DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 10, 18, 23, 31, 33, 38, and 40 have been amended. Claims 8-9, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-22, 24-28, 30, 32, 35, 37, and 39 are cancelled. Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, and 40 are pending in the instant application. Claims 33-34, 36, 38, and 40 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29, and 31 are under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. Jason A. Smith on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicants’ amendments to claims 1 and 10 overcome the reaction. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102
Applicant’s argument is on the ground that cited Stuckey (the `563 publication) is assigned to the instant and should be excluded as a prior art reference based on the following 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2)(c) exclusions because of the following: In view of the earliest effective filing date of the pending Application (October 30, 2020 for UK/GB App. 2017254.0) and in view of the publication date of Stuckey (March 19, 2020), Stuckey falls under the exception listed in 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(a) and (b)(2)(c) and thereby can be removed as a prior art reference. The portions of Stuckey were made by the present inventors/joint inventors. Applicant’s statement and argument have been fully considered, and are sufficient to overcome the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Because cited Stuckey falls under the exception listed in 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(a) and (b)(2)(c) and thereby can be removed as a prior art reference, the 103(a) rejection is also withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (new)
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 18, 20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meille et al., J. of European Ceramic Soc., (2012), v.32, p.3959-3967.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a support for a catalyst, wherein the support comprises ceramic material, and wherein the support has a substantially spherical or ellipsoidal macrostructure and comprises surface structures, and wherein the support has a total intruded volume > 0.35 cm3/g.
Meille et al. discloses a ceramic powder of porous alumina and a method of preparing the ceramic porous alumina using a commercial polyethylene (PE) powder as pore former, see “2.1., Samples preparation” at p.3960. The density and microstructure of the porous alumina are also disclosed in Table 1, see “3.1., Density and microstructure of porous alumina” at p.3960. Specifically, the porous material of “60bs” (big spheres) has an apparent density of 1.52 g/cm3, apparent density of 62 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 60 vol%, which indicates the “60bs” has a (Macroporosity) total intruded volume = 0.39 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 60 (vol%)/1.52=0.39 cm3/g. Using the same calculation, the porous material of “60ss” (small spheres) has an apparent density of 1.44 g/cm3, apparent density of 64 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 63 vol%, which indicates the “60ss” has a total intruded volume = 0.43 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 63 (vol%)/1.44=0.43 cm3/g. The porous material of “65bs” has an apparent density of 1.02 g/cm3, apparent density of 74 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 73 vol%, which indicates the “65bs” has a total intruded volume = 0.72 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 73 (vol%)/1.02=0.43 cm3/g. The porous material of “65ss” has an apparent density of 1.10 g/cm3, apparent density of 72 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 71 vol%, which indicates the “65ss” has a total intruded volume = 0.65 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 71 (vol%)/1.10=0.65 cm3/g. Therefore, said ceramic powder of porous alumina read on the limitation “the support has a total intruded volume > 0.35 cm3/g” of claim 1. In terms of the preamble “a support for catalyst” has a substantially spherical or ellipsoidal macrostructure, it is an inherited property of the ceramic powder of porous alumina of Meille et al. disclosed in Fig. 1 at p.3961. Therefore, Meille et al. anticipates claims 1, and 3-7.
In terms of claims 2, and 18, Meille et al. teaches the porous ceramics are widely used in catalysis (see “1. Introduction” at p. 3959). Therefore, Meille et al. teaches the porous ceramics is used as in a supported catalyst. In terms of the preambles of “the catalyst for use in a packed-bed reactor for the production of an alkylene oxide”, it is simply a statement of intend-to-use or purpose of the invention, not a separate claim limitation. [A] preamble simply stating the intended use or purpose of the invention will usually not limit the scope of the claim, unless the preamble provides antecedents for ensuring claim terms and limits the claim accordingly. Satisfaction of the claimed steps/elements necessarily results in satisfying the purpose of the invention or the intended use. Outdry Techs Corp. v. Geox S.P.A. 859 F.3d 1364, Fed. Cir. (2017).
In terms of claim 10, Meille et al. discloses the X-ray tomography images of the porous ceramic samples (Figs. 4-5) have a diameter or largest dimension of > 8mm, because the image scale of the particles is “2 mm”.
In terms of claim 20, Meille et al. discloses the gelcast porous materials in Table 1 at p.3960, which reads on the limitation “the support is a cast support”.
