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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of Application No. JP2021-111071, filed 02 July 2021, and Application No. JP2022-067956, filed 14 April 2022, have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 02 January 2024 and 08 October 2024 have been reviewed and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the phrase, “wherein a ratio (MPd/(MPt+MPd)) of mass (MPd) of Pd to total mass (MPt+MPd) of mass (MPt) of Pt and the mass (MPd) of Pd supported on the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.70 or less,” does not follow the general English convention of fully defining an acronym/reference character before providing the reference, and should be corrected to read as “wherein a ratio (MPd/(MPt+MPd)) of mass of Pd (MPd) to total mass of the mass of Pt (MPt) and the mass of Pd (MPd) supported on the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.70 or less,” to improve readability.
In claim 5, the phrase, “wherein a ratio (M1/(M1+M2)) of mass (M1) of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material to total mass of the mass (M1) of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material and mass (M2) of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.30 or more and 0.95 or less,” uses nonconventional sentence structure, and should be corrected to read as, “wherein a ratio (M1/(M1+M2)) of mass of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (M1) to total mass of the mass of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (M1) and mass of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material (M2) is 0.30 or more and 0.95 or less,” to improve readability.
In claim 6, the phrase, “wherein the ratio (M1/(M1+M2)) of the mass (M1) of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material to the total mass of the mass (M1) of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material and the mass (M2) of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.30 or more and less than 0.70,” uses nonconventional sentence structure, and should be corrected to read as, “wherein a ratio (M1/(M1+M2)) of the mass of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (M1) to the total mass of the mass of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (M1) and the mass of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material (M2) is 0.30 or more and less than 0.70,” to improve readability.
In claim 7, the phrase, “wherein the ratio (M1/(M1+M2)) of the mass (M1) of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material to the total mass of the mass (M1) of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material and the mass (M2) of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.50 or more and 0.95 or less,” uses nonconventional sentence structure, and should be corrected to read as, “wherein a ratio (M1/(M1+M2)) of the mass of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (M1) to the total mass of the mass of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (M1) and the mass of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material (M2) is 0.50 or more and 0.95 or less,” to improve readability.
In claim 8, the phrase, “wherein a ratio of the total mass (MPt+MPd) of the mass (MPt) of Pt and the mass (MPd) of Pd in the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material to the mass (M2) of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.0 mass% or less,” uses nonconventional sentence structure, and should be corrected to read as, “wherein a ratio ((MPt+MPd)/M2) of the total mass of the mass of Pt (MPt) and the mass of Pd (MPd) in the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material to the mass of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material (M2) is 0.1 mass% or more and 1.0 mass% or less,” to improve readability.
In claim 10, the phrase, “wherein mass (MP) of P in the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material to the mass (M2) of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is more than 0 mass% and less than 5.0 mass%,” uses nonconventional sentence structure, and should be corrected to read as, “wherein a ratio of the mass of P (MP) in the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material to the mass of the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material (M2) is more than 0 mass% and less than 5.0 mass%,” to improve readability.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. CN103508828A (published 15 Jan 2014, provided English machine translation referenced herein) in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008195773A (published 28 August 2008, provided English machine translation referenced herein).
In regard to claim 1, Chinese Patent Publication No. CN103508828A (herein referred to as CN ‘828A) teaches a catalyst for synthesizing small hydrocarbons from CO and H2 gas [0011] comprising a CuO/ZnO/Al2O3 catalytic material [0014] and an MFI-type (ZSM-5) zeolite loaded with Pt [0015].
CN ‘828A does is silent on the silica:alumina molar ratio (SAR) of the ZSM-5 zeolites which they employ in the catalyst. ZSM-5 zeolites may generally have a SAR of >12.
However, Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008195773A (herein referred to as JP ‘773A) teaches a catalyst for producing PLG comprising a Cu-Zn based catalytic material and a Pd-supporting zeolite material [0012] wherein the zeolite is a ZSM-5 (MFI type zeolite). JP ‘773A specifically disclose a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, which is within the instantly claimed range of SAR=20-60, loaded with 0.5 wt% Pd [0056] & [0057]. The SAR of a zeolite has a distinct impact on the number of available acid sites and overall acidity, as well as the robustness of the framework, all of which has crucial implications for catalytic activity towards a reaction. As observed in Table 2 of JP ‘773A, the catalyst composition comprising a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 had the highest overall rates of CO conversion amongst the zeolites tested (see pp. 12 of original document, row 9).
Without a disclosure of a specific ZSM-5 SAR in CN ‘828A, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine what silica:alumina ratio in the zeolite structure would be catalytically effective amongst the near-infinite possibilities of the ZSM-5 framework. JP ‘773A discloses that a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 is an effective zeolite catalyst for the conversion of CO and H2 to hydrocarbons/PLG. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, as taught by JP ‘773A, for use in the catalyst composition disclosed by CN ‘828A in order to yield a catalyst as instantly claimed.
In regard to claims 2 and 3, CN ‘828A teaches that the molecular sieve used (e.g. ZSM-5, an MFI-type zeolite) may be loaded with exclusively Pt as a catalytic metal or a combination of Pd, Pt, Ru, Rh, Cu, Fe, Co or Mn, as catalytic metals [0015].
In regard to claims 5, 6, and 7, CN ‘828A teaches that the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (e.g. the CO hydrogenation catalyst) and the MFI-type zeolite (e.g. metal-modified molecular sieves) may be combined in a ratio between 3:1 (i.e. 75% Cu-Zn) and 1:3 (i.e. 25% Cu-Zn) most preferably [0011]. The disclosed range, 0.25-0.75 Cu-Zn-based material mass/total catalyst mass, overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of 0.30-0.95 (claim 5), 0.30-0.70 (claim 6), and 0.50-0.95 (claim 7).
The two components are responsible for different reactions during the overall conversion of CO and H2 to hydrocarbons, where the Cu-Zn-based material is notably responsible for the hydrogenation of CO to methanol, while the MFI-zeolite material converts methanol to other hydrocarbons [0011], [0045]. As CN ‘828A notes that the disclosed catalyst is especially effective at reducing methanol is the final product distribution (<5%), it is evident that the ratio of the two catalysts with respect to each other has an impact on the product distribution [0009], [0011], [0039]. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was by selecting the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
In regard to claim 8, CN ‘828A teaches that when Pd and/or Pt are used, they are loaded onto the zeolite material at a proportion of 0.01-5 wt%, herein interpreted as equivalent to 0.01-5 mass%, which overlaps the instantly claimed loading proportion of 0.1-1.0 mass% [0016]. CN ‘828A further delineates different loading proportions depending on the identity of the metal (noble metals vs. 1st row transition metals) indicating there is an incentive to minimize the use of noble metals while maintaining high catalytic turnover [0016] & [0017]. With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges previously discussed, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
In regard to claim 11, CN ‘828A teaches that the final catalyst composition is produced by mixing together dried and powdered Cu-Zn-based catalytic material (e.g. CO hydrogenation catalyst) and the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material (e.g. modified molecular sieve) [0034] & [0036]. The Cu-Zn-based catalytic material and the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material are two distinct components.
In regard to claim 12, CN ‘828A teaches a method of producing low-carbon alkanes (such as propane and ethane, components of LPG) from syngas by reducing a composite catalyst under pure H2 between 230-300°C [0038]; introducing the reacting gas, a mixture of H2 and CO [0038]; and letting the H2/CO gas mixture react over the catalyst to form ethane and propane [0039].
In regard to claim 13, CN ‘828A teaches that the gas hourly space velocity for the introduction of syngas is 500-5000 h-1, which is within the instantly claimed range of 500-20,000 h-1 [0012].
