DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-15 are pending and presented for the examination.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024, 03/25/2025, and 11/04/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 and 14-15 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 15 each contain separate limitations that are alternatives or subsets of one another within the same claim, with some limitations indicated as being “preferably” present. It is not clear from this language which of the multiple alternate limitations within each above claim is meant to control the claim coverage, and as such the metes and bounds of each of said claims is unclear, and the claims are indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 6 contains only further limitations to the specific rare earth and alkaline earth metal elements, however these elements are considered optional because their corresponding ranges extend to 0 parts. As such, claim 4, from which claim 6 depends, does not require the presence of alkaline earth metal or rare earth elements. It is therefore unclear if the further specifics as to the types of rare earth and/or alkaline earth metal elements is meant to indicate positively that these components are definitively present in the claimed sieve, or if they only intend to limit the types of elements in those cases where they are present. The ambiguity in the meaning of the claim 6 limitations renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 refers to a “third hydrothermal crystallization.” However, no first or second hydrothermal crystallization treatments are discussed in the claim or in any claim from which it depends. As such, it is unclear if this limitation is meant to cover any hydrothermal crystallization that may occur, and is merely being referred to as “third,” or if the claim is meant to cover a process wherein there actually are additional first and second treatments.
Claim 14 is drawn to a general use of the catalyst of claim 1 without any particular positively recited steps, and as such any method intended to be covered by claim 14 is unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (Conversion of methanol to propylene over hierarchical HZSM-5: the effect of Al spatial distribution).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al teaches an HZSM-5 molecular sieve catalyst. An embodiment, T-Hz, is taught having a bulk silicon-aluminum molar ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 of 190, as converted from the Si/Al that is taught (see Table 1, sample T-HZ). Li et al further teaches amounts for the framework Al that is located in intersections of straight channels and sinusoidal, referred to as Al(54), and for the framework Al located within the straight channels and sinusoidal channels, referred to as Al(56). The ratio Al(54)/Al(56) is equivalent to the claimed ratio of amount of skeleton aluminum located at an intersection of straight pore channels and sinusoidal pore channels to an amount of skeleton aluminum inside straight pore channels and sinusoidal pore channels. Li et al teaches that this ratio for the aforementioned T-Hz embodiment is 2:1 (see Table 2, ratio derived from amounts of 42 and 21). Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Li et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al teaches that the total pore volume of the aforementioned T-Hz sample is 0.28 cm3/g (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned Li et al embodiment, T-Hz, is a catalyst in and of itself, and thus constitutes a catalyst comprising 100 parts of a hydrogen-type ZSM-5 molecular sieve.
Regarding claim 5, the SiO2/Al2O3 of the aforementioned T-Hz embodiment is 190.
Regarding claim 6, the claim contains only further limitations to the rare earth and alkaline earth metal elements that are optional in claim 4, because the content ranges for said elements extend to 0. As discussed above, it is unclear if the further limitations of claim 6 are meant to be interpreted as necessitating a non-zero content of rare earth element or alkaline earth metal element. However, the claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. For this claim, this requires interpreting the further limitations to types of rare earth and alkaline earth metal elements as necessitating that said elements are selected from the lists of the claims if rare earth and/or alkaline metal earth components are present. The broadest reasonable interpretation would necessitate interpreting the claim to still cover catalysts wherein the ranges of claim 4 are taken into account, and thus ranges that extent to 0 parts. Thus, the catalyst of Li et al still falls within the claimed coverage of claim 6, as it contains 0 parts rare earth and alkaline earth metal elements.
Regarding claim 7, the Li et al catalysts are free of binder.
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 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (Conversion of methanol to propylene over hierarchical HZSM-5: the effect of Al spatial distribution) in view of Teng et al (CN 104226360 A).
