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 .
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 7, 8 14, 18, 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 7 and 8 recites the broad recitation 400℃ or above, and the claim also recites preferred range of from 400 to 550℃ which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 14, 18, each recites a preferred carbon number distribution of hydrocarbons in the naphtha and a preferred reactor which are indefinite language.
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.
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, 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 111187132A)
In regards to claim 1, Yu teaches preparation of a molecular sieve catalyst comprising the steps of mixing zeolite molecular sieve with metal soluble salt solution (i.e., preparing the metal salt solution), roasting, and thus preparing zeolite molecular sieve modified by metal, and silanization reaction of the zeolite molecular sieve modified by metal with gasification, roasting, and thus preparing a zeolite molecular sieve catalyst modified by metal and silanization reagent modification [0015 – 0017]. The first step comprises dipping the zeolite molecular sieve in metal salt solution having a concentration of 5 to 15% of the metal salt in the solution, filtering, drying and roasting, with a dipping time of 1 to 3 hours, drying at a temperature of from 110 to 150℃, and roasting (i.e. calcination) at temperatures of from 500 to 600℃ [0018, 0019].
While the step of draining before drying is not particularly recited, it is an obvious part of drying. While the temperature of dipping into the metal salt is not particularly recited, it is a process condition that can routinely be optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art performing the process. Generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. “[W]here 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)
In regards to claim 2, Yu teach the method and the mass concentration of the metal in the salt solution as previously discussed. While the actual ratio of the amount of zeolite to the amount of the aqueous solution is not recited, it is a process parameter that would be routinely optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention. Generally, differences in concentration (i.e., ratio) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration (or ratio) is critical. “[W]here 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)
In regards to claim 3, Yu teaches the process wherein the metal comprises zinc, gallium, lanthanum etc. [0031].
In regards to claim 4, Yu teaches the process wherein the modified zeolite is modified HZSM-5 molecular sieve [0030].
In regards to claim 5, Yu teaches the process but does not recite the presence of a binder. However, the use of binders in HZSM-5 zeolite are known in view of Zhou et al. (WO2020155145A1) and would have been obvious in Yu.
In regards to claim 6, Yu teaches the process which further includes silanization as previously discussed.
In regards to claims 9 – 11, Yu teaches the process having the claimed silanization compound [0033 – 0036].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 15 – 17, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yu fails to teach the method of preparing the aromatic compounds of the claims by coupling naphtha with CO2 as claimed. Also, Yu fails to teach vapor deposition of the metal or the silane compound.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771