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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: "elauminization" in paragraph [0032] should be corrected to "dealumination".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
The term “light” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefin is rendered indefinite by the use of light, it is unclear which carbon range necessarily classifies a light olefin.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Podsiadlo et al. (US 2017/0354961 A1) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US 4,822,825).
Regarding claim 1, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a catalyst with a microporous material (e.g. zeolite), an organosilica material binder, and at least one catalyst metal (abstract). Podsiadlo et al. teaches mixing a compound of the formula [Z1Z2SiCH2]3, with Z1 and Z2 represent a C1-C4 alkoxy group, with a cyclic polyurea compound with a microporous material, in an aqueous mixture, shaping the pre-product to form catalyst particles, curing and drying the catalyst particles, and then incorporating at least one catalyst metal (paragraph [0008]). Suitable microporous material includes but is not limited to ZSM-5 (paragraph [0052], [0056]). In various embodiments the aqueous mixture used can comprise a base and/or an acid, with trichloroacetic acid as an exemplary acid (paragraph [0277], [0282]). Additionally, a compound of the formula IIIa can be added to the aqueous solution, such that the compound of formula IIIa can be tetraethyl orthosilicate (paragraph [0305], [0324]). The compound can be calcined (paragraph [0463]-[0464]). Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine solution as claimed.
However, Bhattacharya et al. teaches a method of a zeolite support from a group consisting of Y zeolite, X zeolite, aluminophosphate, ZSM-5, ZSM-11, silicalite, zeolite A, and mordenite, treating the zeolite with a nitrogen containing compound (melamine), at least one heavy metal oxide, and an alkali or alkaline earth metal (column 2, lines 49-67; column 3 lines 1-23). Appropriate nitrogen containing compounds may be selected from the group consisting of urea, dimethylolurea, cyanuric acid, melamine, melam, melem, or melon, with melamine preferred (column 3, lines 54-62). The zeolitic support and aqueous nitrogen containing compound are mixed, filtered, dried, and calcinated (column 4, lines 55-67). Bhattacharya et al. teaches the procedure of adding a base or derivative to the zeolite in order to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst (column 1, lines 44-59).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. with Bhattacharya et al. and to have used melamine as claimed in the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al., of decreasing the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst.
Regarding claim 2, Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine.
However, Bhattacharya et al. teaches stirring the melamine in deionized water, heating to 50 °C, adding the zeolite, and stirring for one hour (column 5, lines 45-52). Next, the metal was added (column 5, lines 52-56).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. with Bhattacharya et al. and use the addition melamine and stirring with the zeolite, and then adding the metal in the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Podsiadlo et al. teaches the ratio of formula (Ia) : formula (IIIa) (corresponding to tetraethyl orthosilicate) may vary within wide limits, as from 99:1 to about 99:1 (paragraph [0342]). For example, 9 g of 1,3,3,5,5-hexaethoxy-l,3,5-trisilacyclohexane (compound of formula (Ia) was mixed with 18.6 g of NH4OH and 23.8 g of water to form a sol solution. Next, 11.4 g of the sol solution was mixed with 7 g of ZSM-5 (paragraphs [0604]-[606]). This would result in a ratio of formula(Ia):zeolite 0.285:1. Therefore this would result in a ratio of tetraethyl orthosilicate : ZSM-5 of 0.0028:1 to 28.2:1. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Podsiadlo et al. teaches mixing the microporous material (zeolite) and the solution (compound of the formula [Z1Z2SiCH2]3, with Z1 and Z2 represent a C1-C4 alkoxy group, with a cyclic polyurea) for 10-60 mins at least about 40 °C (paragraphs [0412]-[0415]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Podsiadlo et al. teaches drying the catalyst particles at temperature from -20 °C to about 200 °6 for about 0.1 hours to about 100 hours (paragraphs [0425]-[0429]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a catalyst with a microporous material (e.g. zeolite), an organosilica material binder, and at least one catalyst metal (abstract). Podsiadlo et al. teaches mixing a compound of the formula [Z1Z2SiCH2]3, with Z1 and Z2 represent a C1-C4 alkoxy group, with a cyclic polyurea compound with a microporous material, in an aqueous mixture, shaping the pre-product to form catalyst particles, curing and drying the catalyst particles, and then incorporating at least one catalyst metal (paragraph [0008]). Suitable microporous material includes but is not limited to ZSM-5 (paragraph [0052], [0056]). In various embodiments the aqueous mixture used can comprise a base and/or an acid, with trichloroacetic acid as an exemplary acid (paragraph [0277], [0282]). Additionally, a compound of the formula IIIa can be added to the aqueous solution, such that the compound of formula IIIa can be tetraethyl orthosilicate (paragraph [0305], [0324]). The compound can be calcined (paragraph [0463]-[0464]). Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine solution.
However, Bhattacharya et al. teaches a method of a zeolite support from a group consisting of Y zeolite, X zeolite, aluminophosphate, ZSM-5, ZSM-11, silicalite, zeolite A, and mordenite, treating the zeolite with a nitrogen containing compound (melamine), at least one heavy metal oxide, and an alkali or alkaline earth metal (column 2, lines 49-67; column 3 lines 1-23). A wide variety of appropriate nitrogen containing compounds may be selected from the group consisting of urea, dimethylolurea, cyanuric acid, melamine, melam, melem, or melon, with melamine preferred (column 3, lines 54-62). The zeolitic support and aqueous nitrogen containing compound are mixed, filtered, dried, and calcinated (column 4, lines 55-67). Bhattacharya et al. teaches the procedure of adding a base or derivative to the zeolite in order to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst (column 1, lines 44-59).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. with Bhattacharya et al. and use the addition melamine in the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst.
Regarding claim 15, Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine.
However, Bhattacharya et al. teaches stirring the melamine in deionized water, heating to 50 °C, adding the zeolite, and stirring for one hour (column 5, lines 45-52). Next, the metal was added (column 5, lines 52-56).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. with Bhattacharya et al. and use the addition melamine and stirring with the zeolite, and then adding the metal in the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Podsiadlo et al. teaches the catalyst metal so incorporated may be employed to promote any one of a number of catalytic transformations commonly conducted in petroleum refining or petrochemicals productions. Examples of such catalytic processes include but are not limited to hydrogenation, dehydrogenation, aromatization, aromatic saturation, hydrodesulfurization, olefin oligomerization, polymerization, hydrodenitrogenation, hydrocracking (corresponding to reacting an alkane material to obtain light olefins), naphtha reforming, paraffin isomerization, aromatic transalkylation, saturation of double/triple bonds, and the like, as well as combinations thereof.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podsiadlo et al. (US 2017/0354961 A1) and Bhattacharya et al. (US 4,822,825) as applied to claims 1,2 11-16 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (CN 106215973 A) (reference made to machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a porogen can be added, but in the present synthesis such component is present in a minor, non-substantial, or a negligible amount such that the component cannot be said to aid in and or/guide the polymerization and/or polycondensing and/or organization of the building blocks that form the framework of the organosilica material (paragraph [0266]). Podsiadlo et al. teaches a solvent can be used as a porogen, with examples of solvents can include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (paragraph [0274]). Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine. Bhattacharya et al. teaches 0.1-20 wt% of a nitrogen containing compound, with melamine as the preferred nitrogen compound (column 1, lines 59-63; column 2, lines 51-54). Bhattacharya et al. teaches suspending the base treated zeolite in an inert liquid to obtain uniform temperature and concentration, and to use a liquid whose molecular size is larger than the pore of the zeolite support, so it will not block the pore and interfere with the loading of the heavy metals (column 5, lines 10-15). Podsiadlo et al. and Bhattacharya et al. do not teach the mass ratio of the organic solvent.
However, Wei et al. teaches a method for preparing a modified ZSM-5 molecular sieve catalyst, where the ZSM-5 sieve is mixed with a templating agent, additive, water, alkali, structural aid (melamine), and aluminum source (paragraph [0014]). The ratio of the water to the melamine ranges from (0-4):1 (paragraph [0014]). Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. and Bhattacharya et al. with Wei et al. and use ratio of melamine to water as taught by Wei et al. with the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. and Bhattacharya et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to add the inert liquid in order to obtain a uniform temperature and concentration of the nitrogen modified zeolite.
Regarding claim 4, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a porogen can be added, but in the present synthesis such component is present in a minor, non-substantial, or a negligible amount such that the component cannot be said to aid in and or/guide the polymerization and/or polycondensing and/or organization of the building blocks that form the framework of the organosilica material (paragraph [0266]). Podsiadlo et al. teaches a solvent can be used as a porogen, with examples of solvents can include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (paragraph [0274]). Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine. Bhattacharya et al. teaches 0.1-20 wt% of a nitrogen containing compound, with melamine as the preferred nitrogen compound (column 1, lines 59-63; column 2, lines 51-54). Bhattacharya et al. teaches suspending the base treated zeolite in an inert liquid to obtain uniform temperature and concentration, and to use a liquid whose molecular size is larger than the pore of the zeolite support, so it will not block the pore and interfere with the loading of the heavy metals (column 5, lines 10-15). Podsiadlo et al. and Bhattacharya et al. do not teach the mass ratio of the organic solvent.
However, Wei et al. teaches a method for preparing a modified ZSM-5 molecular sieve catalyst, where the ZSM-5 sieve is mixed with a templating agent, additive, water, alkali, structural aid (melamine), and aluminum source (paragraph [0014]). The ratio of the water to the melamine ranges from (0-4):1 (paragraph [0014]). Overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. and Bhattacharya et al. with Wei et al. and use ratio of melamine to water as taught by Wei et al. with the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. and Bhattacharya et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to add the inert liquid in order to obtain a uniform temperature and concentration of the nitrogen modified zeolite.
Regarding claim 5, Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine.
However, Bhattacharya et al. teaches 2.5 g of melamine with 50 g of zeolite. The zeolite support is selected from the group consisting of Y zeolite, X zeolite, aluminophosphate, ZSM-5, ZSM-11, silicalite, zeolite A, and mordenite (claim 1). This would result in a melamine: zeolite ratio of 0.05:1 (column 5, lines 45-50). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. with Bhattacharya et al. and use the addition melamine in the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst.
Regarding claim 6, Podsiadlo et al. does not teach the addition of melamine.
However, Bhattacharya et al. teaches 2.5 g of melamine with 50 g of zeolite. The zeolite support is selected from the group consisting of Y zeolite, X zeolite, aluminophosphate, ZSM-5, ZSM-11, silicalite, zeolite A, and mordenite (claim 1). This would result in a melamine: zeolite ratio of 0.05:1 (column 5, lines 45-50). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Podsiadlo et al. with Bhattacharya et al. and use the addition melamine in the method of synthesis as taught by Podsiadlo et al. for the purpose, as suggested by Bhattacharya et al. to decrease the number of surface acid sites in order to limit competing side reactions on the surface of the catalyst.
Regarding claim 7, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a porogen can be added, but in the present synthesis such component is present in a minor, non-substantial, or a negligible amount such that the component cannot be said to aid in and or/guide the polymerization and/or polycondensing and/or organization of the building blocks that form the framework of the organosilica material (paragraph [0266]). Podsiadlo et al. teaches a solvent can be used as a porogen, with examples of solvents can include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (paragraph [0274]).
Regarding claim 8, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a porogen can be added, but in the present synthesis such component is present in a minor, non-substantial, or a negligible amount such that the component cannot be said to aid in and or/guide the polymerization and/or polycondensing and/or organization of the building blocks that form the framework of the organosilica material (paragraph [0266]). Podsiadlo et al. teaches a solvent can be used as a porogen, with examples of solvents can include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (paragraph [0274]).
Regarding claim 9, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a porogen can be added, but in the present synthesis such component is present in a minor, non-substantial, or a negligible amount such that the component cannot be said to aid in and or/guide the polymerization and/or polycondensing and/or organization of the building blocks that form the framework of the organosilica material (paragraph [0266]). Podsiadlo et al. teaches a solvent can be used as a porogen, with examples of solvents can include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (paragraph [0274]).
Regarding claim 10, Podsiadlo et al. teaches a porogen can be added, but in the present synthesis such component is present in a minor, non-substantial, or a negligible amount such that the component cannot be said to aid in and or/guide the polymerization and/or polycondensing and/or organization of the building blocks that form the framework of the organosilica material (paragraph [0266]). Podsiadlo et al. teaches a solvent can be used as a porogen, with examples of solvents can include but are not limited to ethylene glycol (paragraph [0274]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. 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.
/H.E.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights