DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 15 April 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-14 and 18-34 are pending. Claims 32-34 are newly added. Claims 1-14, 18-21, and 26-31 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions. Consequently, only claims 22-25 and 32-34 are pending for examination.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are maintained. Likewise, newly added claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 3,855,115).
With respect to claims 22, 23, 25, and 34 Morrison discloses a catalyst comprising a rhenium active component encaged in a HZSM-5 zeolite (see Morrison, Example 3) (indicating the exchange of rhenium “into” ZSM-5 zeolite). In additional embodiments of the catalyst Morrison discloses wherein the catalyst may be combined with a porous matrix (e.g., silica alumina), such porous matrix being either catalytically active or inactive (see Morrison, column 4, lines 52-67). The catalyst may additionally comprise sodium (alkali) constituents (see Morrison, column 3, lines 5-34), such as sodium (Group IA metal). With respect to claim 25, the claim does not substantively limit the claimed composition per se recited in claim 22.
Claims 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 3,855,115) in view of Ichikawa (US 2009/0076316).
With respect to claims 24 and 32, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. Ichikawa evidences that the oxide form of rhenium is suitable as the rhenium constituent in a catalyst intended for hydrocarbon aromatization (see Ichikawa, Abstract; and paragraph [0036]), as is the case with Morrison (see Morrison, Abstract).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 3,855,115) in view of Ichikawa (US 2009/0076316) and Froment (US 5,672,796).
With respect to claim 33, see discussion supra at paragraph 12. Froment discloses wherein sulfided rhenium is suitable as a catalyst for aromatizing saturated hydrocarbons (see Froment, Abstract). It is prima facie obvious to combine one prior art element (rhenium sulfide) with another prior art element (rhenium oxide) known to be useful for the exact same purpose (aromatization of hydrocarbons).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Neither Morrison nor Ichikawa discloses or suggests a rhenium catalyst comprising a cluster encaged in a zeolite support.
With respect to Applicant’s argument, Morrison makes repeated reference to the rhenium active phase being provided by means of “exchanging various anions and/or cations into the crystal structure of the zeolite” (see Morrison, column 5, lines 15-19; and column 9, lines 24-28) (emphasis added). Examiner submits that such disclosure clearly reads on both the “encaged” and “cluster” limitations as the metal ions involved in the ion exchange are undoubtedly charged atoms that find their way “into” the zeolite crystal structure, thus becoming entrapped, encapsulated, or otherwise “encaged” within such crystal structure. Such encaged charged atoms would undoubtedly form a “cluster” within the zeolite crystal structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights