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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: all sentences after a bullet point should be lowercase. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stamires et al. (WO 2006067154 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stamires et al. discloses the process for the preparation of a catalyst (page 1, lines 3-4). The process comprises the steps of:
Preparing a slurry comprising clay, zeolite, a sodium-free silica source, quasi-crystalline boehmite, and micro-crystalline boehmite
Adding a monovalent acid to the slurry
Adjusting the pH of the slurry to a value above 3, and
Shaping the slurry to form particles (page 3, lines 10-16).
Stamires et al. discloses step a) which is equated to bullet points a., c., d., and f. of claim one. The slurry of step a) is prepared by suspending clay, zeolite, sodium-free silica source (the first silica), non-peptised quasi-crystalline boehmite, and micro-crystalline boehmite in water (page 7, lines 5-8). The zeolite added to the slurry can be USY, HY, dealuminated Y, RE-Y, and RE-USY – zeolite beta (page 6, lines 18-21). The present invention’s claim language does not preclude adding zeolite to the slurry before digestion of the slurry with acid, so the addition of zeolite in the initial slurry satisfies bullet c.
Other components may be added to the slurry like a lanthanide (page 7, lines 18) satisfying bullet d. Also, calcium-silicates or magnesium silicates may be added to the slurry (page 7, line 10-11) satisfying bullet f.
Stamires et al. discloses step b) which is equated to bullet points b. and e. In this step, a monovalent acid is added to the suspension causing digestion (page 8, lines 14-15). The amount of acid added is sufficient to obtain a pH lower than 7, most preferably between 3 and 4 (page 8, lines 20-21). It is unclear how digesting the slurry to a pH less than 4 and adjusting the slurry pH to below 4 are distinguishable from each other in the claim language, nevertheless, step b) achieves both by lowering the pH between 3 and 4 so both bullet points b. and e. are met.
Stamires et al. discloses step c) which is equated to bullet point g. In this step, the pH of the slurry is adjusted to a value above 3, most preferably about 4.5 or higher (page 8, lines 25-28).
Stamires et al. discloses step d) which is equated to bullet point h. In this step, the produced catalyst is shaped with methods like spray-drying, pulse drying, pelletizing, extrusion, and beading (page 9, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 3, Stamires et al. discloses sodium-free silica sources used in the slurry are polysilicic acid (page 3, lines 24-25).
Regarding claims 6-8, Stamires et al. is silent pores of the produced catalyst, but the process Stamires et al. discloses is the same as presently claimed. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the catalyst produced in Stamires et al. inherently has the pore characteristics of the catalyst in claims 6-8. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205USPQ 594.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamires et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6-8 above, and further in view of Kuvettu et al. (US 20030166453 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Stamires et al. discloses the process of claim 1 but does not disclose the first silica comprises sodium stabilized colloidal silica.
Kuvettu et al. discloses a stabilized dual zeolite low coke forming single particle catalyst bonded with silica alumina binder (paragraph 0041). Colloidal silica is used in the binder and is aqueous colloidal dispersions of silica particles, stabilized using small quantities of soda which includes sodium (paragraph 0108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the sodium-free silica source of Stamires et al. with the sodium stabilized colloidal silica in Kuvettu et al. because of the catalyst binding properties of sodium-stabilized colloidal silica (paragraph 0108). This component strengthens a catalyst by holding active catalyst powders together, improving attrition resistance.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamires et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6-8 above, and further in view of Long et al. (US 9656255 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Stamires et al. discloses adding a lanthanide (rare earth element) to the slurry, but does not disclose the type of salt or a lanthanum nitrate.
Long et al. discloses a process for preparing a rare earth-containing Y zeolite (col 2, lines 35-37). A catalyst can then be synthesized that has the rare earth-containing Y zeolite (col 2, lines 41-43). The rare earth starting material can be lanthanum nitrate (col 12, lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a RE-Y zeolite that is synthesized with lanthanum nitrate as the rare earth component in the slurry of Stamires et al. because the rare earth utilization in the Y zeolite is an extremely high 98% (col 8, lines 22-24). The rare earth resource is used efficiently, and the production cost is decreased (col 12, lines 39-40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dinda et al.
CN 103703105 A
Grothe et al.
US 20180280932 A1
Ludvig et al.
WO 2017015597 A1
Van Der Zon et al.
WO 2008058875 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
