DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/218,403 application filed 5 July 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9, 26-31 and 38-42 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, an alcohol synthesis catalyst has been interpreted as that described in paragraphs 0043-0047 of the published application including CZA [see paragraph 0043: “[a] particular representative alcohol synthesis catalyst, which may more particularly be a methanol synthesis catalyst, is a copper and zinc oxide on alumina catalyst, comprising or consisting essentially of Cu/ZnO/Al2O3. Such “CZA” alcohol synthesis catalyst (e.g., methanol synthesis catalyst) may also be an alcohol synthesis-functional constituent (e.g., methanol synthesis-functional constituent) of a bi-functional catalyst”]. Additionally, a dehydration catalyst has been interpreted as that described in paragraphs 0048-0051 of the published application including zeolite b [paragraph 0048: “[a] representative dehydration catalyst…may comprise a zeolite…Specific examples include SSZ-13 (CHA structure), zeolite Y(FAU structure), zeolite X(FAU structure), MCM-22 (MWW structure), zeolite beta (BEA structure), ZSM-5 (MFI structure), and ZSM-22 (TON structure), with zeolite beta and ZSM-5 being exemplary”]. A stabilizer has been interpreted as in paragraph 0033 of the published application (“the term ‘stabilizer,’ as described herein, therefore extends to metal additives, in their elemental form or in a compound form, which may generally have the effect of increasing activity and/or reducing deactivation”). A stabilizer “may be characterized as a noble metal stabilizer (e.g., Pt, Rh, Ru, Pd, Ag, Os, Ir, and Au) or a non-noble metal stabilizer (e.g., a metal of Group 3 or Group 4 of the Periodic Table, or a lanthanide)” [paragraph 0035].
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 26-28, 30-31, and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al in Applied Catalysis A: General (2014, vol 475, pp 155-160).
With respect to claims 1-3, 7, 28, and 40, Li et al discloses “the selective synthesis of LPG over the hybrid catalysts consisting of a Zr-modified Cu–Zn–Al methanol catalyst with modified zeolite (Pd-b). The results show that the catalyst is active at low temperature, stable and selective for the synthesis of LPG-rich paraffins from CO2…Modified Cu–Zn methanol synthesis catalyst was prepared by the co-precipitation sedimentation method. For convenience, these catalysts will be designed by an abbreviation, CZA (Cu/ZnO/Al2O3), CZZA (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3), CZZ (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2) throughout this paper [19]. The resulting catalyst has the composition of CZA (Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 = 4/3/3), CZZA (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3 = 4/3/1.5/1.5), CZZ (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2 = 4/3/3) by weight. A Pd-modified b-zeolite (NH4-b, Si/Al = 38) (Pd/b) was prepared by ion exchange with nitric acid solution of PdNO3 for 24 h, then dried at 100 ◦C overnight and calcining at 500 ◦C for 4 h. The loading amount of Pd was 0.1 wt%. Methanol synthesis catalysts and the Pd-b were independently pelletized, crushed and sieved to the particles of 0.36–0.71 mm, respectively. The two kinds of particles were then mechanically mixed well to form hybrid catalyst of CZA/Pd-b, CZZA/Pd- b and CZZ/Pd-b” [see last paragraph before heading “2. Experimental” and paragraph following said heading]. Any of CZA/Pd-b, CZZA/Pd- b and CZZ/Pd-b corresponds to the LPG synthesis catalyst system of the instant application, wherein the CZA, CZZA, and CZZ corresponds to the alcohol synthesis catalyst; the zeolite b corresponds to the dehydration catalyst; and the Pd corresponds to the stabilizer.
While Li et al does not disclose that the Pd reduces deactivation of the zeolite b, it is expected that, since the stabilizer of the instant application comprises Pd, and since the b zeolite of the reference is the same as the zeolite b dehydration catalyst of the instant application, the Pd in Pd-b stabilizes the zeolite b.
With respect to claims 5 and 9, note that claim 3 from which 5 and 9 depend is recited in the alternative only. Similarly, claim 28 from which claims 30 and 31 depend is recited in the alternative.
