DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/738,339 application filed 10 June 2024, which is a divisional application of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/297,522, now U.S. Patent No. 12,042,787, filed 27 May 2021. The instant application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, light olefin-containing feedstock has been interpreted as a feedstock comprising light olefins, which light olefins are “C2 to C5 olefins” [see column 5, lines 2-3 of ‘787 patent]. Otherwise, light is a relative term which renders the claim 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 104056650) as evidenced by Vinu et al in the Journal of Physical Chemistry B (2004, vol 108, pp 11496-11505).
Note: in the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the machine translation of the Zhang et al reference provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Zhang et al discloses “[a]n application of a nickel-based supported catalyst, wherein the catalyst can be used as a catalyst in an ethylene oligomerization reaction. The catalyst can be used for the selective polymerization of ethylene to produce C9 lower olefin reactions” [page 2 of translation] and “Ni/Al-SBA -15 catalysts prepared in Examples 1, 2 and 3 above, as well as known methods [A Vinu et al, J Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 11496; Lin, S et al. Micro. Meso. Mater. The Al-SBA -15 synthesized by 2011, 142, 526 is a carrier, and after nickel is loaded, the catalyst prepared according to the prior art is used as a catalyst in the oligomerization of ethylene; the experimental process is as follows:
1) loading the formed catalyst into a reactor, and performing activation treatment in a helium atmosphere at 150°C for 1-2 hours;
2) pressurizing the reaction system with helium, so that the pressure reaches the reaction requirements, the pressure is 3.0-3.5 MPa [i.e., 30 to 35 bar—Examiner’s insertion], and the pressure control uses a back pressure valve;
3) feeding the reactant ethylene into the reactor with a gas mass flow meter under reaction pressure for reaction;
4) after the reaction liquid phase product passes through the separation device, analyzing with a meteorological chromatography;
5) performing online analysis by gas chromatography on the reaction gas phase product;
6) The conversion rate of ethylene and the content of C9+ components in the liquid phase product were calculated according to the chromatographic analysis results” [see page 4 of translation].
Vinu et al discloses “AlSBA-15 was synthesized using a triblock copolymer poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(propylene glycol) block-poly(ethylene glycol)…A first set of samples was prepared by changing the molar water to hydrochloric acid ratio and denoted as AlSBA-15(xH), where x denotes the molar water to hydrochloric acid ratio (nH2O/nHCl). For this set of samples, the nSi/nAl ratio in the gel was fixed to 7. A second set of samples was prepared by using a fixed molar water to hydrochloric acid ratio of 276 (70 mL of 0.29 M HCl) and a nSi/nAl ratio of 7 while varying the Al source. These samples are denoted AlSBA-15(AS),-(AN),-(AH), and-(AiPr) where AS, AN, AH, and AiPr are the abbreviated form of Al sulfate, Al nitrate, Al hydroxide, and Al isopropoxide, respectively. A third set of AlSBA-15 samples with nSi/nAl ratio of 7 was prepared by varying the synthesis temperature from 100 to 130 C” [see paragraph following the heading “Experimental Section-Synthesis” on page 11497] and “[t]he elemental compositions of AlSBA-15 materials synthesized by using Al isopropoxide as the Al source with different nSi/nAl ratios are listed in Table 3. In all cases, the nSi/nAl ratio of the calcined materials is lower than nSi/nAl ratio in the synthesis gel. This could be due to the high solubility of the Al source in the acidic medium. However, AlSBA-15 materials with nSi/nAl ratios of 100 to 7 have been obtained” [see last paragraph on left hand side of page 11500]. The nSi/nAl ratio corresponds to the Si/Al atomic ratio of the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
145
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the limitation in claim 1 concerning “Ni in a form of single atom is supported on an Al-mesoporous silicate,” note that the instant application discloses “[d]uring the heat treatment, the ion-exchanged nickel ions having an oxidation number of 2+ may be converted into Ni single atoms” [column 9, lines 22-25 of the ‘787 patent], wherein “the heat treatment temperature may be set in a range of, for example, about 250° C. to 1000° C., specifically about 275° C. to 800° C., more specifically about 300° C. to 600° C. This heat treatment step also may be carried out in an oxygen-containing atmosphere. The oxygen-containing atmosphere may be oxygen (specifically, molecular oxygen) alone or a combination of oxygen with any inert gas. As such, the inert gas may be helium, nitrogen, argon or any combination thereof. In the particular embodiment, the oxygen-containing atmosphere may be air” [column 9, lines 1-10]. Zhang et al discloses “Preparation of a catalyst: 2 g of the above-mentioned Al-SBA -15 was immersed in 2.5 mL of a nickel nitrate aqueous solution [the same as disclosed in the instant specification-see, e.g., paragraphs 0069 & 0109 of the published application—Examiner’s insertion] with a concentration of 0.5 mol/l [compare to column 8, lines 47-51 of the ‘787 patent—Examiner’s insertion] at room temperature, and then dried at 60° C. After the dried sample was ground, the dried sample was heated to 120°C at a heating rate of 2° C/min in an air atmosphere and held for 1 hour, and then heated to 400°C at a heating rate of 2° C/min and held for 2 hours” [see page 3 of translation]. Since the nickel precursor (i.e., nickel nitrate), support (mesoporous Al-silicate) and heating of Zhang et al appears to be similar to or the same as the heating of the instant application, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the “Ni [is] in a form of single atom” as required in instant claim 1.
With respect to the amount of nickel supported in the heterogeneous oligomerization catalyst, recall the teaching of 2 g of the above-mentioned Al-SBA -15 was immersed in 2.5 mL of a nickel nitrate aqueous solution with a concentration of 0.5 mol/l. 2.5 mL of 0.5 M Ni(NO3)2 solution is about 0.0734 g Ni. The concentration of nickel in the catalyst is then 0.0734 g/(2+0.0734) g, which is equivalent to about 3.54 wt % Ni, which is within the range recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to claim 6, note that Zhang et al discloses “…to obtain an Al-SBA -15 white powder” [see page 3 of translation]. Note that it is well known in the art that powders have particle sizes less than 100 mm. Thus, the recited particle size range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, note that Zhang et al is silent with respect to the presence of NiO. Moreover, the reference teaches “the air atmosphere was replaced with hydrogen, the sample was continuously calcined at the same temperature (400° C) at 30 mL/min of hydrogen flow for 2 hours” [see page 3 of translation]. Thus, it is obvious that the nickel is reduced in the hydrogen atmosphere and that, consequently, the catalyst is substantially free of NiO.
With respect to claim 18, Zhang et al does not teach other hydrocarbons in the feedstock.
With respect to claim 19, the aforesaid powder corresponds to the recited microspheres.
With respect to claim 20, continuous processing is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it is well known in the art that space velocity is a result-effective variable; that is, a variable that achieves a recognized result. In this case, space velocity, which is the inverse of space time, affects the final concentration of products or, alternatively, the extent of conversion of reactants to products. Applicant is reminded that “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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 10-17 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: with respect to claim 2, neither of the aforementioned references appears to disclose the recited acid amount. Moreover, Gallo et al in Langmuir (2010, vol 26, no 8, pp 5791-5800) appears to suggest that Al-SBA-15 materials have higher acidities than 50 mmol/g. See, e.g., pyridine adsorption in Table 2 on page 5799 for various Al-SBA-15 materials (note that applicant appears to define acidity based on pyridine IR analysis—see, e.g., column 12, lines 38-62 of the ‘787 patent).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Zhang et al discloses a catalyst having higher pore volumes. See Table 1 on page 4 of translation. With respect to claim 10, Zhang et al does not disclose either Al-MCM48 or Al-MCM41 except to note that “the wall thickness of the wall of the MCM -41 molecular sieve is only about 1 nm, which is not sufficient to cope with harsh reaction conditions, and therefore, it is necessary to develop a novel catalyst with higher stability.” With respect to claim 11, Zhang et al is concerned with ethylene oligomerization and makes no mention of a C4 olefin. With respect to claim 15, Zhang et al does not disclose a liquid medium nor is it clear why such would be beneficial to the reaction process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Karim et al (US 9,856,200), which discloses “[t]he mixed metal composition active catalyst of Example 1 was crushed to a powder of <100 microns…” [see example 2]; Narayanaswamy et al (US 2018/0002609), which discloses “…catalyst powder of 75 microns…” [example 3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
8 October 2026
Prosecution Insights