Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/278,966

LARGE SCALE SYNTHESIS OF OXIDATIVE DEHYDROGENATION CATALYST

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
BATES, ZAKIYA W
Art Unit
3674
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Nova Chemicals (International) S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
1151 granted / 1292 resolved
+37.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1315
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.2%
-5.8% vs TC avg
§102
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1292 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term “Method” should be lower-cased, and the term “are provided is stated in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the term “when present” should be deleted as sulfur is already positively set forth as present in line 2. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, 74, 77, 79, 83, and 92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GAO ET AL (US 2020/0024215 cited by applicant). With respect to claim 1, GAO ET AL discloses a catalyst composition comprising molybdenum, vanadium, tellurium, niobium, oxygen, wherein: the molar ratio of molybdenum to vanadium is from 1:0.05 to 1:0.60; the molar ratio of molybdenum to tellurium is from 1:0.01 to 1:0.30; and the molar ratio of molybdenum to niobium is from 1:0.01 to 1:0.40; and wherein oxygen is present at least in an amount to satisfy the valency of any present metal oxides, and wherein the composition comprises less than 1.0 wt. % of sulfur (includes no sulfur). See especially [0033], [0037], [0221-0222], and examples/tables. With respect to claim 2, GAO ET AL teaches wherein the composition comprises less than 0.50 wt. % sulfur (includes no sulfur). With respect to claim 7, GAO ET AL teaches wherein the composition comprises less than 5.0 wt. % water ([0033], and examples/tables). With respect to claim 8, GAO ET AL teaches wherein the composition comprises from 0.01 wt. % to 2 wt. % water ([0033], and examples/tables). With respect to claim 9, GAO ET AL teaches wherein: the molar ratio of molybdenum to vanadium is from 1:0.12 to 1:0.49; the molar ratio of molybdenum to tellurium is from 1:0.01 to 1:0.30; and the molar ratio of molybdenum to niobium is from 1:0.01 to 1:0.30 [0221-0222]. With respect to claim 74, GAO ET AL discloses a catalyst material comprising molybdenum, vanadium, tellurium, niobium, and oxygen, wherein: the molar ratio of molybdenum to vanadium is from 1:0.12 to 1:0.49; the molar ratio of molybdenum to tellurium is from 1:0.01 to 1:0.30; and the molar ratio of molybdenum to niobium is from 1:0.01 to 1:0.30; and wherein oxygen is present at least in an amount to satisfy the valency of any present metal oxides and sulfur, when present, comprises less than 0.01 wt. % of the catalyst material (includes no sulfur). See especially [0033], [0037], [0221-0222], and examples/tables. With respect to claim 77, GAO ET AL teaches wherein: the molar ratio of molybdenum to vanadium is from 1:0.30 to 1:0.35; the molar ratio of molybdenum to tellurium is from 1:0.13 to 1:0.17; and the molar ratio of molybdenum to tellurium is from 1:0.12 to 1:0.14 [0221-0222]. With respect to claim 79, GAO ET AL teaches wherein the catalyst material comprises less than 0.003 wt. % sulfur (includes no sulfur). With respect to claim 83, GAO ET AL teaches wherein the catalyst material comprises 27 wt. % to 33 wt. % oxygen (see examples/tables). With respect to claim 92, GAO ET AL teaches wherein the catalyst material comprises a mixed metal oxide having the empirical formula Mo1.0V0.30- 0.35Te0.13-0.17Nb0.12-0.14Od, wherein d is a number to satisfy the valence of the oxide. See examples and at least Tables 6-7. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-18, 20, 24-27, 31-34, 38, 42, 45, 66, 73, and 104 are allowed. Claims 3-6, 10, 11, and 81 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. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action, par. 3. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2017/198762 teaches a process of the oxidative dehydrogenation of an alkane containing 2 to 6 carbon atoms and/or the oxidation of an alkene containing 2 to 6 carbon atoms, wherein oxygen, water and the alkane and/or alkene are fed to a reactor and are contacted with a mixed metal oxide catalyst containing molybdenum, vanadium, niobium and optionally tellurium in the reactor, and wherein the molar ratio of water as fed to the reactor to oxygen as fed to the reactor is smaller than 1:1. US 2020/0215516 teaches a coated catalyst having an outer shell which is composed of a catalyst material having high surface area and contains molybdenum, vanadium, tellurium and niobium, and the use of this catalyst for the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane to ethene or the oxidation of propane to acrylic acid and also a process for producing the catalyst is disclosed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKIYA W BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-7039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm. 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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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. /ZAKIYA W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 1/28/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595732
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING DEFORMATION OF A TOOL STRING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590029
FILLING MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590524
Automated Detection of Plug and Perforate Completions, Wellheads and Wellsite Operation Status
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590522
VISCOELASTIC SURFACTANTS FOR ACID DIVERSION IN DOWNHOLE OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584369
SEALING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (-5.3%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1292 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month