DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application was filed on April 18, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 05/23/2023 and 07/22/2024, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (i.e., claims 11-17) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Dr. Luke A. Henderson on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to the restriction requirement. Claims 11-17 are under examination on the merits.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,350,585 (“the `585 patent”) to Al-Herz et al. in view of Hamid Abdul et al., Journal of the Korean ceramic society, (2023), 60(2), 344-356 (published on March 1st, 2023).
Applicant’s claim 11 is drawn to a cracking catalyst for steam enhanced catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons, the cracking catalyst comprising a hierarchical mesoporous ZSM-5 zeolite impregnated with manganese, zirconium, or manganese and zirconium, where the cracking catalyst has a mesopore volume of at least 0.30 cubic centimeters per gram (cm3/g).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `585 patent (Abstract) discloses zirconium-substituted hierarchical zeolite compositions and methods of preparing such catalytic compositions, and methods of catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon feedstocks using these zirconium-substituted hierarchical zeolite compositions. The `585 patent (col. 1, lns. 50-54) discloses to control coke formation and to reduce diffusion limitations of reactant and product hydrocarbons, micro/mesoporous-crystalline zeolites were produced with low diffusion resistance and greater external surface area. The `585 patent (col. 7, lns. 50-54) discloses the hierarchical zeolites-based FCC (fluid catalytic cracking) catalysts are ZSM-5 zeolites impregnated with zirconium and used in the HS-FCC reactions. In addition, the `585 patent (col. 7, ln. 56 - col. 8, ln. 2) discloses cracking activity depends both on acidity of zeolites and on their pore size distribution, the metal-substituted mesoporous zeolites are robust catalysts with improved hydrothermal stability and acidity, and after modification, the mesopores in the metal-substituted zeolite compositions have a pore diameter ranging from 2 to 4 nanometers with mesopore volume ranging from 0.26 cubic centimeters per gram (cc/g or cm3/g). Furthermore, the `585 patent (claim 10, and col. 9, lns. 55-58) discloses the zirconium-substituted zeolite is further impregnated at least a portion of hierarchical zeolite composition with one or more of phosphorous, lanthanum, and manganese, and the weight of phosphorus, or lanthanum, or manganese oxides that can impregnate the calcined hierarchical Zr-ZSM-5 can range from 2 to 5 weight percent (wt %) of the calcined hierarchical Zr-ZSM-5 composition.
Hamid Abdul et al. (Table 3) discloses large intraparticle mesoporosity of hierarchical ZSM-5 samples synthesized from Kaolin, and the mesopore volume of SA-6-30 is 0.519 cm3/g, the mesopore volume of SA-12-30 is 0.499 cm3/g, SA-24-30 is 0.475 cm3/g, etc. Hamid Abdul et al. (Abstract) further discloses the large intraparticle mesoporosity enables materials to have wide structural functions owing to intensify accessibility and mass transport properties; and the optimum aging condition produced intracrystalline mesopore ZSM-5 with the largest mesoporous surface area of 303.067 m2/g and 0.596 cm3/g of pore volume.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between instant claim 11 and the `585 patent is that the prior art does not teach the cracking catalyst (treated ZSM-5 zeolite) has a mesopore volume of at least 0.30 cm3/g. Instead, the `585 patent (col. 7, ln. 56 - col. 8, ln. 2) teaches the mesopores in the metal-substituted zeolite compositions (catalyst) have a pore diameter ranging from 2 to 4 nm with mesopore volume ranging from 0.26 cm3/g. The term “range from” can be interpreted as “at least”.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instant claim 11 would have been obvious over the `585 patent because the same prior art teaches the metal (zirconium)-substituted zeolite compositions (catalyst) has a mesopore volume ranging from 0.26 cm3/g, interpreted as at least 0.26 cm3/g. One ordinary skilled in the art would have understood that a mesopore volume ranging from 0.26 cm3/g would include the claimed limitation of “a mesopore volume of at least 0.30 cm3/g”. In addition, the difference is also taught and/or suggested by Hamid Abdul et al. Hamid Abdul et al. (Abstract) teaches large intraparticle mesoporosity enables materials to have wide structural functions owing to intensify accessibility and mass transport properties; and the optimum aging condition produced intracrystalline mesopore ZSM-5 with the largest mesoporous surface area of 303.067 m2/g and 0.596 cm3/g of pore volume. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to prepare a zeolite catalyst having the claimed mesoporous pore volume of at least 0.30 cm3/g in order to intensify accessibility and mass transport properties taught and/or suggested by both Hamid Abdul et al. and the `585 patent. Therefore, the `585 patent in view of Hamid Abdul et al. would have rendered claims 11-12 obvious.
In terms of claim 13 where the hierarchical ZSM-5 zeolite has a mesopore volume greater than or equal to 50% of the total pore volume of the hierarchical mesoporous ZSM-5 zeolite, Hamid Abdul et al. (Table 3) discloses the hierarchical ZSM-5 zeolite has a mesopore volume greater than or equal to 50% of the total pore volume of the hierarchical mesoporous ZSM-5 zeolite.
In terms of claim 14 where the manganese is present as manganese oxide and the cracking catalyst comprises from 1 wt.% to 5 wt.% manganese oxide based on the total weight of the cracking catalyst, the `585 patent (col. 9, lns. 55-58) discloses the zirconium-substituted zeolite is further impregnated at least a portion of hierarchical zeolite composition with one or more of phosphorous, lanthanum, and manganese, and the weight of phosphorus, or lanthanum, or manganese oxides that can impregnate the calcined hierarchical Zr-ZSM-5 can range from 2 to 5 weight percent (wt %) of the calcined hierarchical Zr-ZSM-5 composition.
In terms of claim 15 where the zirconium is present as zirconium oxide and the cracking catalyst comprises from 1 wt.% to 5 wt.% zirconium oxide based on the total weight of the cracking catalyst, the `585 patent (col. 5, lns. 44-48) discloses the zirconium-substituted zeolite contains zirconium in the range of 0.1% to 5%, or from 0.2% to 4%, or from 0.3% to 3%, as a weight percentage of zirconium in terms of the total zeolite.
In terms of claim 16 further comprising a beta zeolite, the `585 patent (col. 4, ln. 62) discloses the hierarchical zeolites include Beta-SBA-15, a specialized micro-mesoporous composite material that combines Beta zeolite crystals with the SBA-15 mesoporous structure.
In terms of claim 17 further comprising a beta zeolite, the `585 patent (col. 4, ln. 62) discloses the hierarchical zeolites include Beta-SBA-15, a specialized micro-mesoporous composite material that combines Beta zeolite crystals with the SBA-15 mesoporous structure.
Conclusions
Claims 11-17 are rejected.
Claims 1-10, and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731