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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, filed on 03/08/2024, are under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8-10 recites the limitation "the first framework" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These claims should recite “the framework” for consistency with claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vieira et al. (“Effects of crystal size, acidity, and synthesis procedure on the catalytic performance of gallium and aluminum MFI zeolites in glycerol dehydration”, Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical 422 (2016) 148–157).
Regarding claim 1, Vieira teaches contacting glycerol (at least one alcohol) with an MFI zeolite framework type prepared from silicon, oxygen and gallium and without any aluminum (Section 2.1 on pg. 149, Section 2.3 on pg. 150, Section 3.2 on pg. 153, and Table 1 on pg. 150). The zeolite comprises micropores (Table 3 pm pg. 154 and section 4 on pg. 157) and thus, the zeolite is considered to comprise microporous framework type.
Regarding claim 2, Vieira teaches the contacting is carried out at 300°C (section 2.3 on pg. 150). The range disclosed temperature by the reference is within the instantly claimed range of 180-600°C and therefore; the instantly claimed range is anticipated by the reference as sufficiently supported by specific example—see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 6, Vieira teaches the framework type is MFI.
Regarding claim 16, Vieira teaches the glycerol dehydration is carried out with continuous flow over a fixed bed reactor (section 2.3 on pg. 150). Thus, the reactor system of Vieira comprises an inlet port; a reaction chamber, wherein the reaction chamber is in communication with the inlet port, wherein the reaction chamber contains at least one zeolite, wherein the at least one zeolite comprises a microporous framework, wherein the microporous framework comprises a framework type, and wherein the microporous framework comprises silicon atoms, oxygen atoms, and gallium atoms, with the proviso that the microporous framework does not comprise aluminum atoms; and an outlet port, wherein the outlet port is in communication with the reaction chamber.
Regarding claim 18, Vieira teaches the framework type is MFI.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu (US 4,822,939).
Vieira is silent about the WHSV of the alcohol dehydration reaction.
However, Chu discloses upgrading of lower molecular weight C1 -C4 oxygenates, such as alcohols, ethers, ketones and their acetals, and carboxylates is achieved in an efficient manner by contacting the oxygenates under reaction conditions with a medium pore acidic crystalline gallium containing ZSM-5 type catalyst having at least a portion of zeolitic gallium in tetrahedral coordination therein to provide Bronsted acid sites. The WHSV of this reaction is 1-10 hr-1 (col 2 lines 38-39).
Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used known WHSV for dehydration of alcohols over Ga-ZSM-5 type catalyst because this involves applying known flow techniques to alcohol dehydration over zeolites with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02.
Claims 4-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira et al. (“Effects of crystal size, acidity, and synthesis procedure on the catalytic performance of gallium and aluminum MFI zeolites in glycerol dehydration”, Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical 422 (2016) 148–157).
It is noted that Vieira does not suggest an extra framework type, that framework type does not comprise aluminum, or that the extra framework is Ga2O3.
However, Vieira exemplifies that Ga2O3 has low coke formation tendency and lowest coke amount compared to the Ga-MFI catalyst and to aluminum-comprising catalysts (Table 3 on pg. 154).
It should be noted that mixing/supporting zeolites with binders like gallium oxide is commonly practiced in the art.
Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used Ga2O3 as support for the Ga-zeolite because 1) limit or eliminate presence of aluminum, and 2) reduce coke accumulation/formation on the catalyst.
Claims 7-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wyman et al. (US 2021/0269723).
For claims 7-10 and 19-20, it is noted that Vieira teaches MFI type framework but is silent about the claimed framework type being MWW/Ga-MCM-22, CHA/Ga-SSZ-13, or Ga-ZSM-5.
However, Wyman is directed to converting alcohols to fuels at temperatures of 200-600 °C [0011] wherein the catalysts used in this type of reaction include zeolites ZSM-5/MFI, MCM-22/MWW, and SSZ-13/CHA [0033]-[0034]. The catalyst further comprises metallic species such as gallium [0036], [0041] and [0047].
For claims 11-15, it is noted that Vieira teaches the alcohol is glycerol (C3H8O3) but is silent about the alcohols feed comprising methanol and/or ethanol to make the corresponding hydrocarbon olefins including ethylene and propylene.
However, Wyman teaches contacting renewable alcohols such as ethanol or methanol [0052] to make olefins having 2-4 carbons [0055] (ethylene or propylene). It is noted that Wyman suggests similar catalysts and similar temperatures to those of Vieira, as discussed above. Additional evidence of converting oxygenates, such as alcohols, to olefins and/or aromatics over Ga-ZSM-5 type zeolite can be found in Chu (US 4,822,939): “the upgrading of lower molecular weight C1 -C4 oxygenates, such as alcohols, ethers, ketones and their acetals, and carboxylates is achieved in an efficient manner by contacting the oxygenates under reaction conditions with a medium pore acidic crystalline gallium containing ZSM-5 type catalyst having at least a portion of zeolitic gallium in tetrahedral coordination therein to provide Bronsted acid sites.”.
Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have 1) used known alcohol dehydration zeolites such as CHA, MWW or MFI, with 2) known alcohol feeds of dehydration reaction, including renewable alcohols methanol and ethanol, to make petrochemical intermediates olefins and aromatics over Ga-zeolite type catalysts of Vieira because this involves applying known oxygenate dehydration catalytic techniques with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights