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 .
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.
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 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bunquin et al. (WO 2020/205494 A1) in view of Lyu et al. “Stabilization of ε-iron carbide as high-temperature catalyst under realistic Fischer–Tropsch synthesis conditions” Nature Communications, pages 1-8, 2020.
Bunquin discloses a process for converting syngas comprising contacting a feed
comprising syngas with a catalyst composition in a conversion reactor under conversion
conditions to produce a conversion product mixture (e.g., ¶[0165]–[0166]).
Bunquin further discloses a catalyst composition comprising:
a support and a plurality of nanoparticles on the support (¶[0011], ¶[0040]);
nanoparticles comprising kernels (¶[0011]);
kernel particle size 4–100 nm and PSD ≤ 20% (¶[0012]);
kernels comprising oxygen and M1 selected from Mn, Fe, Co, optionally M2, M3, S, P (¶[0012]–[0014]);
molar ratios r1–r4 within the claimed ranges (¶[0013]–[0014]);
Bunquin further teaches production of C2–C5 olefins (¶[0166]), which are linear
alpha-olefins, and obtaining such products from the reaction mixture.
Bunquin does not teach kernels comprising a carbide, a nitride, or a combination thereof.
Lyu teaches that:
iron carbide phases (e.g., ε-Fe₂C, χ-Fe₅C₂) are active phases in Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, responsible for CO activation and hydrocarbon chain growth;
iron carbide nanocrystals/nanoparticles can be formed and used as catalysts;
such catalysts convert syngas (CO/H₂) to multi-carbon hydrocarbons under FT conditions;
iron precursors are carburized under syngas to form iron carbide active phases.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nanoparticle kernels of Bunquin to comprise carbide phases, because:
Lyu teaches that iron carbide is a known active phase for syngas conversion and hydrocarbon chain growth in Fischer–Tropsch synthesis;
Bunquin already employs Fe-containing nanoparticle catalysts for syngas conversion, placing both references squarely in the same field of endeavor;
Lyu further teaches that iron carbide phases form from Fe precursors under syngas/carburizing conditions, making such modification a predictable transformation of catalyst phase;
Substituting a known active phase (oxide → carbide) for the same catalytic function constitutes a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (KSR).
Claims 2–12
Bunquin discloses the additional limitations of claims 2–12, including:
r1/r2 ranges (¶[0013]–[0014]);
oxide compositions (¶[0048]);
particle size and PSD ranges (¶[0042]);
multiple metals (¶[0045]);
morphology (¶[0042]);
process conditions (¶[0074]–[0081], ¶[0171]);
H₂ activation (¶[0075]).
Claims 13–15
Bunquin teaches production of olefins (¶[0166]), and Lyu teaches hydrocarbon chain growth and product distributions in FT synthesis.
It would have been obvious to adjust catalyst composition and reaction conditions to obtain
particular olefin distributions and selectivities, as such parameters are recognized as result-
effective variables in Fischer–Tropsch processes.
Claims 16–25
Bunquin discloses catalyst fabrication processes corresponding to claims 16–25,
including:
nanoparticle dispersions (¶[0138]–[0142]);
long-chain organic acid systems (¶[0142]–[0148]);
nanoparticle formation, separation, and redispersion (¶[0144]–[0147]);
calcination and promoter addition (¶[0140]–[0141]);
temperature ranges and solvent relationships (¶[0159]–[0161]).
Lyu teaches that iron carbide phases form via carburization of iron precursors under syngas, which is compatible with the fabrication processes of Bunquin. Thus, it would have been obvious to prepare the modified carbide-containing catalyst using the known processes of Bunquin.
Response to Arguments
The argument that Bunquin does not teach kernels comprising a carbide or a nitride is not persuasive because of the new rejection above.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771