With respect to claim 8, while Li et al does not appear to explicitly disclose the weight ratio of any of CZA, CZZ, or CZZA to Pd-b, since the recited range is so broad (9.09 wt % CZA, CZZ, or CZZA/90.9 wt % Pd-b to 90.9 wt % CZA, CZZ, or CZZA/9.09 wt% Pd-b), a value within the range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, note that the instant application states “[i]n the case of…a bi-functional catalyst, (i) the respective alcohol (e.g., methanol) synthesis catalyst or alcohol (e.g., methanol) synthesis-functional constituent may comprise one or more alcohol (e.g., methanol) synthesis-active metals selected from the group consisting of Cu, Zn, Al, Pt, Pd, and Cr, and/or (ii) the respective dehydration catalyst or dehydration-functional constituent may comprise a zeolite or non-zeolitic molecular sieve” [paragraph 0011]. Therefore, the hybrid catalyst of Li et al corresponds to the bi-functional catalyst of the instant application.
With respect to claim 38, it is well known in the art that zeolite b is a solid acid.
With respect to claim 39, recall Li et al teaches “[m]odified Cu–Zn methanol synthesis catalyst was prepared by the co-precipitation sedimentation method…these catalysts will be designed by an abbreviation, CZA (Cu/ZnO/Al2O3), CZZA (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3), CZZ (Cu/ZnO/ZrO2).” Consequently, it is obvious that Pd-b is a methanol to LPG hydrocarbon catalyst. See, also, Table 1 and the hydrocarbon composition under the heading “H.C. composition” therein.
With respect to claim 41, see discussion above with respect to ion exchange of zeolite b with a nitric acid solution of PdNO3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 29, and 42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Li et al does not appear to disclose that the zeolite b may be modified with platinum instead of palladium. Additionally, Fujimoto et al (US 2011/0136924), which is concerned with “producing a liquefied petroleum gas containing propane or butane as a main component by reacting carbon monoxide with hydrogen” [paragraph 0001], discloses “[1.] [a] catalyst for producing a liquefied petroleum gas, which is used for producing a liquefied petroleum gas containing propane or butane as a main component by reacting carbon monoxide and hydrogen, comprising a Cu--Zn-based methanol synthesis catalyst; and a Cu-supported b-zeolite in which at least Cu is supported on a b-zeolite. [2.] The catalyst for producing a liquefied petroleum gas as described in [1], wherein a ratio (by weight) of the Cu--Zn-based methanol synthesis catalyst to the Cu-supported b-zeolite [(Cu--Zn-based methanol synthesis catalyst)/(Cu-supported b-zeolite)] is 0.1 to 5…The b-zeolite may contain an element other than Si and Al in the lattice. The Cu-supported b-zeolite to be used in the present invention may have at least one other metal together with Cu, which is supported on the b-zeolite. When a certain metal, together with Cu, is supported on a b-zeolite, Cu may be more stably supported on the fb-zeolite. Specific examples of the supported metal or metal compound may include Zr, Zn, Cr, Ni, Mo and Co. In the light of cost, it is not preferred that a noble metal…is supported on the b-zeolite” [paragraphs 0020-0023; 0094-0096]. That is, it does not appear that given the cost, Pt supported on b-zeolite would appreciably perform better than Zr, Zn, Cr, Ni, Mo or Co supported on zeolite b, let alone replacing the Pd-b of Li et al with Pt-b. Instead, given the similarity of the methanol synthesis catalyst in Fujimoto et al to that of Li et al, one would be more likely to substitute the Cu supported zeolite b of Fujimoto for the Pd-b of Li et al for cost savings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bell et al (US 5,569,789), which discloses that zeolite b is a solid acid catalyst [column 4, lines 62-24: “[t]he preferred catalytic methods known in the art…employ porous solid acid catalysts, such as zeolites Beta…”]; note that Fujimoto et al may be prior art for at least claims 1, 26, and 38 based on the discussion provided above. Fujimoto et al also discloses “[a] Cu-supported b-zeolite as a zeolite catalyst component acts as a solid acid zeolite catalyst” [paragraph 0072].
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
14 January 2026