In terms of claim 31, wherein the support/supported catalyst is disposed with in a packed-bed reactor configured to produce ethylene oxide, 1,9-decadiene oxide, 1,3-butadiene oxide, 2-butene oxide, isobutylene oxide, 1-butene oxide or propylene oxide, is simply a statement of intend-to-use or purpose of the invention, and does not change the characterization of the support itself. [A] preamble simply stating the intended use or purpose of the invention will usually not limit the scope of the claim, unless the preamble provides antecedents for ensuring claim terms and limits the claim accordingly. Satisfaction of the claimed steps/elements necessarily results in satisfying the purpose of the invention or the intended use. Outdry Techs Corp. v. Geox S.P.A. 859 F.3d 1364, Fed. Cir. (2017). The statement of intend-to-use or purpose of the invention is considered as inherited property of the pharmaceutical composition because a product is inseparable from its property. Recitation of an intended to use or utility in the preamble which can otherwise stand alone is not considered a further limitation of the claim and therefore cannot impart patentability to a known composition of matter. See, in re Spada, 15 USPQ.2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, Meille et al. also anticipates claim 31.
Alternatively, claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meille et al. in view of CN111100676A (“the `676 publication”) to Geng et al. published on May 5, 2020.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Meille et al. discloses a ceramic powder of porous alumina and a method of preparing the ceramic porous alumina using a commercial polyethylene (PE) powder as pore former, see “2.1., Samples preparation” at p.3960. The density and microstructure of the porous alumina are also disclosed in Table 1, see “3.1., Density and microstructure of porous alumina” at p.3960. Specifically, the porous material of “60bs” (big spheres) has an apparent density of 1.52 g/cm3, apparent density of 62 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 60 vol%, which indicates the “60bs” has a (Macroporosity) total intruded volume = 0.39 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 60 (vol%)/1.52=0.39 cm3/g. Using the same calculation, the porous material of “60ss” (small spheres) has an apparent density of 1.44 g/cm3, apparent density of 64 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 63 vol%, which indicates the “60ss” has a total intruded volume = 0.43 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 63 (vol%)/1.44=0.43 cm3/g. The porous material of “65bs” has an apparent density of 1.02 g/cm3, apparent density of 74 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 73 vol%, which indicates the “65bs” has a total intruded volume = 0.72 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 73 (vol%)/1.02=0.43 cm3/g. The porous material of “65ss” has an apparent density of 1.10 g/cm3, apparent density of 72 vol%, and microporosity due to PE sphere 71 vol%, which indicates the “65ss” has a total intruded volume = 0.65 cm3/g, based on the calculation: 71 (vol%)/1.10=0.65 cm3/g. Therefore, said ceramic powder of porous alumina read on the limitation “the support has a total intruded volume > 0.35 cm3/g” of present claim 1.
The `676 publication (claim 15) discloses a hydrogenation catalyst M comprises Al2O3-SiO2 as carrier or support, and NiO as a catalytic metal. In addition, the `676 publication (claim 16) discloses a hydrogenation catalyst M support has a specific surface area of 100-200 m2/g, a pore volume of 0.70 mL/g or more, preferably 0.75 to 1.15 mL/g, a pore diameter of 20 to 100 nm accounting for 35% to 60% of the total pore volume.
The difference between instant claims and Meille et al. is that the prior art does not teach specifically teach the ceramic material is a support for a catalyst. Instead, Meille et al. teaches the porous ceramics are widely used in catalysis (see “1. Introduction” at p. 3959), which suggests the ceramic material can be used as a support for a catalyst. In addition, the `676 publication (claim 15) discloses a hydrogenation catalyst M comprises Al2O3-SiO2 as carrier or support, and NiO as a catalytic metal. The `676 publication (claim 16) discloses a hydrogenation catalyst M support has a specific surface area per weight 100-200 m2/g, a pore volume of 0.70 mL/g or more, preferably 0.75 to 1.15 mL/g, a pore diameter of 20 to 100 nm accounting for 35% to 60% of the total pore volume, wherein a specific surface area per weight 100-200 m2/g reads on “the support/supported catalyst has a geometric surface area per volume (GSA) of >0.7cm2/cm3” of claim 11 because the density of a ceramic material of a support for a catalyst is less than 5 g/cm3. Therefore, Meille et al. in view of the `676 publication would have rendered claims 1-7, 10-11, 18, 20, 23, 29, and 31 obvious.
In terms of claim 13, the `676 publication [0087] teaches the support/supported catalysts G and H have a side crush strength in Table 1 are 87 N and 93 N, which are more than 28 kgf.
Conclusions
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 29, and 31 are rejected.
Claims 33-34, 36, 38, and 40 are withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights