DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozgun (Biofuels and Biochemicals Production From Microalgae Over Solid Catalyst, 1 July 2020, pages 1-89).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 6
Ozgun discloses a method of synthesizing a catalyst comprising the steps of:
preparing a silica sol using tetraethyl orthosilicate (>98 purity, Fluka), ethanol (>/- 99.8 % purity, Sigma-Aldrich), and deionized water were mixed with 1M hydrochloric acid (HCL, 36.5-38 wt %, Sigma-Aldrich) at 80 C for 2 hours;
preparing an alumina sol by mixing aluminum isopropoxide (> 98 % purity, Aldrich), deionized water and the intended acid such as sulfuric acid (>/- 98 % purity, Aldrich) at 85 C;
mixing the prepared sols and adding nickel (II) acetate hydrate (>99 % purity, Alfa Ceasar);
The excess solvent is evaporated at 70 C to obtain a gel;
The gel is dried at 120 C for 12 h, and calcined at 900 C for 6 hours with a 10 C/min heating rate; and
The catalyst is then ground and sieved to 100-200 mesh size. The prepared catalyst has the formulation Ni-Al2O3-SiO2, with 10 % Ni,30 % Al2O3 and 70% SiO2.
Ozgun does not disclose the time of reacting the alumina sol or the stirring rate. However, Ozgun does disclose heating within the claimed temperature and determining the optimal time for reaction is well within the level of the skilled artisan. Further, Ozgun discloses mixing which would require a mixing rate, and determining the optimal stirring rated is well with the level of the skilled artisan and is seen as obvious, absent any evidence of new or unexpected results.
Ozgun does not disclose evaporating the excess solvent under vacuum or inert flow for the claimed time. However, Ozgun does disclose drying within the claimed temperature. However, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the use of vacuum would increase the rate of evaporation, making the use of drying under vacuum obvious. Further, determining the time to properly dry the gel is with the level of the skilled artisan and is seen as obvious.
Ozgun discloses pretreating the catalyst with sodium chloride containing water (3.5 wt %) at 80 C for 24 h.
Although Ozgun does not disclose drying following the saltwater treatment, Ozgun does disclose that the catalytic assays are carried out using dry catalyst, making the limitation on drying obvious. Further determining the optimal drying time and temperature is well within the level of the skilled artisan
Ozgun discloses that the catalyst is used for catalytic conversion of microalgae Nannochloropsis oculate into a biofuel without harvesting and dewatering (pages 18-19, 2.4.1 Catalyst Preparation and 2.4.2 Catalyst activity determination).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest the limitations of these claims in combination with the limitations of the base claim(s) from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that Ozgun does not teach or suggest the claimed synthesis methodology and resulting catalyst structure. This is not persuasive as Ozgun discloses nearly an identical process, and applicants have not provided any evidence of new or unexpected results for the few slight difference not disclosed in Ozgun, which would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Applicants argue that their process the water is heated to 85 C within 30 minutes, where as Ozgun adds it directly to water that is 85 C. It is noted that directly adding to 85 C is obtaining 85 C within 30 minutes.
Applicants argue that the instant invention has optimized synthesis parameters such as the specific molar ratio. However, it is noted that no molar ratios are not claimed in the rejected claims.
Applicants argue that their invention has specific precursor addition order. While this may be true it is not persuasive as Ozgun discloses an identical addition order.
Applicants argue that they use a specific mixing duration. While this may be true applicants have not shown why the skilled artisan could not determine the optimal mixing time based on routine experimentation, nor have applicants provided any evidence of new or unexpected results for the claimed mixing duration.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
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 JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights