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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-16 of G. Pollefeyt, et al., US 18/547,530 (08/23/2023) are pending. Claims 3-14 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected Group(s). Claims 1 and 14-16 are under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I, without traverse, in the reply filed on 04/23/2026. Applicant cancelled claim 2 and incorporate the subject matter of the claim 2 into claim 1 in the reply filed on 04/23/2026. Claims 3-16 drawn to Groups II-VI are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The restriction requirement is maintained as FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to on the grounds of improper parenthetical. While Applicant may intend that the parenthetical phrase adds clarification, it is at best superfluous and better practice is to amend so as to remove the parentheticals to avoid confusion as to whether Applicant improperly intends preferences within the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Correction of all such parenthetical throughout the claims is required.
Claim 15 is objected to and required to amend the “C2-C3 olefin” to “C2-C4 olefin” to clarify the claimed method.
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.
35 USC § 103 Rejection over Kirilin
Claims 1, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Kirilin, et al, WO2020236431A1(2020)(“Kirilin”). Kirilin is effective prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) because: (1) it is published before the effective filling date of the instant application and (2) names other inventors. Applicant may consider an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) to remove Kirilin as prior art.
A. Kirilin, et al, WO2020236431A1(2020)(“Kirilin”)
Kirilin teaches a method for preparing C2 to C5 paraffins including introducing a feed stream of hydrogen gas and a carbon-containing gas selected from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mixtures thereof into a reaction zone of a reactor. Converting the feed stream into a product stream that includes C2 to C5 paraffins in the reaction zone in the presence of a hybrid catalyst. The hybrid catalyst including a microporous catalyst component; and a metal oxide catalyst component. Kirilin at abstract.
Kirilin teaches that the hybrid catalyst can be prepared by any method known to skilled artisan. Kirilin at page 9, [0031]-[0032].
Kirilin teaches examples of hybrid catalyst such as Example 5 that comprises a metal oxide catalyst component comprising gallium oxide and zirconia; and a microporous catalyst component SSZ-13 that is a molecular sieve having 8-MR (Membered Ring) pore openings; and the hybrid catalyst in Example 5 is prepared by physical mixing of the metal oxide catalyst component and a microporous catalyst. Kirilin at page 21-23, Example 5.
Per Example 5, Kirilin also teaches a process comprising introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide into a reaction zone of a reactor; and converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising Ethane, propane (47%), C4 paraffins at 400 ºC under the pressure of 30 bar in the reaction zone in the presence of the formed Example 5 hybrid catalyst. Kirilin Table 10 at page 22 [0087], and Table 1 at page 14 for the conditions of Condition 7-8.
Difference Between Kirilin and the Claims 1, 14 and 16
The Kirilin process differs from the instant claim 1 in that Kirilin does not teach to use the claimed method to prepare the claimed hybrid catalyst having a binder selected from alumina, zirconia, or both.
Obviousness Rationales of Claims 1, 14 and 16
Claims 1 and 16 are obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan seeking propane from hydrogen and carbon monoxide is motivated to modify the Kirilin method by:
(i). prepare a metal oxide catalyst component comprising Ga2O3 and ZrO2.
(ii). mixing the metal oxide catalyst component with the microporous catalyst component SSZ-13;
(iii). adding a solution of alumina as a binder to the above mentioned mixture to form a paste,
(iv). extruding the paste to produce the formed hybrid catalyst; and
(v). replacing the Kirilin Example 5 with the proposed catalyst to transfer H2 and CO into propane as taught by Kirilin.
thus arrive at a process meeting each and every limitation of claims 1 and 16, therefore, claims 1 and 16 are obvious.
One ordinary skilled artisan has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because by including a binder can increase physical stability of the hybrid catalyst as the production is conducted at condition of gas and solid contacting under high pressure (30 bar); and alumina is one of often used binder for hybrid catalyst preparation. See M. Molinier, et al, US 20070244000A1 (2007)(“Molinier”) as discussed below.
Claim 14 is obvious because Kirilin teaches to conduct the production at 400 ºC which anticipates the claim 350-480ºC.
35 USC § 103 Rejection over a Combination of Molinier, Wang and Liu
Claims 1 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M. Molinier, et al, US20070244000A1 (2007)(“Molinier”) in view of M. Wang, et al, 394Journal of Catalysis 181-192 (available online 08/25/2020) (‘Wang”) and X. Liu, et al. 54.2 Chemical Communications 140-143,(2018) (“Liu”).
M. Molinier, et al, US 20070244000A1 (2007)(“ Molinier”)
Molinier teaches a process for production of olefin product high in ethylene and propylene content using synthesis gas (syngas) as a feed. The syngas is converted to an intermediate composition high in methanol and dimethyl ether using a catalyst of at least two catalyst components, the first including at least one metal oxide and the second including at least one molecular sieve. The intermediate composition is then contacted with an olefin forming catalyst to form the olefin product. Molinier at abstract.
Regarding the methanol and dimethyl ether forming catalyst, Molinier teaches that:
According to one aspect of the invention, there is provided a methanol and dimethyl ether forming catalyst comprising a mixture of at least two catalyst components. The first of the catalyst components includes at least one oxide of at least one element selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, zinc, boron, magnesium, aluminum, vanadium, chromium, manganese, gallium, palladium, osmium, and zirconium, and the second of the catalyst components includes at least one MCM or SAPO molecular sieve.
Molinier at page 1, [0013], emphasis added.
Molinie teaches that:
the zeolite molecular sieve and the metal oxide are formed into a slurry and the slurry dried to form the alcohol forming catalyst of the invention. Binder and other materials are, optionally, used in forming the slurry. The binder materials used are preferably those that are resistant to high stress conditions such as temperature and mechanical stress conditions that occur in various hydrocarbon conversion processes. It is particularly preferred that the alcohol forming catalyst be resistant to mechanical attrition, that is, the formation of fines which are small particles, e.g., particles having a size of less than 20 microns. Examples of suitable binders that can be used include amorphous materials such as alumina, silica, titania, and various types of clays.
Molinier at page 7, [0079], emphasis added.
Molinie also teaches that:
the slurry of the molecular sieve and metal oxide is fed to a forming unit that produces a dried catalyst composition. Non-limiting examples of forming units include spray dryers, pelletizers, extruders, etc. Typically, the forming unit is maintained at a temperature sufficient to remove most of the liquid (e.g., water) from the slurry.
Molinier at page 8, [0086], emphasis added.
Molinie teaches that:
The conversion of syngas to the methanol and dimethyl ether intermediate can be accomplished over a wide range of temperatures. Lower to mid-temperature ranges are preferred. In one embodiment, the syngas is contacted with the catalysts at a temperature in the range of from about 150° C. to about 550° C., preferably in a range of from about 175° C. to about 450° C., more preferably in a range of from about 200° C. to about 400° C.
Molinier at page 8, [0088], emphasis added.
Regarding the olefin forming catalyst, Molinier teaches that one or a combination of SAPO-34 and ALPO-18 is most preferred. Molinier at page 9, [0099].
Molinier teaches working examples, such as Example 8 as follows:
Example 8
[0200] 2 ml of catalyst C were loaded in a reactor and tested for syngas conversion under the following conditions: T=300°C., P=750 psi, GHSV=5000, feed composition: 60% H2, 25% CO, 5% CO2, 10% N2. Average conversions and selectivity over a 20-hour period were as follows:
[0201] COx conversion=2.1%
[0202] Methanol selectivity=63.1%
[0203] Methane selectivity=0%
[0204] DME selectivity=7.8%
[0205]Other C2s, C3s, C4s, and C5+=balance
[0206] As indicated, the amount of methanol remains the major product from the syngas conversion, but ca. 8% DME is also obtained in the product.
Molinier at page 12, Example 8.
Per Example 3, Molinier teaches that the catalyst C is 50% SAPO-11/50% (60% CuO/30% ZnO/10% Mn2O3 (nominal). Molinier at page 11, Example 3.
Thus, the Molinier process such as Example 8 comprising:
(i). introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide into a reaction zone of a reactor
(ii). converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising the methanol and dimethyl ether in the presence of a formed hybrid catalyst 50% SAPO-11/50% (60% CuO/30% ZnO/10% Mn2O3).
Difference between Molinier and the Claims
The Molinier process differs from the instant claim 1 in that:
(i). the Molinier hybrid catalyst C does not comprise a metal oxide catalyst component including gallium oxide and zirconia, nor a binder comprising alumina, zirconia or both and it is not extruded, however, Molinier teaches that the metal oxide catalyst component can include gallium oxide and zirconia and the hybrid catalyst also can comprise a binder such as alumina; and the dried hybrid catalyst can be formed through extruding;
(ii). Molinier does not teach C2 to C4 hydrocarbons are formed in the same reaction zone in the presence of the formed hybrid catalyst, rather Molinier teaches that the olefin product is formed in the presence of an olefin forming catalyst.
M. Wang, et al, 394Journal of Catalysis 181-192 (available online 08/25/2020) (‘Wang”)
Wang teaches that:
Another newly developed route for direct transformation of syngas to C2-C4= is bifunctional catalysis, coupling methanol/ketene synthesis and C-C coupling reactions in one catalyst. This idea is inspired by one of the commercialized processes for the production of C2-C4= which separates methanol synthesis from syngas and methanol (or dimethyl ether, DME) to C2-C4= (MTO). Typical bifunctional catalysts are composed of mixed oxides and zeolites, which are responsible for CO activation and C-C coupling reactions, respectively.
Wang at page 181, right col, paragraph 2 to page 182, left col. line 6, emphasis added.
Wang also teaches that his group has developed a series of bifunctional catalysts composed of ZnO-ZrO2 oxide and SAPO-341 (or SSZ-13) zeolite that bridged methanol synthesis and the MTO reaction, which was named the SMO route (syngas via methanol intermediate to olefin), and the selectivity for C2-C4= could reach 87% at a CO conversion of 10%, or 77% by increasing CO conversion to 29%, wherein methanol and dimethyl ether were confirmed to be the key reaction intermediates. Wang at page 182, left col. line 12-18, emphasis added. Thus, Wang teaches that hybrid catalyst comprising SAPO-34 and ZnO-ZrO2 can direct transformation of syngas into C2-C4= with 77%-87% selectivity for C2-C4=.
Per Experimental section, Wang teaches that the formed hybrid catalyst composed of ZnO-ZrO2 and SAPO-34 was prepared by a physical mixing method in an agate mortar for 10 min as follows:
The mass ratio of ZnO-ZrO2 and SAPO-34 was fixed at 1:2 in this work. The mixture powders were pressed, crushed and sieved to granules of 30–60 meshes (grains, 250–600 μm) before reaction.
Wang at page 183, left col. paragraph 3, line 6-12, emphasis added.
Thus, the Wang catalyst is prepared by:
(i). mixing a metal oxide catalyst component that is ZnO-ZrO2 and a microporous catalyst component SAPO-34 , and
(ii). extruding the mixture to produce the formed hybrid catalyst
X. Liu, et al. 54.2 Chemical Communications 140-143,(2018) (“Liu”).
Liu teaches a bifunctional catalyst composed of ZnGa2O4 and SAPO-34, which catalyzes the direct conversion of CO2 to C2-C4 olefins with a selectivity of 86% and a CO2 conversion of 13% at 370°C. The oxygen vacancies on ZnGa2O4 surfaces are responsible for CO2 activation, forming a methanol intermediate, which is then converted into C2-C4 olefins in SAPO-34. Liu at abstract, emphasis added.
Obviousness Rationales of Claims 1 and 14-16
Claim 1 is obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan seeking C2-C4= olefin product is motivated to modify the Wang catalyst preparative method as follows to prepare a hybrid catalyst meeting each and every limitation of the claimed catalyst:
(i). prepare a metal oxide catalyst component comprising Ga2O3-ZnO-ZrO2.
(ii). mixing the metal oxide catalyst component with SAPO-34;
(iii). adding a solution of alumina as a binder to the above mentioned mixture to form a paste, and
(iv). extruding the paste to produce the formed hybrid catalyst
And then modify the Molinier example 8 by replacing of the catalyst C with the proposed catalyst resulting direct transformation of syngas into C2-C4= , thus arrive at a method meeting each and every limitation of claims 1and 16, therefore claims 1and 16 are obvious. One ordinary skilled artisan has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because:
(i). Molinier teaches that metal oxide of zinc, gallium and zirconium as well a binder such as alumina can be included into his methanol and dimethyl ether forming catalyst;
(ii). Molinier teaches that it is prefer the methanol and dimethyl ether forming catalyst be resistant to mechanical attrition and it can be formed by a extruder;
(iii). Wang teaches that hybrid catalyst comprising SAPO-34 and ZnO-ZrO2 can direct transformation of syngas to C2-C4= with 77%-87% selectivity for C2-C4=, wherein methanol and dimethyl ether are key reaction intermediates;
(iv). Liu teaches a bifunctional catalyst composed of ZnGa2O4 and SAPO-34, which catalyzes the direct conversion of CO2 to C2-C4 olefins with a selectivity of 86% and a CO2 conversion of 13%, wherein methanol is the key reaction intermediates and
(v). syngas used in the Molinier example 8 comprises 25% CO and 5% CO2
Thus, the proposed method can direct transformation of both CO and CO2 in the syngas to C2-C4= with high selectivity. The rationales supporting the modification is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.
Claim 14 is obvious because Molinier teaches that the syngas is contacted with the catalysts at a temperature in the range of from about 150°C. to about 550°C, which overlaps with the claimed 350-480°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP2144.05. I.
Claim 15 is obvious because wang teaches that the selectivity for C2-C4= is 77%-87% for catalyst ZnO-ZrO2/SPAO-34 and Liu teaches that the selectivity for C2-C4= is 85% for catalyst ZnO-Ga2O3/SPAO-34, therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that the proposed catalyst has a selectivity for C2-C4= more than 70% that is more than 70% products is C2-C4=, which meets the limitation of “C2-C3 olefin selectivity/paraffin selectivity ratio of from 2 to 20”. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections over US12,227,465B2
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-8, of US patent No. 12,227,465B2, which is the US patent of the WO2020236431A1 cited above for 103 rejection.
Conflicting Claims
The conflicting claims 1-2 and 7-8 respectively claims:
A method for preparing C2 to C5 paraffins comprising:
introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas and a carbon-containing gas selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mixtures thereof into a reaction zone of a reactor; and
converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising C3 to C5 paraffins in the reaction zone in the presence of a hybrid catalyst, the hybrid catalyst comprising:
a microporous catalyst component; and
a metal oxide catalyst component comprising a metal component present on a metal oxide support material, wherein the metal oxide support material comprises at least one oxide of a metal selected from Group 4 of the IUPAC periodic table of elements,
wherein the product stream has a C3/C2 carbon molar ratio greater than or equal to 4.0.
The method of claim 1, wherein the microporous catalyst component is a molecular sieve having 8-MR pore openings.
7. The method of any one of claims 1 to 6, where in the metal component of the metal oxide catalyst component is selected from the group consisting of zinc, gallium, indium, lanthanum, chromium and mixtures thereof.
8. The method of any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the metal oxide support material comprises titania or gallium.
Difference Conflicting Claims and Claims 1 and 16
The combination of conflicting claims 1-2 and 7-8 differs from claims 1 and 16 in that the conflicting claims does not claim the claimed method to prepare the claimed hybrid catalyst having a binder selected from alumina, zirconia, or both as the instant claim 1 claims.
Obviousness Rationales of Claims 1 and 16
Claims 1 and 16 are obvious for the same reason as detail discussed in the 103 rejection above.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections over US 12,454,496B2
Claims 1 and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8-9 of US patent No.12,454,496 B2.
Conflicting Claims
The conflicting claims 1 and 8-9 respectively claims:
1. A process for preparing C2 to C3 hydrocarbons comprising:
introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas and a carbon-containing gas selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mixtures thereof into a reaction zone of a reactor; and
converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising C2 to C3 hydrocarbons in the reaction zone in the presence of a hybrid catalyst, the hybrid catalyst comprising:
a mixed metal oxide catalyst component; and
a microporous catalyst component comprising 8-MR pore openings having a size less than or equal to 5.1 {acute over (Å)} and a cage defining ring size less than or equal to 7.45 {acute over (Å)}, wherein:
a C2/C3 carbon molar ratio of the product stream is greater than or equal to 0.7.
7. The process of claim 1, wherein the mixed metal oxide catalyst component comprises a metal oxide support material comprising zirconia.
8. The process of claim 7, wherein the mixed metal oxide catalyst component comprises gallium supported on zirconia.
9. The process of claim 1, wherein the reaction zone operates at a temperature from 370° C. to 470° C.
Difference between Conflicting Claims and Claims 1, 14-16
The combination of conflicting claims 1 and 8-9 differs from claim 1 in that the conflicting claims does not claim the claimed method to prepare the claimed hybrid catalyst having a binder selected from alumina, zirconia, or both as the instant claim 1 claims.
Obviousness Rationales of Claims 1 and 16
Claims 1 and 16 are obvious for the same reason as detail discussed in the 103 rejection above.
Claim 14 is obvious because the conflicting claim 9 claims the reaction zone operates at a temperature from 370°C. to 470°C, which anticipates the claimed 350°C. to 480°C.
Claim 15 is obvious because the conflicting claim 15 claims the C2 to C3 hydrocarbons consist essentially of olefins.
Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections over Co-pending Application 18/995,437
Claims 1 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 12 in the claim set filed on 01/16/2025 of co-pending Application No. 18/995,437 (not published yet).
The conflicting claims 1-2 and 12 respectively claims:
A process for preparing C2 to C4 hydrocarbons comprising:
introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas and a carbon-containing gas selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mixtures thereof into a reaction zone of a reactor; and
converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising C2 to C4 hydrocarbons in the reaction zone in the presence of a formed hybrid catalyst, the formed hybrid catalyst comprising:
a metal oxide catalyst component comprising gallium oxide and zirconia, wherein the zirconia has a macroporosity fraction that is less than 0.3;
a microporous catalyst component that is a molecular sieve having 8-MR (Membered Ring) pore openings; and
a binder comprising alumina, zirconia, or mixtures thereof.
A process for preparing a formed hybrid catalyst, the process comprising:
mixing a metal oxide catalyst component and a microporous catalyst component, wherein:
the metal oxide catalyst component comprises gallium oxide and zirconia, wherein the zirconia has a macroporosity fraction that is less than 0.3; and
the microporous catalyst component comprises a molecular sieve having 8-MR (Member Ring) pore openings;
adding a binder to the metal oxide catalyst component and the microporous catalyst component to form a paste, wherein the binder is a colloidal solution, suspension, or gel of a binder precursor comprising oxides or hydroxides of aluminum, oxides or hydroxides of zirconium, or mixtures thereof; and
extruding the paste to produce the formed hybrid catalyst.
12. The process of claim1, wherein the binder comprises pure alumina.
Claims 1 and 16 are obvious because the combination of conflicting claims 1-2 and 12 meets each and every limitation of claims 1 and 16, therefore, claims 1 and 16 are obvious.
Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections over Co-pending Application 18/995,527
Claims 1 and 14,16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9,11 and 14 in the claim set filed on 01/16/2025 of co-pending Application No. 18/995,527 (not published yet).
The conflicting claims 1, 9,11 and 14 respectively claims:
A process for preparing C2 to C4 hydrocarbons comprising: introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas and a carbon-containing gas selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mixtures thereof into a reaction zone of a reactor; and
converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising C2 to C4 hydrocarbons in the reaction zone in the presence of a hybrid catalyst, wherein the hybrid catalyst comprises:
a metal oxide catalyst component supported on zirconia, the metal oxide catalyst component comprising gallium oxide and a rare earth oxide; and
a microporous catalyst component comprising a molecular sieve having 8-MR (Member Ring) pore openings.
9. The process of claim 1, wherein a temperature within the reaction zone during the converting is from 350 °C to 480 °C.
11. The process of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide catalyst component is calcined at a temperature that is from 400 °C to 800 °C to form a calcined metal oxide catalyst component before being mixed with the microporous catalyst component.
14. The process of claim 11, wherein the calcined metal oxide catalyst component and the microporous catalyst component are mixed with a binder to form a paste, the paste is extruded to produce a hybrid catalyst,
the hybrid catalyst is dried and calcined, and
the binder is a colloidal solution, suspension, or gel of a binder precursor comprising oxides or hydroxides of aluminum, oxides or hydroxides of zirconium, or mixtures thereof.
Claims 1 and 14,16 are obvious because the combination of conflicting claims 9,11 and 14 meeting each and every limitation of claims 1, 14 and 16, therefore, claims 1, 14 and 16 are obvious.
Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections over Co-pending Application 19/521,956
Claims 1 and 14,16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 14 in the claim set filed on 03/23/2026 of co-pending Application No. 19/521,956 (not published yet).
The conflicting claims 1-2 respectively claims:
A process for preparing C2 to C5 hydrocarbons comprising:
introducing a feed stream comprising hydrogen gas and a carbon-containing gas selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mixtures thereof into a reaction zone of a reactor; and
converting the feed stream into a product stream comprising C2 to C5 hydrocarbons in the reaction zone in the presence of a formed hybrid catalyst, the formed hybrid catalyst comprising:
a metal oxide catalyst component comprising gallium oxide and zirconia;
a microporous catalyst component that is a molecular sieve having 8-MR (Membered Ring) pore openings; and
a binder comprising alumina, wherein the alumina binder is prepared as a colloidal solution, suspension, or gel by peptization of a binder precursor comprising oxides or hydroxides of aluminum with an organic carboxylic acid solution.
A process for preparing a formed hybrid catalyst, the process comprising:
mixing a metal oxide catalyst component and a microporous catalyst component, wherein:
the metal oxide catalyst component comprises gallium oxide and zirconia; and the microporous catalyst component comprises a molecular sieve having 8-MR (Member Ring) pore openings;
adding a binder to the metal oxide catalyst component and the microporous catalyst component to form a paste, wherein the binder is prepared as a colloidal solution, suspension, or gel by peptization of a binder precursor comprising oxides or hydroxides of aluminum, with an organic carboxylic acid solution; and
extruding the paste to produce the formed hybrid catalyst.
Claims 1 and 16 are obvious because the combination of conflicting claims 1-2 meeting each and every limitation of claims 1and 16, therefore, claims 1and 16 are obvious.
Claim 14 is obvious because the conflicting claim 14 further claims the temperature within the reaction zone during converting is 350-480ºC.
Terminal Disclaimer
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 A. Kirilin, et al, WO2020236431A1(2020)(“Kirilin”) indicates that SAPO-34 has 8-mr pore openings. See Kirilin at page 4, [0016], line 5.
Prosecution Insights