DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/119,589 application filed 9 March 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 1-9 and 18-19 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.
With respect to claim 1, said claim recites “[a] dehydrogenation catalyst comprising platinum silicide or platinum supported on a metal-oxide support.” It is not clear how the limitation of the claim should be interpreted. One alternative is that the dehydrogenation catalyst comprises (1) platinum silicide or (2) platinum supported on a metal-oxide support. The other alternative is that the dehydrogenation catalyst comprises (1) platinum silicide on a metal-oxide support or (2) platinum supported on a metal-oxide support. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. However, if the limitation of claim 1 is to be interpreted as the latter alternative, it appears said claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for reciting a broad limitation and a narrower statement of the limitation in the same claim.
Claims 4 and 8 recite the limitations "the silicon loading of the dehydrogenation catalyst" and "the phosphorus loading of the dehydrogenation catalyst, " respectively, in lines 1-2 of each. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, note that the catalyst in instant claim 1, from which 4 and 8 depend, does not necessarily require either silicon or phosphorus. Therefore, it is not clear what the dehydrogenation catalyst of instant claim 1 actually comprises. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claims 5 and 9 recite the limitations "the molar ratio of silicon to platinum" and "the molar ratio of phosphorus to platinum," respectively, in lines 1-2 of each. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As noted previously, the catalyst in instant claim 1 does not necessarily require either silicon or phosphorus.
With respect to claims 7 and 18-19, applicant is reminded that “[a]ttempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph…’Use’ claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961) ("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. §101 ")” [see MPEP 2173.05(q)]. Said use claims do not recite active, positive steps that delimit how the use is practiced; therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Antos et al (US 4,416,804).
With respect to claims 1-2, 6, 10-11, and 17, Antos et al discloses “an acidic multimetallic catalytic composite comprising a combination of catalytically effective amounts of a platinum group component, a cobalt component, a tin component, a phosphorus component and a halogen component with a porous carrier material” [abstract], wherein the “acidic catalytic composite comprising a porous carrier material contain[s], on an elemental basis, about 0.01 to about 2 wt. % platinum group metal, about 0.05 to about 5 wt. % cobalt, about 0.01 to about 5 wt. % tin, about 0.01 to about 5 wt. % phosphorus” [abstract & column 4, lines 8-12] and “[t]he porous carrier material…within the scope of the present invention [includes] carrier materials which have traditionally been utilized in dual-function hydrocarbon conversion catalysts such as:…(2) silica or silica gel…(4) refractory inorganic oxides such as alumina, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, chromium oxide, beryllium oxide, vanadium oxide,…etc.” [column 4, line 56 to column 5, line 9]. Antos et al further discloses “it is believed that best results are obtained when the phosphorus component exists in the catalytic composite substantially in the form of a phosphide…” [column 14, lines 44-48]. The presence of the phosphorus corresponds to the “modified metal-oxide support, the metal-oxide support having been modified with…phosphorus” as recited in instant claim 10. The reference further teaches “[t]his alumina powder can also be formed in any other desired shape or type of carrier material known to those skilled in the art such as rods, pills, pellets, tablets [equivalent to plates—Examiner’s insertion], granules, extrudates and the like forms by methods well known to the practitioners of the catalyst carrier material forming art.
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Antos et al discloses “the instant multimetallic catalytic composite is used for the dehydrogenation of dehydrogenatable hydrocarbons” [column 13, lines 1-3] and “[i]n a dehydrogenation embodiment, the charge stock can be any of the known dehydrogenatable hydrocarbons such as an aliphatic compound containing 2 to 30 carbon atoms per molecule, a C4 to C30 normal paraffin, a C8 to C12 alkylaromatic, a naphthene, and the like” [column 16, lines 35-39], wherein at least the aforesaid alkylaromatic compound(s) correspond to the liquid organic hydrogen carrier of instant claim 19.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-9, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antos et al (US 4,416,804).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, note the concentration of platinum discussed previously. Consequently, the recited range(s) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 4-5 and 13-14, note that platinum silicide is recited in the alternative in instant claim 1 and neither of 4 or 5 requires that the dehydrogenation catalyst is platinum silicide. Additionally, claim 10 recites “the metal-oxide support having been modified with silicon or phosphorus.” Thus, the modification with silicon is recited in the alternative as well. Consequently, reciting a mass loading or molar ratio of silicon is irrelevant since the limitations appear to be directed to the silicide or silicon modification alternatives of instant claims 1 and 10, respectively.
With respect to claim 8-9 and 15-16, note the concentration of phosphorus discussed previously. Consequently, the recited mass (or weight) percent range(s) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the mass (weight) concentrations of platinum and phosphorus overlap, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the recited molar ratios are within the recited range(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller et al (US 2020/0215517) [see paragraphs 0023-0024, 0028, & 0056] and either of Chen et al (US 4,803,186) or Chen et al (US 4,983,274), both of which disclose “shape selective crystalline silicate zeolite catalysts and their use in hydrocarbon conversion processes. More particularly, this invention relates to such zeolites containing an intermetallic component, e.g. HZSM-5 containing platinum silicide, and to the use of such catalysts for a variety of hydrocarbon conversions” including dehydrogenation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
16 October 2025