DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 09/11/2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn in view of the cancelation of said claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks) with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fletcher (US 2020/0087228 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 3, and Fletcher, alone, does not teach each and every limitation of the amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hodoshima et al. (US 2017/0252731 A1), in view of Fletcher, as previously applied to claim 3 in the non-final rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC 103 over Hodoshima, in view of Fletcher, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a composite catalyst that surprisingly and unexpectedly excels both in conversion rate and lower olefin selectivity, in the production of the lower olefins from hydrocarbons. Applicant adds, “[b]y adding P2O5 to the composite catalyst of Hodoshima, the conversion rate of hydrocarbon feedstock surprisingly and unexpectedly increased, thereby realizing a composite catalyst that has both a high conversion rate and a high selectivity for lower olefins, which could not be predicted a priori.” Applicant contends that Fletcher only teaches that the presence of P2O5 improves the catalyst stability and, thus, it is inconceivable to add P2O5 to the composite catalyst of Hodoshima to achieve the surprising and unexpected increase in the conversion of hydrocarbon feedstock discovered by the present inventors.
In response, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive. It is acknowledged that Fletcher does not teach adding phosphorus to a composite catalyst increases conversion rate or lower olefin selectivity. However, mere recognition of additional advantages does not rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2145 (II). Fletcher clearly provides a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to add P2O5 to the composite catalyst of Hodoshima, since Hodoshima and Fletcher are both directed to converting a hydrocarbon feedstock, e.g., naphtha, to lower olefins using similar catalysts, and phosphorus improves the catalyst stability as taught by Fletcher ([0017]). Thus, a prima facie case is established that the claimed catalyst would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention. The teachings of Hodoshima and Fletcher, when combined, would inherently achieve the alleged advantages, i.e., increased conversion and lower olefin selectivity. Therefore, the argument with respect to the unexpected effects is not found persuasive.
The following is a modified prior art rejection based on the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodoshima et al. (US 2017/0252731 A1, cited in IDS dated 05/29/2025), in view of Fletcher (US 2020/0087228 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hodoshima discloses a composite catalyst comprising crystalline aluminosilicate having gallium and iron or iron and further having a framework with 8- to 12-membered ring; and silicon dioxide as a binder ([0054]). Hodoshima discloses that in embodiments where the zeolite is a crystalline aluminosilicate that contains iron and gallium: an acid density as a composition ratio of the number of moles of silicon to a sum of the number of moles of iron, gallium, and aluminum is 75.0 to 200.0, a composition ratio of the number of moles of gallium to a sum of the number of moles of iron, gallium, and aluminum is 0.1 to 0.4, and a composition ratio of the number of moles of iron to a sum of the number of moles of iron, gallium, and aluminum is 0.2 to 0.6 ([0018]-[0019]). Hodoshima teaches that the composite catalyst is useful for producing a lower olefin from a hydrocarbon feedstock such as naphtha ([0080]-[0082]).
Hodoshima does not teach that the composite catalyst further comprises diphosphorus pentoxide.
However, Fletcher, which discloses a cracking catalyst comprising (i) a zeolite containing a framework metal, such as Ga and/or Fe, and having a skeletal structure of an 8- to 12-membered ring, (ii) a binder (matrix) such as silica, and (iii) phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) ([0013]-[0014], [0020], [0058]), teaches that the catalyst is useful for producing light olefins, such as ethylene and propylene, and that the presence of P2O5 improves the catalyst stability ([0017], [0053]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to modify Hodoshima by adding P2O5 to the catalyst, as taught by Fletcher, because (i) Hodoshima and Fletcher teach similar cracking catalysts comprising a zeolite, Ga and/or Fe, and a support, (ii) Fletchers teaches adding phosphorus to the catalyst to improve its stability ([0017]), and (iii) this involves application of a known modifier to improve a known catalyst to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Fletcher teaches that the content of P2O5 in the catalyst is preferably between 1 and 5 wt% ([0017]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 to 5.0 wt%.”
Regarding claim 5, Hodoshima discloses that the catalyst may contain 5 to 50 wt% silicon dioxide ([0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Hodoshima discloses an example where a commercial silica “Aerosil 200” is used as binder ([0096]). Said commercial silica is known to have a BET surface area of 175-225 m2/g, which falls within the claimed range of “50 to 500 m2/g” (see attached appendix)
Regarding claim 9, Hodoshima discloses a composite catalyst comprising crystalline aluminosilicate having gallium and iron or iron and further having a framework with 8- to 12-membered ring; and silicon dioxide as a binder ([0054]). Hodoshima discloses that in embodiments where the zeolite is a crystalline aluminosilicate containing iron: an acid density as a composition ratio of the number of moles of silicon to a sum of the number of moles of iron, and aluminum is 75.0 to 200.0, and a composition ratio of the number of moles of iron to a sum of the number of moles of iron, and aluminum is 0.4 to 0.7 ([0021]-[0022]). Hodoshima teaches that the composite catalyst is useful for producing a lower olefin from a hydrocarbon feedstock such as naphtha ([0080]-[0082]).
Hodoshima does not teach that the composite catalyst further comprises diphosphorus pentoxide.
However, Fletcher, which discloses a cracking catalyst comprising (i) a zeolite containing a framework metal, such as Fe, and having a skeletal structure of an 8- to 12-membered ring, (ii) a binder (matrix) such as silica, and (iii) phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) ([0013]-[0014], [0020], [0058]), teaches that the catalyst is useful for producing light olefins, such as ethylene and propylene, and that the presence of P2O5 improves the catalyst stability ([0017], [0053]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to modify Hodoshima by adding P2O5 to the catalyst, as taught by Fletcher, because (i) Hodoshima and Fletcher teach similar cracking catalysts comprising a zeolite, Fe, and a support, (ii) Fletchers teaches adding phosphorus to the catalyst to improve its stability ([0017]), and (iii) this involves application of a known modifier to improve a known catalyst to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Fletcher teaches that the content of P2O5 in the catalyst is preferably between 1 and 5 wt% ([0017]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 to 5.0 wt%.”
Regarding claim 11, Hodoshima discloses that the catalyst may contain 5 to 50 wt% silicon dioxide ([0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Hodoshima discloses an example where a commercial silica “Aerosil 200” is used as binder ([0096]). Said commercial silica is known to have a BET surface area of 175-225 m2/g, which falls within the claimed range of “50 to 500 m2/g” (see attached appendix)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772