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 .
This application is in response to an application filed on 04/01/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammana et al (US Patent No.: 11097262 B2) in view of Basset et al (US PGPUB No.: 20200171475).
Regarding Claim 1, Tammana discloses a method to produce xylene by contacting stream comprising toluene with a reduced hierarchical zeolite catalyst and hydrogen gas in a transalkylation zone of a reactor to produce, xylene and benzene via toluene disproportionation (see fig. 1, 2), wherein the hierarchical zeolite catalyst comprises mesoporous Mordenite comprising plurality of mesopores and uniform arrangement of mesopores (Col.2 lines 26-4065-67 to col.3 lines 1-14).
Tammana does not disclose mesoporous Mordenite comprises at least portion of plurality of mesopores are uniformly arranged in MCM-41 framework.
However, Basset discloses the dehydrocyclization catalyst used for conversion of alkanes to aromatics such as benzene, toluene and xylenes that includes support comprising hierarchical zeolite (i.e., hierarchical molecular sieve) contain mesoporous material which includes ZSM-5, Mordenite, MCM-41 and whereas zeolite may include any known zeolite in the art including but not limited to zeolites with any of the framework types which can include MCM-41 (paragraphs 0022, 0029, 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of applicant invention to modify the method of Tammana with Basset to include MCM-41 framework in the support which would provide catalyst with highly stability and a low deactivation rate as taught by Basset (see paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claims 2-4, Tammana discloses reactor comprise a reactor pressure from 0.5 MPa to 15.0 MPa (reads on claimed range of 500-3000 kPa, 500 kPa equals to 0.5 and 3000 kPa equals to 3 MPa) at a temperature of 50 to 600 C (reads on claim 3 temperature from 200-500 C) and space velocity from 1.0 hr-1 to about 5.0 hr-1 (reads on claim 4, see fig. 2, Col.9 lines 5-17).As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Tammana discloses hydrogen gas in amount of 0.1 to 10 moles of hydrogen per mole of alkylaromatics (i.e., toluene) therefore molar ratio of hydrogen gas to toluene is expected to be in range of 0.1 to 1 (col.9 lines 1-5). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Since Tammana in view of Basset discloses the method of converting toluene to benzene and xylene substantially similar as disclosed in claim 1 above therefore the MCM-41 framework would produce one or more x-ray diffraction peaks as presently claimed unless otherwise unexpected results are shown by applicant.
Regarding claim 7, Tammana discloses molar ratio of silica to alumina in the hierarchical zeolite from 18 to 500 (col.5 lines 25-37). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Tammana discloses mesoporous mordenite comprises total surface are from at least 600 m2/g, external surface area from 30-700 m2/g, micropore surface area such as 280 m2/g, 288 m2/g (see tables 2-4, Col.5 lines 28-47). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Tammana discloses total pore volume from 0.20 to 3.0 cm3/g, micropore volume of 0.099, 0.132 cm3/g and a mesopore volume of from 0.4506, 0.7583 cm3/g (see tables 2-4, Col.5 lines 48-56). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Tammana disclose hierarchical zeolite catalyst further comprises one or more active metal selected from group consisting of Mo, Pt, rhenium, Ni, and combination thereof (see abstract, col.4 lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 11, Tammana discloses hierarchical zeolite catalyst is impregnated with the one or more active metal via a wet impregnation technique (Col.8 lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 12, Tammana discloses hierarchical zeolite catalyst comprises from about 0.01 to 6.0 wt% of one or more active metals (Col.5 lines 10-11). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Tammana discloses contacting stream comprising toluene with a hierarchical zeolite catalyst in the presence of hydrogen gas produces hydrocarbon effluent comprising benzene, xylenes, unreacted toluene and other hydrocarbons and method further comprising collecting benzene and xylenes from hydrocarbon effluent (co.8lines 49-67 to col.9 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 15, Tammana in view of Basset discloses hierarchical zeolite catalyst is produced according to the following method: dissolving in an alkaline solution, while heating, stirring, or both, a zeolite (i.e., Mordenite) to yield an alkaline zeolite (i.e., Mordenite) solution; adding a surfactant to form a zeolite (i.e., Mordenite) surfactant mixture; cooling and adjusting the pH of the mixture; hydrothermally treating the zeolite (i.e., Mordenite) surfactant mixture for a duration of time; separating from the zeolite surfactant mixture a solid product (i.e., mesoporous Mordenite), wherein the solid product comprises surfactant; and drying and calcining the solid zeolite (i.e., mesoporous Mordenite product, Col.5 lines 57-67 to Col.7 lines 1-41, see examples, abstract) to produce the hierarchical zeolite catalyst comprising the mesoporous Mordenite, wherein the mesoporous Mordenite comprises a plurality of mesopores while Basset discloses at least a portion of the plurality of mesopores are uniformly arranged in an MCM-41 framework.
Regarding claim 16, Tammana discloses subjecting hierarchical zeolite to ion-exchange (see examples, col.7 lines 10-13, 25-35,see examples).
Regarding Claim 17, Tammana discloses extruding the hierarchical zeolite by mixing it with alumina binder (Col.7 lines 45-51, see examples, tables).
Regarding claim 18, Tammana discloses alkaline solution comprises 0.1M to about 0.6M sodium hydroxide prior to adding zeolite (i.e., Mordenite, col.6 lines 56-67, see examples). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Tammana discloses surfactant mixture comprising about 1 wt% to 8 wt% of CTAB (col.6 lines 19-25, see examples). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Tammana discloses hydrothermally treating zeolite surfactant mixture for during of time comprises heating and stirring at about 100 C for duration of from 30 minutes to 48 hours (see example 2, col.6 lines 26-35, 41-55). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights