DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14-26 are pending, of which claims 25-26 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 14-24 in the reply filed on 1/9/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each invention grouping includes the special technical feature of the catalyst of claim 14. This is not found persuasive because the catalyst of claim 14 is not a special technical feature, as the catalyst does not make a contribution over the prior art, as shown in the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 25-26 are therefore withdrawn.
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) 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019154832 (“Karpov”).
Regarding claim 14, Karpov teaches an epoxidation catalyst that comprises silver, cesium, rhenium, and tungsten on an alumina support (see e.g. page 4, lines 11-22). Karpov teaches that the silver content is 20-45% by weight, which is entirely within the claimed range (see e.g. page 4, lines 11-14). Karpov teaches that the cesium content is preferably between 4.5-11.3 mmol/kg, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. page 4, line 36 to page 5, line 3 and claim 5). Karpov teaches that the rhenium content is between 3-9 mmol/kg, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. page 5, lines 5-9 and claim 5). The tungsten content of the catalyst is between 1.6-5.5 mmol/kg (see e.g. page 5, lines 11-16 and claim 5). For embodiments with the rhenium content within the claimed range, the value of cre + (2 X cw) is therefore between 9.9-20, the majority of which is within the claimed range.
Per MPEP 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Although the specific catalysts made in Karpov do not simultaneously meet each and every limitation, given the overlap of ranges claimed for every component, the claimed catalyst composition is obvious over that of Karpov.
Regarding claim 15, Karpov teaches that the tungsten content of the catalyst is between 1.6-5.5 mmol/kg, the majority of which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. page 5, lines 11-16 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 16, Karpov teaches that the rhenium content is between 3-9 mmol/kg, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. page 5, lines 5-9 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 17, Karpov teaches that the tungsten content of the catalyst is between 1.6-5.5 mmol/kg, which overlaps with and includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. page 5, lines 11-16 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, Karpov teaches that the cesium content is preferably between 4.5-11.3 mmol/kg, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. page 4, line 36 to page 5, line 3 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 19, Karpov teaches that the catalyst comprises lithium in a preferable amount of between 55-80 mmol/kg, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 6, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 20, Karpov teaches that the catalyst comprises sulfur in an amount of 0.6-15 mmol/kg, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 6, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 21, Karpov teaches that the catalyst preferably comprises 3.5-6.4 mmol/kg of potassium, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 5, lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 22, Karpov teaches that the catalyst is supported on alpha-alumina and does not mention any other phase of alumina (see e.g. page 15, lines 6-11). Accordingly, one of skill in the art would understand that Karpov uses more than 80% alpha-alumina.
Regarding claim 23, Karpov teaches that the surface area of the catalyst is 1.5-2.5 m2/g, nearly the entirety of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 8, lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 24, Karpov does not provide the exact pore volume of the catalyst. However, Karpov teaches that the water absorption of the catalyst is 0.35-0.70 ml/g (see e.g. page 8, lines 33-35). Given this water absorption, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the total pore volume is likely within the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736