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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the composition of claim 1, “further comprising sintering the composition”, which is a method step rather than a compositional limitation. Applicant should either amend the claim to be in product by process form, noting that the claim should be differentiated from claim 12 which recites a sintered ceramic catalyst, or to recite a method of sintering the composition of claim 1 to form a ceramic, noting that the claim should be differentiated from the method claims which recite a sintering step.
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.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0222623) in view of Colijn (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0054454).
In paragraph 10 Ryan discloses a catalyst which is a mixed oxide of formula Mo1.0V0.3Ta0.1Te0.3Oz, meeting the limitations of the MoVTeTaOx catalyst of claim 1. In paragraph 11 Ryan discloses a method of preparing ethylene by reacting ethane and oxygen in the presence of the catalyst. In paragraph 17 Ryan discloses that the catalyst can be used with a support material, but does not specifically disclose fumed silica as a support, and does not disclose the further inclusion of a binder.
In paragraphs 7 and 28 Colijn discloses a catalyst or catalyst carrier useful in an alkane oxidative dehydrogenation reaction, such as the conversion of ethane into ethylene. In paragraphs 8-10 Colijn discloses that the catalyst or catalyst carrier comprises a metal oxide and silanized silica particles. In paragraph 67 Colijn discloses that the metal oxide can be various molybdenum-vanadium-based metal oxides, and in paragraph 100 Colijn indicates that the silica can be fumed silica, as recited for the support phase of claim 1. The use of the fumed silica of Colijn as the support for the MoVTeTaOx catalyst of Ryan therefore leads to a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1.
In paragraph 10 Colijn discloses that the silica particles are present in an amount of 0.1 to 50% by weight of the composition, overlapping the range recited in claim 10. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);”
In paragraphs 118-123 Colijn discloses a process of preparing the catalyst including a step of shaping the catalyst, where the composition to be shaped includes a shaping aid. In paragraph 145 Colijn discloses that polyethylene glycol (polyethylene oxide) and polyvinyl alcohol are preferred shaping aids, meeting the limitations of the binder of claims 2-3. The polyethylene glycol also meets the limitations of the plasticizer of claim 7. The inclusion of the polyethylene glycol and/or polyvinyl alcohol shaping aid in the catalyst composition of Ryan and Colijn therefore meets the limitations of claims 2-3 and 7.
In paragraphs 15-16 and 152-154 Colijn discloses that following the shaping step, the material obtained is heated at a relatively low temperature to effect drying, and then heated at a relatively high temperature, meeting the limitations of the sintering step of claim 6 and leading to a sintered ceramic catalyst as recited in claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fumed silica of Colijn as the support for the MoVTeTaOx catalyst of Ryan, since Colijn teaches that they are suitable supports for similar catalysts used for the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane to ethylene, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the polyethylene glycol and/or polyvinyl alcohol shaping aid in the catalyst composition of Ryan and Colijn since Colijn teaches that they are preferred additives for use in forming a shaped catalyst. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the heating steps of Colijn to prepare the catalyst of Ryan and Colijn since Colijn discloses that it is a final processing step for preparing a mixed metal oxide catalyst useful in oxidative dehydrogenation.
In light of the above, claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, and 12 are rendered obvious by Ryan in view of Colijn.
Additionally, Colijn indicates in paragraph 145 that the composition can comprise a mixture (“one or more”) of shaping aids, and in paragraph 149 teaches that the shaping aids can be chosen based on the metal oxide. While Colijn does not specifically disclose combining polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol in the amounts recited in claim 4, case law holds that “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted), and that "[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). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol as the shaping aid in the composition of Ryan and Colijn, and a matter of routine optimization to arrive at relative concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene glycol meeting the limitations of claim 4. Claim 4 is therefore also rendered obvious by Ryan in view of Colijn.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Colijn as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Paulus (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0314273).
The discussion of Ryan in view of Colijn in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Ryan and Colijn disclose a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, and in paragraph 151 Colijn discloses pressing the composition into a shaped catalyst. Ryan and Colijn do not disclose the further inclusion of an inorganic binder recited in claim 5, or a lubricant as recited in claims 8-9.
Paulus, in paragraph 62, discloses the formation of a shaped catalyst body by tableting a mixture of oxidic material and carbonate-containing material. The oxidic materials can include molybdenum oxide and silica (silicon oxide), as in the catalyst of Ryan and Colijn, and the carbonate-containing material can be calcium carbonate, as recited in claim 5. Paulus further discloses in paragraphs 55-56 and 61 that the tableting is can be carried out with the further addition of lubricants, as recited in claim 8, where the lubricant can be graphite and is preferably present in an amount of 1 to 4% by weight, encompassing the range recited in claim 9. The use of the calcium carbonate and the lubricant of Paulus in the composition of Ryan and Colijn meets the limitations of claims 5 and 8-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the calcium carbonate and the lubricant of Paulus in the composition of Ryan and Colijn, since Paulus teaches that they are suitable additive for use in the preparation of a shaped metal oxide catalyst.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Colijn as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Schricker (WO 2020/127003 A1).
The discussion of Ryan in view of Colijn in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Ryan and Colijn disclose a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, and in paragraph 151 Colijn discloses pressing the composition into a shaped catalyst. Ryan and Colijn do not specifically disclose the further inclusion of a lubricant in the composition, and do not specifically disclose pressing the composition into a tablet having the density recited in claim 11.
On page 3 lines 15-18 Schricker discloses preparing a shaped catalyst for alkaline oxidative dehydrogenation, where the catalyst is a mixed metal oxide catalyst comprising molybdenum, vanadium, and optionally tellurium, and the shaping is carried out by means of tableting. On page 9 lines 22-26 Schricker discloses that a lubricant such as graphite or a stearate salt can be added during tableting, meeting the limitations of the lubricant of claim 8. On page 19 lines 5-26 and Table 1 on page 20 Schricker discloses a shaped catalyst B comprising graphite and having a density (CBD) of 1.04 g/cm3 (kg/l), within the range recited in claim 11. Including the lubricant of Schricker in the composition of Ryan and Colijn meets the limitations of claim 8 and pressing the composition into a tablet having the density of Schricker meets the limitations of claim 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the lubricant of Schricker in the composition of Ryan and Colijn, and to press the composition into a tablet having the density of Schricker, since Colijn teaches that the lubricant is a suitable tableting additive, and the density is a suitable density, for a similar mixed metal oxide catalyst used for oxidative dehydrogenation.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Colijn as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Kurr (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2017/0121259).
The discussion of Ryan in view of Colijn in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Ryan and Colijn disclose a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, and in paragraph 151 Colijn discloses pressing the composition into a shaped catalyst. Ryan and Colijn do not specifically disclose the further inclusion of a lubricant in the composition.
In paragraph 54 Kurr discloses that graphite can be added as a lubricant in the tableting of a mixed oxide catalyst. Kurr discloses that the lubricant is particularly preferably present in an amount of 1 to 3% by weight, encompassing the range recited in claim 9. Including the graphite lubricant of Kurr in the composition of Ryan and Colijn meets the limitations of claims 8-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the graphite lubricant of Kurr in the composition of Ryan and Colijn, since Kurr teaches that it is a preferred additive in the tableting of a shaped catalyst.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Colijn as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Gao (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0024215).
The discussion of Ryan in view of Colijn in paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference. Ryan and Colijn disclose a composition meeting the limitations of claim 1, and both Ryan (paragraphs 20-23) and Colijn (paragraphs 159-167) discloses a method of oxidative dehydrogenation of an alkane which can be ethane comprising flowing a feed gas comprising ethane, oxygen, and optionally an inert gas such as nitrogen through a reactor, contacting the feed with a catalyst, heating the feed in a temperature range encompassing the range recited in claim 19, and recovering ethylene gas. In paragraph 167 Colijn discloses that the mole ratio of alkane to oxygen can be 1:1 to 1:0.01, or 1:0.5 to 1:0.05, encompassing the ratio recited in claim 20. Ryan and Colijn do not specifically disclose carrying out the reaction in a microreactor unit.
Gao, in paragraphs 606-618, discloses carrying out the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane in a microreactor unit, as recited in claim 19. In paragraph 610 Gao discloses that the feed gas comprises ethane, oxygen, and nitrogen, where the ethane and oxygen are present in a mole ratio of 1:0.5 (36:18), as recited in claim 20, and in accordance with the teachings of Ryan and Colijn.
Carrying out the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane to ethylene of Ryan and Colijn in the microreactor unit of Gao and using the feed gas composition of Gao meets the limitations of claims 19-20, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Gao teaches that the microreactor units are suitable for the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane over mixed metal molybdenum-vanadium-oxide-based catalysts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 are allowed. The prior art, as exemplified by the references discussed above, renders obvious a shaped catalyst prepared from a composition comprising a MoVTeTaOx catalyst active phase, a fumed silica support, and a binder (shaping aid), where the composition can further include water (paragraph 144 of Colijn). Colijn and several of the other cited reference further disclose pressing the catalyst composition into a tablet, and Colijn discloses a two-stage heating process corresponding to the debinding and sintering steps of claims 13 and 18. However, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the heating, drying, and grinding steps of claims 13 and 18. Colijn, in paragraphs 172 and 180, discloses extruding an extrudable paste. Simanzhenkov (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0038843) discloses in the examples, such as paragraphs 229 and 236, evaporating an aqueous mixture of a mixed metal oxide catalyst and an alumina binder to form a paste and then drying the paste in an oven, but Simanzhenkov does not disclose further grinding the dried product and then pressing to form a tablet; Simanzhenkov does disclose a pressing step in paragraph 236 but it is not preceded by a grinding step and it is followed by a crushing step; Simanzhenkov does not disclose a shaped catalyst like Colijn and therefore would not be combined with Ryan, Colijn, and the other cited references by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights