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 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 1-5 and 8-20 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.
In claim 1 and its dependent claims it is not clear what number of carbon atoms qualifies an olefin as “light olefins”, since the term is not defined in the specification.
Lines 12-14 of claim 1 use improper Markush language. “or combinations thereof” should be “and combinations thereof” in order to correctly define the members of the group.
In line 21 of claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for “the BFI-type framework”. The examiner recommends that this be amended to “the BEA-type framework” to be consistent with the language used elsewhere in the specification, and the claims have been examined according to this interpretation.
In claim 14, there is no antecedent basis for “the light olefins having less than or equal to four carbon atoms”. The examiner recommends that “the” be removed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2017/0313636) in view of Hodgkins (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2022/0340435).
An English-language machine translation of Wang, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the paragraph numbers referred to herein are those of the machine translation.
In paragraph 1 Wang discloses a method of producing light olefins from alkane feedstocks. In paragraph 16 Wang discloses that the alkane feedstock can be natural gas liquid, meeting the limitations of the natural gasoline liquid of claim 1. In paragraphs 9-10 and 17 Wang discloses that the method involves subjecting the feedstock to a dehydrogenation reaction, as recited in claim 1, and that the catalyst can be a dehydrogenation/cracking composite catalyst, indicating that catalytic cracking, as recited in claim 1, also takes place. In paragraph 15 and throughout the reference, Wang discloses that the method takes place in a reactor system, as recited in claim 1.
In paragraph 55 Wang discloses that the dehydrogenation/cracking composite catalyst comprises an active component, a promoter component, and a support. Wang discloses that the active component can comprise both dehydrogenation functional metal components and cracking functional molecular sieves. Wang discloses that the molecular sieve can be a ZSM-type molecular sieve, and that the functional metal component can be vanadium or vanadium oxide, as recited for the MFI-type framework of claim 1. The functional metal component is present in an amount of 0.1 to 30% by weight of the catalyst, encompassing the range recited for the vanadium of claim 1. Wang further discloses that the promoter component is preferably magnesium oxide, as recited for the additional metal oxide of claim 1, and that the promoter component is present in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight of the catalyst, overlapping the range recited for the additional metal oxide of claim 1.
The vanadium or vanadium oxide content of 0.1 to 30% by weight leads to a vanadium content encompassing the ranges recited in claims 4-5 whether vanadium metal or vanadium oxide is used as the functional metal component. Claims 2-3 are also met for the case where the catalyst system is the vanadium-containing MFI-type framework, since claims 2-3 only limit the BEA-type framework catalyst.
In paragraph 67 Wang discloses that the yield of light olefins is 38 to 55%, preferably 43 to 50%, within the range recited in claim 10 and within or overlapping the range recited in claim 14, noting that in paragraph 2 Wang defines light olefins as having 2 to 4 carbon atoms. Wang discloses in paragraph 16 that the alkane feedstock has C2 to C12 alkanes, which have boiling points within the range recited in claim 18, and natural gas liquids will have an alkane content in a range at least overlapping the range recited in claim 18.
In paragraphs 18 and 58 Wang discloses regenerating the catalyst in an oxygen-containing atmosphere at the temperature range recited in claim 19 and preferably a pressure of 1 to 3 bar (0.1 to 0.3 MPa), overlapping the range recited in claim 19. The oxygen-containing atmosphere of Wang can be air, which has about 23% by weight of oxygen, within the range recited in claim 19 for the gaseous oxidant, and where air meets the limitations of the regeneration feed of claim 20. In figure 1 and paragraph 38 Wang indicates that the reactor 1 and regenerator 2 are in separate vessels, and the regenerator can therefore be considered not part of the reactor system in which the conversion of natural gasoline liquid to light olefins takes place, in which case the reactor system is substantially free of gaseous oxidant, as recited in claim 15.
The differences between Wang and the currently presented claims are:
i) Wang discloses a ZSM-type molecular sieve (zeolite), but does not specifically disclose an MFI-type framework.
ii) Wang does not specifically disclose the further inclusion of one of the metals recited in claim 8.
iii) Some of the ranges of Wang overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling within them.
With respect to i), in paragraph Hodgkins discloses zeolites that comprise transition metals. In paragraphs 24-25 Hodgkins discloses that the zeolites may have an MFI framework, such as a transition metal-substituted ZSM-5, meeting the limitations of the MFI-type framework of claim 1. In paragraph 25 Hodgkins discloses that the zeolite has a silica to alumina molar ratio of 12 to 30, within the range recited in claim 9, or 5 to 1000, encompassing the range recited in claim 9. In paragraph 31 Hodgkins discloses that the transition metal can be vanadium, as in the catalyst of Wang. In Table 1 (following paragraph 69) Hodgkins discloses that MFI-type framework zeolites are effective in catalytic cracking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an MFI-type (ZSM-5) framework for the ZSM-type molecular sieve of Wang, since Hodgkins teaches that transition metal-containing MFI-type zeolites are useful for catalytic cracking, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a zeolite with the silica to alumina ratio taught by Hodgkins, since Hodgkins teaches that it is a suitable silica to alumina ratio for such zeolite catalysts.
Since the catalyst system of Wang and Hodgkins meets the compositional and structural limitations of the claims, it will also have the selectivities recited in claims 11-13.
With respect to ii), Wang discloses in paragraph 55 that the dehydrogenation functional metal component can also be copper, as recited in claim 8, and that the metal component can be a mixture of metals (“one or more of”). “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use both vanadium and copper in the catalyst of Wang and Hodgkins, and based on the total amount of metal disclosed by Wang, the concentration range of the copper will at least overlap the range recited in claim 8.
With respect to iii), See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In light of the above, claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rendered obvious by Wang in view of Hodgkins.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In paragraphs 56-57, Wang discloses that the reaction is carried out at a pressure of 4 to 60 bar (0.4 to 6 MPa), while claim 16 recites a maximum pressure of 2.5 bar. In paragraphs 7, 31-32, 66, and 92 Wang indicates that the higher reaction pressure is a crucial feature of the disclosed method. One of ordinary skill in the art therefore would not be motivated to modify Wang to perform the reaction at the pressure required in claims 16-17. Iezzi (U.S. Pat. No. 7,235,706), cited in the background section of Wang, discloses carrying out the conversion of paraffins to light olefins at the claimed temperature and pressure but Iezzi does not use the claimed catalyst system, and since the Iezzi reference is directed to the advantages obtained with the specific catalyst system of the reference, as discussed in column 2 lines 19-31, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to replace the catalyst of Iezzi with the claimed catalyst system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771