In regard to claim 14, CN ‘828A teaches that the synthesis reaction temperature may be 260-450°C, which overlaps the instantly claimed reaction temperature range of 260-330°C [0012]. Table 1 of CN ‘828A shows a series of synthesis experiments at varying temperatures which indicate higher CO conversion at the temperatures 325°C and 350°C versus 300°C and 375°C, indicating the efficacy of the reaction is temperature-dependent (see pp. 4 of original document and [0045]). With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
In regard to claim 15, CN ‘828A teaches that the synthesis step may be conducted under a pressure of 1.0-5.0 MPa, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2.0-6.0 MPa [0012]. Table 2 of CN ‘828A shows a series of synthesis experiments at varying pressures which indicate highest CO conversion at pressures above 2.0 MPa, indicating the efficacy of the reaction is both pressure-dependent and more successful at pressures at or above 2.0 MPa as instantly claimed (see pp. 4 of original document and [0050]). The claimed reacting pressure conditions as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to by selection of the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN '828A and JP '773A as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tissler et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,118,164 B2, published 6 November 2018).
CN ‘828A and JP ‘773A do not disclose a specific ratio of Pt:Pd that is loaded onto the ZSM-5 zeolite carrier. However, Tissler et al. teaches a bimetallic Pd/Pt zeolite-supported catalyst capable of oxidizing hydrocarbon intermediates into other hydrocarbons, with improved conversion rates and significant resistance to sulfur- and temperature-based degradation (Col. 1, lines 64-67 and Col. 2, lines 9-17). Tissler et al. further teaches that an MFI-type zeolite (Col. 3, lines 28-40) may be used to support a combination of Pt and Pd with a 0.2-1.5 wt% loading of Pt (Col. 4, lines 55-57), a 0.8-4.0 wt% loading of Pd (Col. 4, lines 58-60), and a Pd/Pt weight ratio of 4-2:1 (i.e. Pd/(Pd+Pt) = 0.33-0.80) (Col. 5, lines 9-13). The disclosed preferred ratio of Pd/Pd+Pt overlaps the instantly claimed ratio range of 0-0.70. As disclosed by Tissler et al., the bimetallic catalyst exhibits high oxidation activity using the given ratio of Pd:Pt, and a person or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the Pd:Pt ratio disclosed by Tissler et al. in the catalyst composition of CN ‘828A when employing both Pt and Pd as metals in order to maximize the catalytic efficiency of the metals while being economical in the use of nonabundant Pt.
Furthermore, with respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges previously discussed, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN '828A and JP '773A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of van der Bij et al. (Chem. Soc. Rev., 2015, 44, 7406).
In regard to claim 9, CN ‘828A does not teach that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material further comprises phosphorous (P). However, CN ‘828A does teach the use of SAPO-34, a phosphorus-substituted CHA-type zeolite, as a support for catalytic metals. Furthermore, CN ‘828A teaches the combined use of Pd/SAPO-34 and Pd/ZSM-5 mixed with Cu-ZnO-Al2O3 as catalytic material to form a composite catalyst [0054]. The different structural characteristics and acidity of the zeolite materials had an effect on the CO conversion rate and product distribution, specifically through variation of the amount of the phosphorus-containing SAPO-34 (see table on pp. 5 of original document & [0055]).
Van de Bij et al. teaches that phosphorous is a well-known promoter for the methanol-to-hydrocarbon reaction and imparts improved hydrothermal stability in ZSM-5 zeolites (pp. 7408, left column, lines 1-6) and can boost selectivity in the conversion of methanol to small alkanes (pp 7408, left column, lines 9-14). Increased hydrothermal stability of zeolites is extremely important to zeolites’ applicability in high-temperature, high-pressure industrial processes such as LPG synthesis. While additions of phosphorous into the zeolite can decrease the number of acid sites present (pp. 7413, left column, lines 41-43), the added phosphorus drastically improves the retainment of acid sites during and after hydrothermal treatment, improving the longevity of the catalyst (pp. 7515, right column, lines 29-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst composition taught by CN ‘828A to include phosphorous as a reaction promoter in the ZSM-5 zeolite catalytic material and to increase thermal stability of the catalyst as suggested by van der Bij and produce the catalyst as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 10, the optimal loadings of phosphorous to ZSM-5 zeolites have been determined in the literature for both maximizing positive influence on the acidic character of the zeolite and the increases in hydrothermal stability. Specifically, the introduction of phosphorous creates defects in the zeolite lattice which forms new acid sites (pp. 7413, left column, lines 32-36), but at phosphorous loadings above 5 wt%, strong acid sites nearly completely disappear (pp. 7413, right column, lines 5-7). Furthermore, phosphorus loadings of 1.3wt%, 1.4 wt%, and 2 wt% were reported in the literature to have a positive effect on hydrothermal stability of the zeolite (pp. 7415, right column, lines 34-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that when adding phosphorous to a zeolite to tailor acidity and hydrothermal stability, to not load the zeolite with phosphorous in excess of 5 wt%, as instantly claimed, to ensure that the catalytic acid sites of the zeolite are retained.
Double Patenting
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).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, and 5 of co-pending Application No. 18/575,882 in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2008195773-A.
In regard to claim 1, of the instant application, claims 2 and 4 of the reference application teach a catalyst comprising a Cu-Zn-based catalytic material, an MFI-type zeolite catalytic material which supports only Pt (claim 2) or Pt and Pd (claim 4). The claims of the reference application do not recite that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material has a silica:alumina molar ratio of 20-60.
However, Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008195773A (herein referred to as JP ‘773A) teaches a catalyst for producing PLG comprising a Cu-Zn based catalytic material and a Pd-supporting zeolite material [0012] wherein the zeolite is a ZSM-5 (MFI type zeolite). JP ‘773A specifically disclose a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, which is within the instantly claimed range of 20-60, loaded with 0.5 wt% Pd [0056] & [0057]. The SAR of a zeolite has a distinct impact on the number of available acid sites and overall acidity, as well as the robustness of the framework, all of which has crucial implications for catalytic activity towards a reaction. As observed in Table 2 of JP ‘773A, the catalyst composition comprising a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 had the highest overall rates of CO conversion amongst the zeolites tested (see pp. 12 of original document, row 9). JP ‘773A discloses that a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 is an effective zeolite catalyst for the conversion of CO and H2 to hydrocarbons/PLG. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of claims 2 and 4 of the reference application by selecting a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, as taught by JP ‘773A, for use in a PLG-producing catalyst and yielding a catalyst as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 2 of the instant application, claim 2 of the reference application recites that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material only supports Pt as a noble metal.
In regard to claim 3 of the instant application, claim 4 of the reference application recites that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material supports Pt and Pd.
In regard to claim 4 of the instant application, claim 5 of the reference application recites that a mass ratio of Pd to the total mass of Pd and Pt supported on the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material is 0.70 or less.
In regard to claims 9 and 10 of the instant application, claims 2 and 4 of the reference application recite that the catalyst comprises an MFI-type zeolite catalytic material which supports Pt and P, and that the P is loaded on the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material between 0-4.5 mass% with respect to the total mass of the catalytic material. The instantly claimed range is anticipated by the narrower range of the reference application.
Claims 1-5, and 9-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/575,857 in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2008195773-A (JP ‘773A).
In regard to claims 1 and 5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the reference application recites a catalyst comprising a Cu-Zn-based catalytic material, an MFI-type zeolite catalytic material which supports Pt, wherein the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material accounts for 30-95% of the composition by mass. Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material has a silica:alumina molar ratio of 20-60.
However, Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008195773A (herein referred to as JP ‘773A) teaches a catalyst for producing PLG comprising a Cu-Zn based catalytic material and a Pd-supporting zeolite material [0012] wherein the zeolite is a ZSM-5 (MFI type zeolite). JP ‘773A specifically disclose a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, which is within the instantly claimed range of 20-60, loaded with 0.5 wt% Pd [0056] & [0057]. The SAR of a zeolite has a distinct impact on the number of available acid sites and overall acidity, as well as the robustness of the framework, all of which has crucial implications for catalytic activity towards a reaction. As observed in Table 2 of JP ‘773A, the catalyst composition comprising a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 had the highest overall rates of CO conversion amongst the zeolites tested (see pp. 12 of original document, row 9). JP ‘773A discloses that a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 is an effective zeolite catalyst for the conversion of CO and H2 to hydrocarbons/PLG. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of claim 1 of the reference application by selecting a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, as taught by JP ‘773A, for use in a PLG-producing catalyst and yielding a catalyst as instantly claimed in claims 1 and 5.
In regard to claim 2 of the instant application, claim 4 of the reference application recites that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material supports only Pt.
In regard to claims 3 and 4 of the instant application, claim 5 of the reference application recites that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material further supports Pd, and claim 6 of the reference application recites that Pd accounts for 70% or less of the noble metals supported on the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material.
In regard to claim 11 of the instant application, claim 8 of the reference application recites that the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material and the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material independently exist and are in the form of granulated powder or molded body.
In regard to claims 12 and 15 of the instant application, claims 9 and 12 of the reference application recite the same method steps and that the reaction is conducted under a pressure of 2.0-6.0 MPa.
In regard to claims 13 and 14 of the instant application, claim 10 of the reference application recites that in the synthesis method CO and H2 may be supplied at a gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 300-20,000/h and claim 11 recites that the synthesis step is performed between 260-360°C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that reactant concentration and reaction temperature both have a direct impact on the kinetics of a chemical reaction, and that both reactant GHSV and temperature are results-effective variables. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would find the narrower scopes of claims 13 and 14 (500-20,000/h and 260-330°C respectively) to be obvious after optimization of the scopes claimed in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, and 5-9 of co-pending Application No. 18/855,332 in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP-2008195773-A (JP ‘773A).
In regard to claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the reference application recites a catalyst comprising a Cu-Zn-based catalytic material, an MFI-type zeolite catalytic material which supports Pt. Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material has a silica:alumina molar ratio of 20-60.
However, JP ‘773 teaches a catalyst for producing PLG comprising a Cu-Zn based catalytic material and a Pd-supporting zeolite material [0012] wherein the zeolite is a ZSM-5 (MFI type zeolite). JP ‘773A specifically disclose a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, which is within the instantly claimed range of 20-60, loaded with 0.5 wt% Pd [0056] & [0057]. The SAR of a zeolite has a distinct impact on the number of available acid sites and overall acidity, as well as the robustness of the framework, all of which has crucial implications for catalytic activity towards a reaction. As observed in Table 2 of JP ‘773A, the catalyst composition comprising a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 had the highest overall rates of CO conversion amongst the zeolites tested (see pp. 12 of original document, row 9). JP ‘773A discloses that a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40 is an effective zeolite catalyst for the conversion of CO and H2 to hydrocarbons/PLG. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of claim 1 of the reference application by selecting a ZSM-5 zeolite with a SAR of 40, as taught by JP ‘773A, for use in a PLG-producing catalyst and yielding a catalyst as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 5 of the instant application, claim 3 of the reference application recites that a mass ratio of the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material to the total mass of the composition is 0.30-0.95 as instantly claimed.
In regard to claims 9 and 10 of the instant application, claim 1 of the reference application teaches that the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material supports P in an amount of 0-4.5 mass%, which is within the instantly claimed range of 0-5.0 mass% in claim 10.
In regard to claim 11 of the instant application, claim 5 of the reference application recites that the Cu-Zn-based catalytic material and the MFI-type zeolite catalytic material independently exist and are in the form of granulated powder or molded body.
In regard to claims 12-15 of the instant application, claims 6-9 of the reference application recite the same method steps (a reduction treatment, a supply step, and a synthesis step) and reaction conditions (500-20000/h GHSV, 260-300°C, 2.0-6.0 MPa) as instantly claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights