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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-29 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0023], and [0108]-[0137[ of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 10-11 filed 06/18/2026 with respect to claims 1, 2, and 6, have been fully considered however they are directed to claim limitations introduced in the amendment filed 06/18/2026, which postdates the non-final rejection mailed 03/18/2026.
Upon further search and consideration, and as necessitated by the amendment, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buchbinder et al. of 03/18/2026 is withdrawn and a new rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rytter et al. (US6313063B1) in view of Buchbinder et al. (US020220203340A1).
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, 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 1-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rytter et al. (US6313063B1) in view of Buchbinder et al. (US020220203340A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rytter teaches a process of preparing a Pt supported dehydrogenation catalyst that is exposed to a reduction oxidation reduction (ROR) pretreatment that is carried out with a reduction of the catalyst with hydrogen, a subsequent oxidation in air, and a finally a second reduction in hydrogen where the pretreatment temperatures range from 500 to 700 °C (col. 5, lines 44-50). Rytter teaches the initial reduction is carried out for a period of 1 minute to 10 hours, usually for about 2 hours, the subsequent oxidation is carried out for a period of 1 minute to 10 hours, usually for about 2 hours and that the final reduction is carried out under similar conditions as the initial reduction (col. 5, lines 51-62). Rytter teaches the oxidation is also performed in the range of 500 to 700 °C (col. 5, lines 48-51). Rytter teaches the ROR treatment is performed prior to performing dehydrogenation reactions (i.e. contacting the catalyst with alkanes) (col. 5, lines 44-62; col. 6, lines 32-52). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Rytter (reduction from 500 to 700 °C for 1 minute to 10 hours; oxidation from 500 to 700 °C for 1 minutes to 10 hours) overlaps with the claimed ranges (reduction 500 to 850 °C for 30 seconds to 10 hours; oxidation from 350 to 850 °C for 30 seconds to 10 hours). Therefore, the ranges in Rytter render obvious the claimed ranges.
The claim further requires the “synthesized catalyst comprises 0.001 wt% to 0.045 wt% of the Pt, based on the non-volatiles weight of the catalyst” to which Rytter teaches the catalyst can contain 0.05 to 5.0 % by weight of the group VIII metal, where the Group VIII metal is Pt (Claims 17-18). This Pt concentration lies outside the claimed range.
Buchbinder teaches a process for preparing a calcined catalyst comprising Pt supported on alumina (Abstract; [0007]-[0008]; [0028]; [0041]). Buchbinder further teaches the catalyst displays platinum levels below 0.0999 wt.% on a volatile-free basis ([0007]) while teaching examples of catalysts displaying volatile-free Pt content of 0.02, 0.03, and 0.04 % (Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Buchbinder (Pt concentration below 0.0999 wt% on volatile-free basis) overlaps with the claimed range (0.001 wt% to 0.045 wt% Pt on non-volatile weight). Therefore, the range in Buchbinder renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, including Pt at the concentration taught by Buchbinder saves cost while still providing stable performance ([0013]).
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 produce a catalyst with less than 0.0999 wt% Pt in the process of Rytter in order to reduce costs while still providing stable performance, as taught by Buchbinder.
Regarding claim 2, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1 and Rytter further teaches the oxidation is performed with oxygen-containing gas (i.e. O2) and the reduction is performed with hydrogen (col. 5, lines 44-50; col. 6, lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 3, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1. Rytter teaches the initial reduction is carried out at temperatures in the range of 500 to 700 °C for a period of 1 minute to 10 hours, usually for about 2 hours, the subsequent oxidation is carried out for a period of 1 minute to 10 hours, usually for about 2 hours and that the final reduction is carried out under similar conditions as the initial reduction (col. 5, lines 51-62). Rytter teaches the oxidation is performed in the range of 500 to 700 °C (col. 5, lines 48-51). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Rytter (reduction from 500 to 700 °C for 1 minute to 10 hours; oxidation from 500 to 700 °C for 1 minutes to 10 hours) overlaps with the claimed ranges (reduction 500 to 850 °C for 30 seconds to 10 hours; oxidation from 350 to 850 °C for 30 seconds to 10 hours). Therefore, the ranges in Rytter render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 4, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1. Rytter teaches the reduction and oxidation treatments can be conducted in the range of 500 to 700 °C (col. 5, lines 48-50). Rytter teaching the reduction and oxidation temperatures can be performed at overlapping temperatures meets the limitation required by the claim where the conditions are equal temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1. Rytter teaches a process of preparing a Pt supported dehydrogenation catalyst that is exposed to a reduction oxidation reduction (ROR) pretreatment that is carried out with a reduction of the catalyst with hydrogen, a subsequent oxidation in air, and a finally a second reduction in hydrogen where the pretreatment temperatures range from 500 to 700 °C (col. 5, lines 44-50). Rytter teaches the initial reduction is carried out for a period of 1 minute to 10 hours, usually for about 2 hours, the subsequent oxidation is carried out for a period of 1 minute to 10 hours, usually for about 2 hours and that the final reduction is carried out under similar conditions as the initial reduction (col. 5, lines 51-62). Accordingly, two reduction cycles at about 2 hours and one oxidation for about 2 hours would provide a longer reduction cycle than oxidation cycle, meeting the limitation required by the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1. Rytter further teaches the catalyst is first synthesized by a process that includes an aqueous solution as well as filtration, washing, and drying at 100 °C prior to performing calcination (see Example 1, col. 7, lines 38-49).
The limitation “volatile compounds” was interpreted in view of the instant specification that describes “since the synthesized catalyst has not been subjected to a temperature of 350 °C or more, the synthesized catalyst can include one or more volatile compounds adsorbed thereon and/or one or more compounds that could form volatile compound(s) and desorb at higher temperatures such as when the synthesized catalyst is heated to a temperature of 350°C or more under an oxidizing atmosphere, a reduction atmosphere, or other atmosphere such as an inert atmosphere” [0025].
Accordingly, because the synthesized catalyst of Rytter is not subjected to a heating step prior to calcination that exceeds 350 °C (i.e. is dried at 100 °C prior to calcination) and is synthesized with water, the calcination step of Rytter, which exceeds 350 °C, would serve to remove adsorbed H2O and meet the limitation “wherein the one or more volatile compounds comprise adsorbed H2O.”
Regarding claim 7, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1.
Rytter teaches the catalyst comprises a group IV metal, including Sn, at a concentration from 0.05 to 7.0 percent by weight and a hydrotalcite-like compound (MgAI(OH)16CO3•4 H2O) as a support with a molar ratio of Mg to AI of about 2.5 to 6.0 (col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 3, lines 28-30; col. 4, lines 1-5). Rytter teaches the Mg/Al support is present at balance relative to the metals supported thereon, teaching a general range for the Mg/Al support of 83% to 99.85% (calculations shown below) and an example where the Mg(Al)O support is present at 98.6 wt.% (col. 4, lines 1-5; col. 8, lines 27-33). Magnesium (Mg) is a Group 2 element. From the Mg/Al ratio and Mg/Al support weight percent concentration, the Mg element concentration in the calcined support Mg(Al)O can be calculated as a range from 29.9 wt.% to 36.1wt.% (calculations shown below).
Regarding the limitation “all weight percent values are based on the non-volatile weight of the catalyst, the term “non-volatile weight” is described in the specification as the weight percentage in the catalyst following treatment at 900 °C (see at least [0025]). In this regard, Rytter teaches the catalyst can be calcined at temperatures ranging from 700-1200 °C (col. 3, lines 7-11; col. 3, lines 32-44). Accordingly, the weight percentages expressed in Rytter are consistent with the “non-volatile weight” in the instant invention.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Rytter (Sn, at a concentration from 0.05 to 7.0 percent by weight; Mg element concentration from 29.9 wt.% to 36.1 wt.%) overlaps with the claimed range (catalyst comprises up to 10 wt.% promoter Sn; at least 0.5 wt.% of a Group 2 element). Therefore, the range in Rytter renders obvious the claimed range.
Calculation of Mg/Al general range:
Group VIII metal catalyst range of 0.05 to 5.0 percent by weight;
Group IVA metal is 0.05 to 7.0 percent;
Group IA 0.05 to 5 percent by weight;
Low end = Group VIII + Group IV + IA = 0.05 +0.05 + 0.05 = 0.15; 100-0.15 = 99.85% High End = Group VIII + Group IV + IA = 5 + 7 + 5 = 17; 100-17 = 83%
Calculation of Mg weight percent:
Mg molar mass = 24.305 g/mol
Al molar mass = 26.982 g/mol
O molar mass = 16 g/mol
Ratio of Mg content in Mg(Al)O = 24.305 / (24.305 + 26.982 + 16) = 0.361
Low end = 83% * 0.361 = 29.9 % Mg
High end = 99.85% * 0.361 (low end of Mg/Al ratio) = 36.1% Mg.
Regarding claim 8, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1 and 7.
Rytter teaches a process of preparing a Pt supported catalyst where the support is a hydrotalcite-like compound (MgAI(OH)16CO3•4 H2O) that is calcined to provide a mixed oxide support of Mg(Al)O (col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 3, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 9, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1 and 7.
Rytter teaches a process of preparing a Pt supported catalyst where the support is a hydrotalcite-like compound (MgAI(OH)16CO3•4 H2O) that is calcined to provide a mixed oxide support of Mg(Al)O and the catalyst can further contain Sn (col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 3, lines 28-30; col. 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1.
Rytter further teaches the supported catalyst is used in the dehydrogenation of propane to propene (i.e. propylene) and displays propene selectivity from 97.3-95.9 % after 25 h with yields of 51.6, 55.1, 55.5, and 55.1 % after 25 h (Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Rytter (selectivity from 97.3-95.9 % after 25 h; yields of 51.6, 55.1, 55.5, and 55.1 % after 25 h) overlaps with the claimed ranges (propylene yield [Symbol font/0xB3] 48%; propylene selectivity of [Symbol font/0xB3] 90%). Therefore, the ranges in Rytter render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 13, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1 and Rytter teaches a reduction oxidation reduction (ROR) pretreatment is carried out with a reduction of the catalyst with hydrogen, a subsequent oxidation in air, and a finally a second reduction in hydrogen where the pretreatment temperatures range from 500 to 700 °C (col. 5, lines 44-50). Performing a reduction, oxidation, and reduction cycle is equivalent to performing n = 2 cycle calcinations (i.e. oxidation and reduction after an initial reduction), as set forth in claim 1. Rytter further teaches an example where the catalyst is calcined in air (i.e. oxidation), followed by a reduction, oxidation, and reduction treatment (col. 8, lines 4-26). This sequence of reduction and oxidations meets the limitation of performing a “final calcination” where an initial oxidation sequence is ended with a reduction sequence.
Regarding claim 14, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1. Rytter further teaches the oxidation treatment is carried out using air mixed with nitrogen with a space velocity for the treatment gases of 10 to 100,000 N mL g-1 h-1 (col. 5, lines 44-55). Rytter teaching a gas flow range is consistent with either maintaining a constant flow or varying it within the range, meeting the limitation “independently remains constant or varies.”
Regarding claim 15, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1. Rytter further teaches the reduction treatment is carried out using hydrogen with a space velocity for the treatment gases of 10 to 100,000 N mL g-1 h-1 (col. 5, lines 44-55). Rytter teaching a gas flow that is within the range of 10 to 100,000 N mL g-1 h-1 is consistent with either maintaining a constant flow or varying it within the range, meeting the limitation “independently remains constant or varies.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rytter et al. (US6313063B1) in view of Buchbinder et al. (US020220203340A1), with evidentiary support provided by Cocco et al. (Introduction to Fluidization, Ameri. Inst. Chem. Eng. 2014).
Regarding claim 10, Rytter in view of Buchbinder teach the process of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the synthesized catalyst is in the form of particles that have a size and particle density that is consistent with a Geldart A definition of a fluidizable solid” to which Rytter does not discuss the particle size and particle density in regards to being used in a fluidized bed reactor (see col. 15, lines 18-53).
Buchbinder teaches the catalysts prepared are able to be sent to fluidized bed reactors and have a diameter of 20-200 microns and a bulk density of 0.7-1.1 g/cm3 (i.e. 700 to 1100 kg/m3) ([0014]-[0015]). While Buchbinder does not explicitly describe the particles as having “a size and particle density that is consistent with a Geldart A definition of a fluidizable solid,” Geldart A fluidizable solids, as evidenced by Cocco, display particles in the range from about 30 µm to 125 µm and particle densities on the order of 1500 kg/m3, consistent with the range presented in Figure 4 reproduced below (Pg. 23, left col.; Figure 4). Accordingly, the fluidizable solid catalyst particles taught by Buchbinder are consistent with Geldart A fluidizable solids and meet the limitations required by the claim.
Advantageously, particles with the size and density taught by Buchbinder provide better propylene selectivity and are compatible with steam regeneration practices ([0015]).
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 provide particles with a size and density taught by Buchbinder in the process of Rytter in order to provide a catalyst with better propylene selectivity and compatible with steam regeneration practices, as taught by Buchbinder.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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 on (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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights