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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/27/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the calcined catalyst fine powder" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a certain temperature for a certain time period” in step (2) and step (3) and it is unclear if the temperatures and time periods are the same or different.
The term “rapidly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites " a certain time period" in step (2) and (3) which is rendered indefinite by use of the term "rapidly".
The term “small” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites " .
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a SAPO-34 molecular sieve”. It is unclear if this SAPO-34 molecular sieve is the same or different from SAPO-34 molecular sieve recited in claim 1 line 12.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as the waste MTO catalyst fine powder used
in step (1) is a permanently deactivated waste MTO catalyst, having no characteristic diffraction peaks of
SAPO-34 molecular sieve in its X-ray diffraction spectrum and before being deactivated was a SAPO-34
molecular sieve.
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.
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, 3-5, 9-12, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 112824322A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026), in view of Weiping (CN 102389834A , machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a method for preparing small-particle-size SAPO-34 molecular sieves, comprising the following steps ([0007]): (1) Mix SAPO-34 molecular sieve with an aqueous solution of the first phosphorus source to obtain mixture a ([0008]); the first phosphorus source and the second phosphorus source are each independently selected from one or more of phosphoric acid… ([0014] meeting limitation “(2) mixing the… catalyst fine powder with an inorganic acid solution”). In step (1), the mixing temperature is 20-90 °C and the mixing time is at least 1 hour ([0013] meeting limitation “and stirring at a certain temperature for a certain time period to obtain a mixed solution”). (2) Mix the mixture a with an aluminum source, a silicon source, a second phosphorus source, a template agent and water to obtain a mixture b ([0009]). The template agent is one or more of diethylamine, triethylamine… ([0018] meeting limitation “(3) adding an organic amine and a phosphorus source to the mixed solution obtained in step (2), and stirring … to obtain an initial gel mixture for SAPO-34 molecular sieve”).
Regarding the limitation “stirring at a certain temperature for a certain time period”, in Example 1 Guo discloses stirring and aging overnight, and stirring at room temperature ([0082]).
The mixture b is then subjected to hydrothermal crystallization after stirring and aging ([0009] meeting limitation “(4) crystallizing the initial gel mixture for SAPO-34 molecular sieve obtained in step (3)”). (3) The product obtained in step (2) is subjected to solid-liquid separation, then washed, dried and calcined to obtain small-particle-size SAPO-34 molecular sieve ([0010] meeting limitation “and then at least drying the resultant to obtain a raw SAPO-34 molecular sieve powder; and (5) calcining the raw SAPO-34 molecular sieve powder obtained in step (4) to obtain the SAPO-34 molecular sieve with small crystal size and a hollow structure”).
Guo does not disclose “(1) calcining a waste MTO catalyst fine powder”.
Weiping discloses since the methanol-to-olefins (MTO) reaction is a continuous process, unsuitable catalyst powder is constantly generated ([0006]). If this catalyst powder could be reused, it would solve the environmental problems caused by its disposal, turning waste into treasure ([0006]). On the other hand, it would also reduce catalyst costs, thereby reducing the cost of MTO and increasing competitiveness ([0006]).
Weiping further discloses a method for reusing catalyst micropowder generated during the methanol-to-olefins reaction, comprising the following steps ([0010]): (1) The catalyst micro powder is calcined at 400-700℃ for 2-8 hours to remove the carbon deposits in the catalyst micropowder ([0011]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calcine a waste MTO catalyst fine powder in the method of Guo in order to reduce environmental impact, catalyst cost and to remove carbon deposits in the catalyst micropowder as taught by Weiping.
Regarding claim 3, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Weiping discloses the catalyst micro powder is calcined at 400-700℃ for 2-8 hours ([0011]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Weiping (400-700℃) overlaps with the claimed range (550-700℃). Therefore, the range in Weiping renders obvious the claimed range.
In the instant case, the range taught by Weiping (2-8 hours ) overlaps with the claimed range (8 to 10 hours ). Therefore, the range in Weiping renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Guo discloses in step (1), the mixing temperature is 20-90 °C and the mixing time is at least 1 hour ([0013]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Guo (20-90 ℃) overlaps with the claimed range (70-95 ℃). Therefore, the range in Guo renders obvious the claimed range.
In the instant case, the range taught by Guo (at least 1 hour) overlaps with the claimed range (4 to 10 hours ). Therefore, the range in Guo renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5 and 11, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Guo discloses mix SAPO-34 molecular sieve with an aqueous solution of the first phosphorus source to obtain mixture a ([0008]); the first phosphorus source and the second phosphorus source are each independently selected from one or more of phosphoric acid… ([0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Guo further discloses in Example 1 stir at room temperature ([0082]), which is interpreted as within the claimed range of 15-30 ℃. While this temperature is disclosed in the description of step 1, it is reasonable to interpret that all the steps are performed at room temperature unless otherwise specified.
Guo further discloses stirring and aging overnight ([0082]) after adding organic acid and phosphorous source. Stirring overnight is interpreted as within the claimed range of 2 to 8 hours.
Regarding claim 10, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Guo discloses mix the mixture a with an aluminum source, a silicon source, a second phosphorus source, a template agent and water to obtain a mixture b ([0009]). The template agent is one or more of triethylamine… ([0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Guo further discloses preferably phosphoric acid with a mass fraction of 85 wt% or more ([0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Guo further discloses the hydrothermal crystallization temperature is 180-240℃ and the crystallization time is 5-48h ([0021]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Guo (180-240℃) overlaps with the claimed range (180-200℃). Therefore, the range in Guo renders obvious the claimed range.
In the instant case, the range taught by Guo (5-48 h) overlaps with the claimed range (2 to 12 hours). Therefore, the range in Guo renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Weiping discloses the catalyst micro powder is calcined at 400-700℃ for 2-8 hours to remove the carbon deposits in the catalyst micropowder ([0011]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Weiping (400-700℃) overlaps with the claimed range (500 to 650℃). Therefore, the range in Weiping renders obvious the claimed range.
In the instant case, the range taught by Weiping (2-8 h) overlaps with the claimed range (4 to 10 hours). Therefore, the range in Weiping renders obvious the claimed range.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 112824322A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026), in view of Weiping (CN 102389834A , machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026), and in further view of Wragg et al (“SAPO-34 methanol-to-olefin catalysts under working conditions: A combined in situ powder X-ray diffraction, mass spectrometry and Raman study”).
Regarding claim 2, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Weiping further discloses the catalyst for methanol-to-olefins is based on the acidic catalytic characteristics of small pore SAPO molecular sieves ([0006]). At the same time, the presence of the "cage" in the SAPO molecular sieve structure and the inherent nature of acidic catalysis also make the catalyst deactivated relatively quickly due to coking ([0006]). The catalyst micropowder in this article refers to catalyst micropowder generated during the methanol-to-olefins reaction due to wear and tear ([0035] meeting limitation “the waste MTO catalyst fine powder used in step (1) is a permanently deactivated waste MTO catalyst”). While Weiping does not explicitly disclose the waste MTO catalyst is a SAPO-34 molecular sieve, Weiping does disclose the catalyst obtained by the method of this invention has catalytic performance comparable to the original catalyst ([0027]) and the catalyst products obtained from Examples 1-3 are all SAPO-34 molecular sieves. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the original catalyst micropowder is a SAPO-34 molecular sieve.
Weiping does not disclose “having no characteristic diffraction peaks of SAPO-34 molecular sieve in its X-ray diffraction spectrum”.
Wragg discloses we have studied the behavior of the zeotype silicoaluminophosphate SAPO-34
catalyst in the methanol-to-olefin (MTO) process under real working conditions using simultaneous
synchrotron powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) (abstract). When the MTO process is run at 440 °C changes
in both the intensity and position of the PXRD peaks are observed (Pg. 291 Section 3.1). This suggests …
that the reaction causes greater strain in the cages than adsorbed aromatics (Pg. 291 Section 3.1). The
results suggest a strong link between intermediate formation within the cages and expansion of the
SAPO-34 unit cell (especially in the c-axis direction) (Pg. 295 Conclusion). Both XRD and Raman show
that aromatic coke appears very rapidly and has an immediate effect on the catalyst structure (Pg. 295
Conclusion). The development of the FWHM of the (101) peak indicates that the formation of coke
induces strain in the lattice of SAPO-34 (Pg. 295 Conclusion).
Since Wragg discloses the formation of coke induces strain in the lattice of SAPO-34, and the
MTO process changes the intensity and position of the PXRD peaks of the SAPO-34 catalyst, it is
reasonable to conclude that Weiping discloses the waste MTO catalyst used in step (1) has no characteristic diffraction peaks of SAPO-34 molecular sieve in its X-ray diffraction spectrum, since Weiping discloses the presence of the "cage" in the SAPO molecular sieve structure and the inherent nature of acidic catalysis also make the catalyst deactivated relatively quickly due to coking ([0006]).
The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicant to prove that prior art products do not
necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art
products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on Applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or
on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark
Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences
fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 U.S.P.Q. 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 112824322A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2023), in view of Weiping (CN 102389834A , machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026), and in further view of Xiao et al (CN 105582885 A, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 6, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein in step (2), the inorganic acid solution has a concentration of 0.5 M to 1.5 M”.
Xiao discloses preparing a solid adsorbent using waste catalyst containing molecular sieves and a method thereof ([0010]). This adsorbent is used for the adsorption and purification of oxygen-containing compounds such as methanol in C2-C6 olefin feedstocks ([0010]). the solid adsorbent prepared using waste catalyst containing molecular sieves described in this patent is characterized in that the molecular sieve support is at least one selected from ZSM-5, SAPO-34 or NaY ([0014]). The aforementioned waste molecular sieve catalysts specifically refer to those that, during the reaction process, become deactivated due to the formation of heavy byproducts that clog the pores, the covering of acidic centers on the molecular sieve surface, or the reduction of the total surface acidity ([0014]). A method for preparing a solid adsorbent using waste molecular sieve catalyst, comprising the following steps ([0015]): a) First, prepare a dilute nitric acid solution with a mass concentration of 1-10% for use in the adsorbent forming process ([0016]). b) Mix the waste catalyst containing molecular sieves and binder Al 2 O 3 in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 ([0017]) c) Add 1-5% of guar gum powder as an adjuvant, then mix thoroughly and evenly, add 0.4-0.6 times the total weight of dilute nitric acid solution ([0018]). Thus, Xiao discloses a step of mixing a waste MTO catalyst with an inorganic acid solution.
Xiao discloses in Example 5 the preparation process of the adsorbent containing waste catalyst with SAPO-34 molecular sieve and a CHA framework structure is as follows ([0038]). First, prepare 30 ml of a 3% dilute nitric acid solution for use during the adsorbent formation process ([0038]).
Density of nitric acid = 1.015 g/mL
Mass of 30 mL solution
30mL x 1.015g/mL = 30.45 g
Molar mass HNO3 = 63.01 g/mol
Mass of nitric acid
30.45 x 0.03 = 0.914g
Moles of nitric acid
0.914 g/ 63.01 g/mol = 0.015 mol
Molarity of solution
0.015 mol / 0.030L = 0.5 M
Therefore, Xiao discloses the inorganic acid solution has a concentration of 0.5 M which is within the claimed range of 0.5 M to 1.5 M.
Xiao further discloses these spent catalysts, after simple reprocessing, are used for the adsorption and purification of oxygen-containing compounds, exhibiting good purification accuracy and high adsorption capacity ([0007]). It can both utilize waste and process low-carbon olefins, reducing the costs of landfilling waste catalysts and olefin purification treatment ([0007]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the inorganic acid solution to have a concentration of 0.5 M to 1.5 M in the method of Guo in view of Weiping in order to simply reprocess spent catalyst to be used for the adsorption and purification of oxygen-containing compounds exhibiting good purification accuracy and high adsorption capacity as taught by Xiao.
Regarding claim 7, Guo in view of Weiping and Xiao discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Xiao discloses the inorganic acid solution has a concentration of 0.5 M as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein in step (2), the calcined catalyst fine powder and the inorganic acid solution are mixed in a ratio of 1 g:(1-10) mL”.
Xiao discloses weigh 30g of spent catalyst whose main component is SAPO-34 molecular sieve… mix the weighed spent catalyst containing molecular sieve with binder… add 2% of the total weight of guar gum powder as an adjuvant, then mix thoroughly and evenly, and add 30ml of 3% dilute nitric acid solution ([0038]). Therefore, Xiao discloses a ratio of spent catalyst to nitric acid solution of 30g : 30 mL, or 1g:1mL, which is within the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for in step (2), the calcined catalyst fine powder and the inorganic acid solution are mixed in a ratio of 1 g:(1-10) mL in the method of Guo in view of Weiping in order to simply reprocess spent catalyst to be used for the adsorption and purification of oxygen-containing compounds exhibiting good purification accuracy and high adsorption capacity as taught by Xiao.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 112824322A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2023), in view of Weiping (CN 102389834A , machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026), and in further view of Shen (CN 115520878 A, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 13, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the mass ratio of the calcined catalyst fine powder in step (2), the organic amine and the phosphorus source in step (3) is 1 :(0.2- 3.5):(0.05-1 .0)”.
Shen discloses a method for preparing a hierarchical porous SAPO-34 molecular sieve, comprising the step of crystallizing a mixture of phosphorus source A, structure directing agent R, used MTO catalyst and water ([0007]). The structure-directing agent R is triethylamine; the MTO waste catalyst includes SAPO-34 molecular sieve and kaolin binder ([0008]). In the mixture, the phosphorus source is provided by phosphorus source A (e.g., phosphoric acid)… The mass ratio of phosphorus source A to MTO waste catalyst is (0.8-5.5):1 ([0011]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Shen (1:(0.8-5.5)) overlaps with the claimed range (1:(0.05-1.0)). Therefore, the range in Shen renders obvious the claimed range.
Shen further discloses the molar ratio of phosphorus source : R is 1.4-3:2-6 ([0014]), which is equivalent to 1-2.14: 1.4-4.28. So in the case that phosphorus source is 1, and catalyst fine powder is 1, the molar ratio of R is 1.4-4.28.
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Shen (1:(1.4-4.28)) overlaps with the claimed range (1:(0.2-3.5)). Therefore, the range in Shen renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Guo further discloses centrifugation was performed, during which the solid product was washed several times with deionized water and dried at 120°C for 12 hours to obtain sample b ([0075]) meeting limitation “wherein in step (4), the drying is carried out … for a time period of 6 to 12 hours”).
Guo in view of Weiping does not disclose “at a temperature of 90 to 110 °C”.
Shen discloses a method for synthesizing SAPO-34 molecular sieve using spent MTO catalyst ([0001]). After crystallization, conventional post-processing steps such as separation, washing, and drying can be adopted ([0018]). For example, the drying conditions are: drying at 20–120°C for 3–12 hours ([0018]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Shen (20–120°C) overlaps with the claimed range (90 to 110 °C). Therefore, the range in Shen renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the drying to be carried out at a temperature of 90 to 110 °C in the method of Guo in view of Weiping as taught by Shen in order for the molecular sieve to be properly dried.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 112824322A, machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2023), in view of Weiping (CN 102389834A , machine translation used for citations, cited in IDS 06/06/2026), and in further view of Ding et al (CN 117185308A, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 14, Guo in view of Weiping discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the initial gel mixture for SAPO-34 molecular sieve obtained in step (3) has a pH of 8 to 10”.
Ding discloses a method for preparing SAPO-34 molecular sieve, comprising ([0007]): (2) Aluminum source, phosphorous source, water, and selectively added silicon source and selectively added template agent are mixed to prepare gel II ([0009]); (3) The directing agent, i.e. waste MTO catalyst as disclosed in [0011], prepared in step (1) is mixed with the gel II prepared in step (2), the pH is adjusted, and hydrothermal crystallization is carried out to prepare SAPO-34 molecular sieve ([0010]). Step 3 disclosed by Ding is interpreted as reading on claim 1 step 3 where the disclosed gel II contains phosphoric acid (phosphorous source) and organic amine (template agent triethylamine as disclosed in [0014]). Ding discloses adjusting the pH after the directing agent is mixed with the gel II. In step (3), the pH is adjusted to 6-11 ([0019]).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Ding (6-11) overlaps with the claimed range (8 to 10). Therefore, the range in Ding renders obvious the claimed range.
Ding further discloses the prepared molecular sieves have smaller particle size and more uniform distribution, and when applied to methanol-to-olefins reaction, they exhibit high diene yield ([0027]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the initial gel mixture for SAPO-34 molecular sieve obtained in step (3) to have a pH of 8 to 10 in the method of Guo in view of Weiping in order for the prepared molecular sieve to have smaller particle size and more uniform distribution, and when applied to methanol-to-olefins reaction, they exhibit high diene yield as taught by Ding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738