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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently under examination. Claims 1-13 are amended. Claim 17 is newly added.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, with respect to claims 1-16 is withdrawn.
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US 2014/0303266 A1), and in view of Denardin et al (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 295, 2020, 109961, applicants submitted in IDS) with respect to claims 1-16 is withdrawn.
New ground of rejections are set forth below.
New Claims Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, claim 1 contains subject matter “… to form a combined solution…wherein a pH of the solution or slurry comprising catalytically active molybdenum anions is greater than a pH of the combined solution” (emphasis added) which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The is no support in the instant specification that a combination of a porous catalyst support comprising a precipitant and a solution or slurry comprising catalytically active molybdate anions has a lower pH value than a solution or slurry comprising molybdate anions (emphasis added).
Claims 11-12 and 17 contains subject matter “… to form a combined solution…” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for the reasons set forth above.
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1-2 and 16-17 recite the limitation "the catalyst support". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriated corrections are required.
Is "a precipitant" in claims 1 and 17 step (i) the same as “the precipitant” recited in claims 1 and 17 step (ii)? If they are the same precipitant as comprising a catalytically active molybdenum, what is the pH difference between the solution or slurry comprising catalytically active molybdate anions and pH of the combined solution recited in claim 1? Clarification and appropriated corrections are required.
In other words, Is “a precipitant” recited in step (i) the same as the final active catalyst (molybdate anions particles precitpated in step (ii) in the internal porous structure? Clarification and appropriated corrections are required.
It is unclear how a combined solution is formed when a slurry comprising catalytically active Mo anions is mixed with a solid porous catalyst support (emphasis added). Does the porous catalyst support dissolve in a solution or slurry comprising catalytically active molybdate anions to form the combined solution? Clarification and appropriated corrections are required.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation "the catalytically active molybdate anions added to the combined solution" step (iii) are unclear and confused. Because according to the instant step (ii), a catalytically active molybdate anion solution or slurry is added to the catalyst support to form a combined solution (emphasis added).
The limitation recited in step (iii) in claim 1 and 17 are indefinite because the targe pH value and the addition rate are missing.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation "the molybdate anion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriated corrections are required.
Claim 7 recite the limitation "the pH of ammonium molybdate solution or slurry". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriated corrections are required.
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 recite the limitation "the zeolite". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriated corrections are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ion exchange process". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriated corrections are required.
The limitations recited in claim 10 are unclear and confused because they are unrelate to and/or further limit its independent claim 1. Appropriated corrections are required.
Regarding claim 15, when the zeolite is selected as NH4ZSM-5, can the pH limitation recited in step (ii) claim 1 be met? Clarification and appropriated corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman et al. (US 2014/0303266 A1), and in view of Yao et al. (US 2014/0303266A1), and further evidenced by Drake et al. US 5, 952, 259, entirely incorporated by reference through Yao et al., [0047]).
Regarding claim 1, Hyman et al. teach a method of preparing a supported catalyst, which method comprises the steps of;
(i) providing a porous catalyst support comprising a framework zeolite having an internal pore structure comprising one or more pores which internal pore structure,
(ii) contacting the catalyst support with a solution or colloidal suspension (a slurry) comprising a catalytically active metal such that, particles comprising the catalytically active metal are precipitated within the internal pore structure of the framework of the catalyst support,
(iii) adjust pH to control of a catalytically active metal efficient precipitation of clusters within the pores of the catalyst support (Abstract, [0048]-[0057]).
The anions of catalytically active metals have effective diameter small enough to allow ingress into the internal porous structure of the catalyst support framework. ([0045]). Catalytically active metals include molybdenum and iron, and combinations thereof ([0070]).
Its purpose is to facilitate the diffusion of the catalytically active metal through the internal pore structure of the catalyst support, and is chosen according to its ability to ensure dissolve a compound containing the catalytically active metal, or to stabilize a catalytically active metal-containing colloid such that appropriately sized colloidal particles are obtained. The solution or colloid may contain additional components, for example one or more additional catalytically active metals, components of any co-catalyst or components of any promoters. Mixtures of liquids acting as the solvent or liquid phase can be used. Particularly if pH control of a catalytically active metal-containing solution is required to ensure efficient precipitation of clusters within the pores of the catalyst support (the claimed step 9iii0) ([0048]).
Although Hyman et al. do not specifically disclose the framework zeolite support and molybdate as per applicant claim 1, Yao et al. teach molybdate anions impregnated zeolite ZSM-5 catalyst obtained via HCl leaching ZSM-5 catalyst to a pH value lower than 0.5 (evidenced by Drake et al. col. 4., line 35-40), then impregnated with ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate (Abstract, [0047] and Table 1). As such, the molybdate anions impregnated ZSM-5 mixture (the instant claimed the combined solution) has a pH value lower than pH value of ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the impregnating molybdate anions into ZSM-5 taught by Yao et al. in the method taught by Hyman et al. as an alternative catalytically metal molybdate anions and zeolite support to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same beneficial results and same function, absent evidence to the contrary.
Since both of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach molybdate modified zeolite catalysts, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2-3, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach aluminosilicate zeolite ZSM-5 comprising channels within the internal pore structure of the framework and ammonium molybdate anion as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach the precipitation exchange caused formation of the clusters through acid-base exchange, the pH of the impregnating solution containing the catalytically active metal can be controlled or adjusted Hyman et al., ([0031], [0040]-[0044], and [0050]-[0055]).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach the catalytically active Mo cluster having effective diameter of less than 2.0 nm as the instant claims (Hyman et al., [0022]).
Regarding claims 7 and 10-12, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach the solution or colloidal suspension (the slurry) comprising catalytically active ammonium heptamolybdate being basic such as a carbonate or bicarbonate alkali-metal and done simultaneously and continually adjust pH (Hyman et al., [0031], [0040]-[0044], [0052]-[0053], [0050]-[0055], and [0149]). As such, the pH value solution reads on as the instant claimed limitations.
The addition of catalytically active molybdate anion is by slow addition([Hyman et al. [0009] and [0048]). As such, the pH value of the mixture of zeolite and the catalytically active molybdate anion solution taught by the combined references is held constant as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Denardin et al. teach zeolite acid catalyst through acid-base exchange ([0031], [0040]-[0044], [0050]-[0055, and [0084]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach the use HCl to adjust pH value<1 as the instant claim (Yao et al. col4, line 39-40).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach ammonium heptamolybdate and iron as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 14, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach HZSM-5 as the instant claim ([0035], [0037],[0092], [0134]-[0136]).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, the combined references of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach the zeolite with high silicon zeolite molecular sieve, especially ZSM-5 which includes HZSM-5 having the cation of H+ ([0083]).
Although the combined references does not specifically teach NH4 cation of ZSM-5 as per applicant claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the H+ cation ZSM-5 taught by Yao et al. with the cation of NH4+ of ZSM-5 as an alternative cation of ZSM-5 to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 15, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same beneficial results and same function, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 17, Hyman et al. teach a method of preparing a supported catalyst, which method comprises the steps of;
(i) providing a porous catalyst support comprising a framework zeolite having an internal pore structure comprising one or more pores which internal pore structure,
(ii) contacting the catalyst support with a solution or colloidal suspension (a slurry) comprising a catalytically active metal such that, particles comprising the catalytically active metal are precipitated within the internal pore structure of the framework of the catalyst support,
(iii) adjust pH to control of a catalytically active metal efficient precipitation of clusters within the pores of the catalyst support (Abstract, [0048]-[0057]).
The anions of catalytically active metals have effective diameter small enough to allow ingress into the internal porous structure of the catalyst support framework. ([0045]). Catalytically active metals include molybdenum and iron, and combinations thereof ([0070]).
Its purpose is to facilitate the diffusion of the catalytically active metal through the internal pore structure of the catalyst support, and is chosen according to its ability to ensure dissolve a compound containing the catalytically active metal, or to stabilize a catalytically active metal-containing colloid such that appropriately sized colloidal particles are obtained. The solution or colloid may contain additional components, for example one or more additional catalytically active metals, components of any co-catalyst or components of any promoters. Mixtures of liquids acting as the solvent or liquid phase can be used. Particularly if pH control of a catalytically active metal-containing solution is required to ensure efficient precipitation of clusters within the pores of the catalyst support (the claimed step (ii) ([0048]).
Although Hyman et al. do not specifically disclose the framework zeolite support and molybdate as per applicant claim 1, Yao et al. teach molybdate anions impregnated zeolite ZSM-5 catalyst obtained via HCl leaching ZSM-5 catalyst to a pH value lower than 1 (evidenced by Drake et al. col. 4., line 35-40), then impregnated with ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate (Abstract, [0047] and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the impregnating an ammonium heptamolybdate into ZSM-5 taught by Yao et al. in the method taught by Hyman et al. as an alternative catalytically metal molybdate anions and zeolite support to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same beneficial results and same function, absent evidence to the contrary.
Since both of Hyman et al. and Yao et al. teach molybdenum modified zeolite catalysts, one would have a reasonable expectation of success.
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 YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738