproduced below) it can be seen that air flows vertically.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the temperatures of zones disclosed by Arnold et al. in the method of Amakawa et al. because Amakawa et al. specifically references the method of Arnold et al.
The motivation to use the thermal treatment of Arnold et al. is given by a comparative example. Arnold et al. discloses “Table 2 shows that, for example, a temperature difference of 7° C. in the calcination (473° C. and 480° C.) can lead to an activity difference of 47° C. (330° C. and 377° C.). Temperature differences of this order of magnitude are unavoidable in the calcination of large amounts of catalyst by conventional processes, as with the use of tray furnaces.” [0099]. In other words the method of Arnold et al. leads to finer control over temperature and this has the beneficial effect of lowering the temperature of the reaction.
Regarding Claim 25, Amakawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 24. Claim 25 further requires “the temperature in the drying chamber increases from drying zone to drying zone starting with the first zone after the at least one die.”. Regarding the conditions of the drying zone Amakawa et al. discloses “Advantageously in accordance with the invention, the thermal treatment (for example the calcination) is effected in a belt calciner apparatus as recommended by DE-A 10046957 and WO 02/24620.”. US 2004034249 A1 Arnold et al. is the US patent corresponding to DE-A 10046957 and is used as a translation of DE-A 10046957 herein. Arnold et al. discloses increasing the temperature from zone to zone “When the novel process is carried out using eight calcination zones, for example, the following temperature profile is suitable: 1: 100-200° C.; 2: 150-250° C.; 3: 200-300° C.; 4: 250-350° C.: 5: 350-400° C.; 6: 400-550° C.; 7: 400-550° C.; 8: 400-550° C.” [0054-0056].
Claim Objections/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 are 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.
Regarding Claim 18, Amakawa et al. is identified as the closest prior art. Claim 18 requires “the pressure in the drying chamber is reduced by 5 to 50 mbar, relative to atmospheric pressure.”. Amakawa et al. discloses reduced pressure “The thermal treatment can of course also be executed under reduced pressure.” [0170], but does not teach, suggest, or motivate specifically 5 to 50 mbar reduced pressure.
Regarding Claim 20, Amakawa et al. is identified as the closest prior art. Claim 20 requires “the transfer surface is a swiveling conveyor belt.”. Amakawa et al. discloses a conveyor belt “Advantageously in accordance with the invention, the thermal treatment (for example the calcination) is effected in a belt calciner apparatus as recommended by DE-A 10046957 and WO 02/24620.” [0172], but does not teach, suggest, or motivate a swiveling belt. Furthermore Amakawa et al. identifies Arnold et al. as having an acceptable belt design which discloses a straight belt.
Regarding Claim 26, Amakawa et al. in view of Arnold et al. is identified as the closest prior art. Claim 26 requires “the increase of the temperature is 10 to 25 °C from drying zone to drying zone.”. Arnold et al. teaches the increase in temperature from zone to zone is 50 °C (see Claim 25). Arnold et al. does not teach, suggest, or motivate a difference of 10-25 °C from zone to zone. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the indefiniteness rejection of claim 26 must be addressed before the claim can be deemed allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736