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 .
This application is in response to an application filed on 04/20/2023.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Applicant has elected Group I, Claims 1-13, without traverse during telephone interview on 03/16/2026. Claims 1-13 are under examination and claims 14-16 are withdrawn as non-elected Group II-III claims.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I - Claims 1-13 drawn to a process for preparing a bifunctional catalyst.
Group II- Claim 14 drawn to a catalyst composition.
Group III – Claims15-16 drawn a process for isomerization of a paraffinic feedstock.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a catalyst comprising an acid function constituted by IZM-2 zeolite, a hydrogenating function comprising at least one noble metal from group VIII of the periodic table, chosen from platinum and palladium, and a matrix of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 20190168195 (IDS cited reference by applicant) which discloses a process for preparing a difunctional (reads on bifunctional) catalyst comprising an acid function constituted by IZM-2 zeolite, a hydrogenating function comprising at least one noble metal from group VIII of the Periodic Table, chosen from platinum and palladium, and a matrix (paragraph 0016).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
A telephone call was made to Attorney Henter Csaba on 03/16/2026 to request an oral election to above restriction requirement and applicant has elected without traverse Group I, Claims 1-13.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
The claims listed below are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1, line 2 recites “constituted by” interpreted as open to additional components similar to “comprising language”.
Claim 1 lines 11-18, examiner has interpreted “at least one ammoniacal compound chosen from…” and “the halogenated compounds” as required compound.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend “the support” to “a support” to ensure proper antecedent basis and to provide clarity in the claim 1 line 5.
It is suggested to amend “the catalyst” to “the bifunctional catalyst” to ensure proper antecedent basis and to provide consistency in the claim 1 line 5.
It is suggested to amend “the weight” to “a weight” to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim 1 lines 6-7.
It is suggested to amend “zeolite” to “the IZM-2 zeolite to ensure proper antecedent basis and to ensure consistency in the claim 1 line 6.
It is suggested to amend “at least the following” to “at least one of the following” to provide clarity in the claim 1 line 10.
It is suggested to amend “the platinum” to “a platinum” to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim 1 lines 11, 12, 13,14.
It is suggested to amend “the halogenated” to “halogenated” to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim 1 line 14.
It is suggested to amend “the palladium” to “a palladium” to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim 1 line 15.
It is suggested to amend “wherein X is a halogen chosen from” to “wherein X is halogen selected from group consisting of” to ensure claims having proper Markush group language in the claim 1, lines 16-17 and in claim 6 line 6
Claims 1 line 18 “(of empirical formula C5H7O2)” is objected to because of the use of parentheses in the claim language gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional. It is advised that the parentheses are removed.
It is suggested to amend “said heat treatment” to “said at least one heat treatment” to ensure consistency in the claim language in the claim 1 line 21, claim 10 line 2 and claim 12 line 3.
It is suggested to amend “said solution” to “said aqueous solution” to ensure proper antecedent basis and to ensure consistency in the claim 7 line 1.
It is suggested to amend “the impregnation solution” to “the aqueous solution” to ensure proper antecedent basis and to ensure consistency in the claim 8 line 2.
It is suggested to amend “wherein the impregnation solution also contains at least one ammonium salt not…, chosen from…., and…alone or as mixture” to “wherein the aqueous solution contains at least one ammonium salt, not…,selected from the group consisting of…and a combination thereof” to ensure claims having proper Markush group language in the Claim 8 lines 1-5.
It is suggested to amend “the mole” to “a mole” to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim 9 line 1.
It is suggested to amend “wherein the chlorinated compound is an inorganic or organic…, chlorinated compound chosen from…” to “wherein the chlorinated compound is an inorganic or organic…., and wherein the chlorinated compound is selected from the group consisting of…” to ensure claims having proper Markush group language in the Claim 11, lines 1-3.
Appropriate corrections are 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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-7 recites “such that the weight percentage of zeolite is advantageously between 1% and 50% relative to the weight of the support”. It is unclear if such as weight% of zeolite is optional or required. Clarification is requested. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted as being required.
Claim 1, lines 11-18 recites “at least one ammoniacal compounds chosen from…and halogenated compounds of formula H(Pt(acac)2X)…”. However, it is unclear how such compounds of the formula being an ammoniacal compound, given that the formula does not contain ammonia, wherein “acac” represent the acetylacetonate group (of empirical formula C5H7O2), an acetylacetone-derived compound (see spec., p.11-lines 23-24). Clarification is requested.
For compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted as the following:
“- at least one ammoniacal compounds selected from the group consisting of a platinum(II) tetramine salts of formula Pt(NH3)4(OH)2, Pt(NH3)4(NO3)2 or Pt(NH3)4X2; a platinum(IV) hexamine salts of formula Pt(NH3)6X4; a platinum(IV) halopentamine salts of formula (PtX(NH3)s)X3; a platinum N-tetrahalodiamine salts of formula PtX4(NH3)2; and a palladium(II) salts Pd(NH3)4SO4 or Pd(NH3)4X2, wherein X is a halogen selected from the group consisting of chlorine, fluorine, bromine and iodine; and
- halogenated compounds of formula H(Pt(acac)2X), wherein "acac" represents the acetylacetonate group of an acetylacetone-derived compound comprising empirical formula C5H7O2”.
Claim 6 recites “ammoniacal compounds chosen from…and the halogenated compounds of formula H(Pt(acac)2X)…”. However, it is unclear how such compounds of the formula being an ammoniacal compound, given that the formula does not contain ammonia, wherein “acac” represent the acetylacetonate group (of empirical formula C5H7O2), an acetylacetone-derived compound (see spec., p.11-lines 23-24). Clarification is requested. For compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted as the following:
“- at least one ammoniacal compounds selected from the group consisting of the platinum(II) tetramine salts of formula Pt(NH3)4(OH)2, Pt(NH3)4(NO3)2 or Pt(NH3)4X2; the platinum(IV) hexamine salts of formula Pt(NH3)6X4; the platinum(IV) halopentamine salts of formula (PtX(NH3)s)X3; and the platinum N-tetrahalodiamine salts of formula PtX4(NH3)2, wherein X is a halogen selected from the group consisting of chlorine, fluorine, bromine and iodine; and
- the halogenated compounds of formula H(Pt(acac)2X), wherein "acac" represents the acetylacetonate group of an acetylacetone-derived compound comprising empirical formula C5H7O2”.
A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad 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).
Claim 1 line 16-17 and Claim 6 line 6-recites the broad recitation X is a halogen chosen from chlorine, fluorine, bromine and iodine and the claim also recites X preferably being chlorine which is the narrower statement of the limitation. It is unclear if “X” being chlorine is optional or required. Clarification is requested.
For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted “X” as being optional.
Claim 8 lines 3-7-recites the broad recitation ammonium nitrate NH4NO3, ammonium chloride NH4Cl, ammonium sulfate (NH4)2SO4, ammonium hydroxide NH4OH, ammonium bicarbonate NH4HCO3 and ammonium acetate NH4H3C2O2, alone or as a mixture and the claim also recites preferably from ammonium nitrate NH4NO3, ammonium chloride NH4Cl and ammonium acetate NH4H3C2O2, alone or as a mixture which is the narrower statement of the limitation. It is unclear if “ammonium nitrate NH4NO3, ammonium chloride NH4Cl and ammonium acetate NH4H3C2O2” are optional or required. Clarification is requested.
For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted “ammonium nitrate NH4NO3, ammonium chloride NH4Cl and ammonium acetate NH4H3C2O2” as being optional.
Claim 11 line 2- recites the broad recitation the chlorinated compound is an inorganic or organic and the claim also recites preferably organic which is the narrower statement of the limitation. It is unclear if “organic” being is optional or required. Clarification is requested.
For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted “organic” as being optional.
The claim(s) are 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.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-10 and 12-13, these claims does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-8 of Bouchy et al (US Patent No.: 10906030 B2, IDS cited reference by applicant) in view of Travers et al (US Patent NO.: 4,789,655, IDS cited reference by applicant).
Bouchy discloses a process for preparing a difunctional (reads on bifunctional) catalyst comprising an acid function constituted by IZM-2 zeolite, a hydrogenating function comprising at least one noble metal from group VIII of the Periodic Table, chosen from platinum and palladium, and a matrix (Col.3 lines 37-43, see claim 1), said process comprising at least the following steps:
i) a step of preparing the support for the catalyst by shaping IZM-2 zeolite with a matrix such that the weight percentage of zeolite is advantageously between 1% and 50% relative to the weight of the support (see Col.3 lines 44-47, see claim 1),
ii) a step of depositing at least one noble metal from group VIII of the Periodic Table by impregnation of the support prepared in step i), enabling a solid to be obtained, with an aqueous solution comprising at least the following compounds (Col.3 lines 48-51, see claim 1):
- at least one ammoniacal compound chosen from the platinum(II) tetramine salts of formula Pt(NH3)4(OH)2, Pt(NH3)4(NO3)2 or Pt(NH3)4X2, the platinum(IV) hexamine salts of formula Pt(NH3)6X4; the platinum(IV) halopentamine salts of formula (PtX(NH3)s)X3; the platinum N-tetrahalodiamine salts of formula PtX4(NH3)2; and the halogenated compounds of formula H(Pt(acac)2X); the palladium(II) salts Pd(NH3)4SO4 or Pd(NH3)4X2, wherein X is a halogen chosen from chlorine, fluorine, bromine and iodine, X preferably being chlorine (reads on claim 1 and 5), and "acac" represents the acetylacetonate group (of empirical formula C5H702), an acetylacetone-derived compound (Col.3 lines 52-64, see claims 1, 5, 7, 8, reads on claims 1, 5-7),
Bouchy does not explicitly disclose or suggest iii) at least one heat treatment step wherein said solid prepared in step ii) is brought into contact with at least one gas mixture containing oxygen, water, chlorine and/or at least one chlorinated compound.
However, Travers discloses a process for preparing catalyst in particularly to isomerization of n-paraffin (abstract) comprising carrier (reads on support) of mordenite (reads on zeolite), and matrix wherein the mixture is shaped and wherein mordenite content on carrier must be 40% by weight (reads on preparing support of step I, see col.3 lines 1-17) , then at least one group VIII hydrogenating metal, chosen from platinum and palladium (reads on at least one ammoniacal compound is tetramine platinum chloride, see examples), deposited on a carrier comprising mordenite and matrix by impregnation technique obtaining a solid, drying solid by roasting at a temperature 300-600°° C (reads on calcination, col.3 lines 18-20, 30-33) and then subjected to oxychlorination treatment usually consists of heating the solid in the presence of a gas stream containing oxygen and steam by contacting with chlorine and/or with a chlorinated compound in presence of oxygen containing gas and of steam at a temperature of about 200 to 500° C (reads on heat treatment step iii, see Col.3 lines 39-45, 62-67).
Given Bouchy and Travers are both related to catalyst use for isomerization of paraffin, therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the process of Bouchy with Traverse to include the heat treatment step (iii) of Travers which provide improved dispersion of the group VIII metal that gives a very active catalyst in particularly for the isomerization catalyst as taught by Traverse (see Col.2 lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 2, Bouchy discloses step (i) is performed by blending extrusion (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Bouchy discloses matrix used in step (i1) is alumina (see claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Bouchy discloses wherein the support obtained in step (i) is subjected to drying step performed at a temperature between 50 to 180° C (see claim 4).
Regarding claims 8-9, Bouchy discloses aqueous solution also contains at least one ammonium salt not containing any noble metals, chosen from ammonium nitrate NH4NO3, ammonium chloride NH4Cl, ammonium hydroxide NH4OH, ammonium bicarbonate NH4HCO3 and ammonium acetate NH4H3C2O2, alone or as a mixture (see claim 1) and the mole ratio between the ammonium salt and noble metal being between 0.1 and 400 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Traverse discloses heat treatment performed at 200 to 500° C (reads on heat treatment step iii, see Col.3 lines 39-45, 62-67).
Regarding claim 11, Traverse discloses wherein organic chlorinated compounds chosen from carbon tetrachloride, dichloropropane, dichloroethane or chloroform (Col.4 lines 8-13).
Regarding Claim 12, Traverse discloses solid is brought into contact with a gas containing oxygen and at least one chlorinated compound is used for the heat treatment until desired temperature is reached (Col.3 lines 62-68 thru col.4 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 13, Traverse discloses temperature for performing step iii) is 200-500° C (col.3 lines 39-45 and 62-67).
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchy et al (US PGPUB No.: 20190168195, IDS cited reference by applicant) in view of Travers et al (US Patent NO.: 4,789,655, IDS cited reference by applicant).
As per claims 1, 5-7, Bouchy discloses a process for preparing a difunctional (reads on bifunctional) catalyst comprising an acid function constituted by IZM-2 zeolite, a hydrogenating function comprising at least one noble metal from group VIII of the Periodic Table, chosen from platinum and palladium, and a matrix (paragraph 0016), said process comprising at least the following steps:
i) a step of preparing the support for the catalyst by shaping IZM-2 zeolite with a matrix such that the weight percentage of zeolite is advantageously between 1% and 50% relative to the weight of the support (see paragraph 0017),
ii) a step of depositing at least one noble metal from group VIII of the Periodic Table by impregnation of the support prepared in step i), enabling a solid to be obtained, with an aqueous solution comprising at least the following compounds (paragraph 0018):
- at least one ammoniacal compound chosen from the platinum(II) tetramine salts of formula Pt(NH3)4(OH)2, Pt(NH3)4(NO3)2 or Pt(NH3)4X2, the platinum(IV) hexamine salts of formula Pt(NH3)6X4; the platinum(IV) halopentamine salts of formula (PtX(NH3)s)X3; the platinum N-tetrahalodiamine salts of formula PtX4(NH3)2; and the halogenated compounds of formula H(Pt(acac)2X); the palladium(II) salts Pd(NH3)4SO4 or Pd(NH3)4X2, wherein X is a halogen chosen from chlorine, fluorine, bromine and iodine, X preferably being chlorine, and "acac" represents the acetylacetonate group (of empirical formula C5H702), an acetylacetone-derived compound (paragraph 0019, reads on claims 1, 5-7),
iii) calcination (reads on heat treatment) is carried under a dry air flow out between 2000 C and 11000 C (see paragraphs 0051-0052).
Bouchy does not explicitly disclose or suggest iii) at least one heat treatment step wherein said solid prepared in step ii) is brought into contact with at least one gas mixture containing oxygen, water, chlorine and/or at least one chlorinated compound.
However, Travers discloses a process for preparing catalyst in particularly to isomerization of n-paraffin (abstract) comprising carrier (reads on support) of mordenite (reads on zeolite), and matrix wherein the mixture is shaped and wherein mordenite content on carrier must be 40% by weight (reads on preparing support of step I, see col.3 lines 1-17) , then at least one group VIII hydrogenating metal, chosen from platinum and palladium (reads on at least one ammoniacal compound is tetramine platinum chloride, see examples), deposited on a carrier comprising mordenite and matrix by impregnation technique obtaining a solid, drying solid by roasting at a temperature 300-600° C (reads on calcination, col.3 lines 18-20, 30-33) and then subjected to oxychlorination treatment usually consists of heating the solid in the presence of a gas stream containing oxygen and steam by contacting with chlorine and/or with a chlorinated compound in presence of oxygen containing gas and of steam at a temperature of about 200 to 500° C (reads on heat treatment step iii, see Col.3 lines 39-45, 62-67). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Given Bouchy and Travers are both related to catalyst use for isomerization of paraffin, therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the process of Bouchy with Traverse to include the heat treatment step (iii) of Travers which provide improved dispersion of the group VIII metal that gives a very active catalyst in particularly for the isomerization catalyst as taught by Traverse (see Col.2 lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 2, Bouchy discloses step (i) is performed by blending extrusion (see paragraphs 0040-0041).
Regarding claim 3, Bouchy discloses matrix used in step (i1) is alumina (see paragraph 0035).
Traverse discloses matrix is alumina (Col.3 lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 4, Bouchy discloses wherein the support obtained in step (i) is subjected to drying step performed at a temperature between 50 to 180° C (see paragraphs 0048-0049). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Regarding claims 8-9, Bouchy discloses aqueous solution also contains at least one ammonium salt not containing any noble metals, chosen from ammonium nitrate NH4NO3, ammonium chloride NH4Cl, ammonium hydroxide NH4OH, ammonium bicarbonate NH4HCO3 and ammonium acetate NH4H3C2O2, alone or as a mixture (see paragraph 0061) and the mole ratio between the ammonium salt and noble metal being between 0.1 and 400 (paragraph 0062). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Regarding Claim 10, Traverse discloses heat treatment performed at 200 to 500° C (reads on heat treatment step iii, see Col.3 lines 39-45, 62-67). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Regarding claim 11, Traverse discloses wherein organic chlorinated compounds chosen from carbon tetrachloride, dichloropropane, dichloroethane or chloroform (Col.4 lines 8-13).
Regarding Claim 12, Traverse discloses solid is brought into contact with a gas containing oxygen and at least one chlorinated compound is used for the heat treatment until desired temperature is reached (Col.3 lines 62-68 thru col.4 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 13, Traverse discloses temperature for performing step iii) is 200-500° C (col.3 lines 39-45 and 62-67). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 04/01/2026
Prosecution Insights