Regarding claim 8, the claim differs from Li et al as applied above because Li et al does not fully teach how the catalysts studied therein are prepared, and thus does not teach a process wherein each step of the instant claim is carried out. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li et al in view of Teng et al in order to use the method taught by Teng et al to produce said catalysts. Teng et al teaches a holocrystalline ZSM-5 molecular sieve catalyst and method for preparing the same, wherein the preparation method comprises first performing primary hydrothermal crystallization to prepare a NaZSM-5 molecular sieve raw powder, subsequently mixing and kneading the powder with a binder, followed by extruding, molding, and drying. After removal of the binder by drying, gas-solid phase hydrothermal crystallization is performed in the presence of triethylamine (template agent), and subsequently ammonium exchange is performed to obtain the ZSM-5 molecular sieve catalyst (see embodiments 7 and 8 of Teng et al).
One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the Teng et al method to produce the ZSM-5 catalysts taught by Li et al because the lack of a fully detailed teaching as to a preparation method in Li et al would lead one to look to other teachings in the art for guidance as to the catalyst preparation. Teng et al provides such guidance, and thus one would have found it obvious to use the Teng et al method to produce the Li et al catalysts. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Teng et al teaches methods for producing ZSM-5 catalysts of the type taught by Li et al. Each limitation of claim 8 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 9, Teng et al teaches a further step of loading rare earth metals into the catalyst as part of the method discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Teng et al teaches that the preparation method of the catalyst comprises mixing an organic amine template agent, aluminum source, silicon source, alkaline, and water and subjecting the mixture to a hydrothermal treatment to cause crystallization, wherein this resultant product is referred to as catalyst precursor I. Teng et al further teaches that the precursor I material is mixed with an aluminum compound, a silicon oxide, and thereafter a second templating agent and ZSM-5 catalyst is produced after a second hydrothermal treatment. Teng et al teaches that the aluminum source can be a sodium aluminate, and thus the second mixture with precursor I would constitute a further mixing with a source that is both aluminum and alkali. Further, one would have found it obvious to include an alkali source in the second mixture prepared according to Teng et al, because doing so would result in an optimization and adjustment of the content of this element in the resultant ZSM-5 sieve. Each further limitation of claim 10 is thus met by the teachings of Teng et al.
Regarding claim 11, Teng et al teaches that the templating agent is tetra-propyl ammonium bromide or tetra-propyl ammonium hydroxide.
Regarding claim 12, Teng et al teaches embodiments wherein the aluminum source is sodium metaaluminate.
Regarding claim 13, Teng et al teaches that templating agent used in the third step, as discussed for claim 8 above, is triethylamine.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (Conversion of methanol to propylene over hierarchical HZSM-5: the effect of Al spatial distribution) in view of Lu et al (WO 2019042449 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the claim differs from Li et al as applied above because Li et al teaches that the ZSM-5 catalysts are used in a process of producing propylene, rather than a process of producing ethylene from propylene. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li et al in view of Lu et al in order to use the catalysts taught in the former in a process for ethylene production, such as is taught in the latter. Lu et al teaches a process for producing ethylene comprising catalytically cracking a raw material hydrocarbon that comprises a C4 olefin to obtain a first stream comprising propylene, separating the first stream to obtain a C3 component stream, and disproportionating the C3 component stream to obtain an ethylene stream, wherein said cracking is carried out on a ZSM-5 catalyst (see Abstract and claim 5). One would have been motivated to use the ZSM-5 catalyst as taught by Li et al in the ethylene production method taught by Lu et al because Lu et al teaches that this is an advantageous use for such catalysts, and as such one would have recognized that this would constitute a beneficial use of the Li et al product. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Li et and Lu et al are drawn to processes using the same type of ZSM-5 catalysts. Each limitation of claim 14 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 15, Lu et al teaches that a raw material comprising C4 olefin is subject to catalytic cracking at a reaction temperature of 500-600 °C (see claim 5), a pressure of 0-0.3 MPa, and a weight space velocity of 20 h-1 (see paragraphs 0177 and 0179).
Conclusion
14. No claim is allowed.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW31 July 2026
Prosecution Insights