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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the rate being determined by the following measurement.” is likely intended to end with a colon “:”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim does not end with a period.
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.
Claims 1-6 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 1, the claim contains two definitions for determining the rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating and it is unclear if this was intentional or not, and how a skilled artisan would actually arrive at the crushing strength in the terms of the claim. For example, lines 6-16 state “wherein a rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating is 0% or more and 40% or less, the rate being determined by the following measurement. Average value of particle sizes: An average value of particle sizes of 100 particles is obtained. Crushing strength before heating I0: A strength when particles corresponding to the average value of the particle sizes are broken is obtained as ‘crushing strength before heating I0’. Crushing strength after heating I1: A strength when particles corresponding to the average value of the particle sizes are broken after heating of the hydrochloric acid oxidation catalyst at 360 °C for 3 hours under ambient atmosphere is obtained as ‘crushing strength after heating I1’ while lines 17-19 state “The rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating is determined by the following equation: Rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating = [I1 – I0]/I0 x 100 (%)”. Accordingly, from the claim it is unclear what method of obtaining the “rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating” is used for determination. Furthermore, the term “average value of particle sizes” does not appear in the equation in line 19, which further adds to the lack of clarity over how this value is determined. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the rate of crushing strength before and after heating is determined by the equation, with support found in at least [0025]-[0029] of the instant specification.
Claims 2-6 all depend from claim 1 and thus, are also rendered indefinite.
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 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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi et al. (US20100196255A1; cited in IDS dated 02/21/2024) in view of Rigge et al. (US3928236).
Regarding claim 1, Horiuchi teaches a catalyst for the production of chlorine by oxidizing hydrogen chloride with oxygen (Abstract). Horiuchi teaches the catalyst comprises copper, an alkali metal, a rare earth metal and a carrier, where the catalyst is composed of particles (Abstract; [0032]-[0034]; [0037]). Horiuchi teaches the carrier includes silica-alumina ([0037]).
The claim further requires “wherein a rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating is 0% or more and 40% or less, the rate being determined by the following measurement. Average value of particle sizes: An average value of particle sizes of 100 particles is obtained. Crushing strength before heating I0: A strength when particles corresponding to the average value of the particle sizes are broken is obtained as "crushing strength before heating I0". Crushing strength after heating I1A strength when particles corresponding to the average value of the particle sizes are broken after heating of the hydrochloric acid oxidation catalyst at 360 °C for 3 hours under ambient atmosphere is obtained as "crushing strength after heating Il". The "rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating" is determined by the following equation: Rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating = [I1 – I0]/I0 x 100 (%),” to which Horiuchi does not discuss the carrier’s crushing strength.
Rigge teaches the crushing strength of alumina carriers before and after heating (Abstract; Table I-XI). Rigge teaches the alumina starting material particles are 3.2 mm in diameter with a crushing strength in kg of >9 and that after heating the thermally stable shapes at 980 °C for 25 h, the crushing strength in kg was measured to be 8.1 (Example 1; Table IV and VI). A crushing strength change of >9 to 8.1 is about a 10% change (i.e. 8.1/9.01 = 0.90%; 100%-90% = 10% change) and meets the range limitation “a rate of change in crushing strength before and after heating is 0% or more and 40% or less.” In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Rigge (at least about a 10% change) overlaps with the claimed range (0% or more and 40% or less). Therefore, the range in Rigge renders obvious the claimed range.
It is noted Rigge teaches a higher heating temperature and duration than the claimed “360 °C for 3 hours,” however Rigge further teaches that the thermally activated alumina spheres are gradually heated to the 980 °C range (col. 5, lines 20-31). Accordingly, the alumina spheres of Rigge were heated at least 360 °C in route to 980 °C and a skilled artisan would expect the crushing strength to be comparable to the claimed crushing strength, absent unexpected or surprising results.
Advantageously, the alumina carriers taught by Rigge display significantly improved thermal stability (col. 5, lines 42-63; col. 6, lines 48-58).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide alumina carrier particles that display a crushing strength reduction of about 10% before and after heating in the catalyst of Horiuchi in order to provide a thermally stable carrier particle as taught by Rigge.
Regarding claim 2, Horiuchi in view of Rigge teach the catalyst of claim 1 and Horiuchi further teaches the catalyst particles were screened to a size of 10-20 mesh ([0058]), which is equivalent to 0.841-2 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Horiuchi (0.841-2 mm) overlaps with the claimed range (1.5 mm or more to 6 mm or less). Therefore, the range in Horiuchi renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Horiuchi in view of Rigge teach the catalyst of claim 1 and Horiuchi teaches the catalyst carrier includes silica-alumina ([0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Horiuchi in view of Rigge teach the catalyst of claim 1 and Horiuchi teaches the catalyst may be used in a fixed bed reactor ([0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Horiuchi in view of Rigge teach the catalyst of claim 1 as outlined in the claim 1 rejection. Horiuchi teaches a catalyst for the production of chlorine by oxidizing hydrogen chloride with oxygen (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Horiuchi in view of Rigge teach the catalyst of claim 1 and Horiuchi teaches the catalyst may be used in a fixed bed reactor ([0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al. (Catalysis Today 2018, 307, 286-292); Sun teaches a Cu/K/Sm-Al2O3 catalyst for the oxidation of hydrogen chloride to chlorine (Abstract; Title). Izquierdo et al. (Fuel Proc. Tech. 2021, 215, 106740): Izquierdo teaches the crushing strength of a Cu/Al2O3 catalyst over the course of heating to 900 °C (Abstract; Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights