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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. This is the first Office Action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 13 recites “The catalyst of claim 9, comprising preparing the catalyst using TaCl5 by…” Claim 9, upon which claim 13 depends, is directed to a method for oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane. Accordingly, the limitation “The catalyst of claim 9” in claim 13 should be amended to state “The method of claim 9.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (US 2010/0222623 A1, a US equivalent of WO 2006/130288 A1 cited in IDS dated 10/31/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Ryan discloses a catalyst comprising the formula:
MoaVvTaxTeyOz
wherein:
a is 1.0;
v is about 0.01 to about 1.0;
x is about 0.01 to about 1.0;
y is about 0.01 to about 1.0; and
z is the number that renders the catalyst electronically neutral ([0011]; subscripts a, v, x, y, and z of Ryan correspond to a, b, d, c, and x of the instant claims, respectively).
The molar amount of Mo taught by Ryan reads on the claimed Mo of “1.0.”
Ryan does not explicitly teach the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta.
However, the claimed molar amounts of V (“b is about 0.01 to about 0.3”), Te (“c is about 0.01 to about 0.09”), and Ta (“d is about 0.01 to about 0.05”) fall within the corresponding molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta taught by Ryan (V(“v”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Te(“y”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Ta(“x”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0). Accordingly, the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta are considered prima facie obvious. 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).
Regarding claim 2, the claimed molar amounts of V (“b is about 0.1 to about 0.3”), Te (“c is about 0.03 to about 0.07”), and Ta (“d is about 0.03 to about 0.05”) fall within the corresponding ranges taught by Ryan (V(“v”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Te(“y”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Ta(“x”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0). Accordingly, the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta are considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed molar amounts of V (“V0.3”), Te (“Te0.05”), and Ta (“Ta0.05”) fall within the corresponding ranges taught by Ryan (V(“v”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Te(“y”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Ta(“x”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0). Accordingly, the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta are considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a catalyst precursor, which is considered as a product-by-process limitation. The catalyst of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, is considered obvious over Ryan, as discussed above. If a product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113. Additionally, Ryan discloses that suitable Tantalum sources include Ta2O5 ([0014]).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites a catalyst precursor, which is considered as a product-by-process limitation. The catalyst of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends, is considered obvious over Ryan, as discussed above. Accordingly, claim 5 is considered unpatentable. Additionally, Ryan discloses that suitable Tantalum sources include TaCl5 ([0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Ryan discloses that the composition may be supported on a support material ([0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Ryan discloses that suitable support materials include porous silicon dioxide, ignited silicon dioxide, porous or nonporous aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, and aluminum silicate ([0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Ryan discloses that suitable support materials include porous silicon dioxide. One skilled in the art would understand that the term “porous silicon dioxide” would encompass various silica materials including precipitated synthetic silica, as evidenced by (US 2021/0170370 A1, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Ryan teaches a process for oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane ([0011]), the process comprising contacting a gaseous feed comprising ethane and oxygen with a catalyst in a reactor to produce an effluent comprising ethylene, wherein the catalyst has the formula:
MoaVvTaxTeyOz
wherein:
a is 1.0;
v is about 0.01 to about 1.0;
x is about 0.01 to about 1.0;
y is about 0.01 to about 1.0; and
z is the number that renders the catalyst electronically neutral ([0011]; subscripts a, v, x, y, and z of Ryan correspond to a, b, d, c, and x of the instant claims, respectively).
The molar amount of Mo taught by Ryan reads on the claimed Mo of “1.0.”
Ryan does not explicitly teach the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta.
However, the claimed molar amounts of V (“b is about 0.01 to about 0.3”), Te (“c is about 0.01 to about 0.09”), and Ta (“d is about 0.01 to about 0.05”) fall within the corresponding molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta taught by Ryan (V(“v”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Te(“y”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Ta(“x”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0). Accordingly, the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta are considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed molar amounts of V (“b is about 0.1 to about 0.3”), Te (“c is about 0.03 to about 0.07”), and Ta (“d is about 0.03 to about 0.05”) fall within the corresponding ranges taught by Ryan (V(“v”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Te(“y”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Ta(“x”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0). Accordingly, the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta are considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed molar amounts of V (“V0.3”), Te (“Te0.05”), and Ta (“Ta0.05”) fall within the corresponding ranges taught by Ryan (V(“v”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Te(“y”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0; Ta(“x”)=about 0.01 to about 1.0). Accordingly, the claimed molar amounts of V, Te, and Ta are considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Ryan discloses that suitable sources for tantalum include Ta2O5 ([0014]), which is interpreted to suggest that anhydrous Ta2O5 may be used without further preparation as a precursor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
Claims 14-20 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches a method of making a catalyst comprising Mo, V, Te, and Ta, where a tantalum source is obtained by hydrolyzing TaCl5 in ammonium hydroxide to prepare Ta2O5·3H2O (claim 13), or where a tantalum source is added to a slurry containing oxides of Mo, V, and Te in the form of anhydrous tantalum oxide, the slurry further comprising citric acid, oxalic acid, and ethylene glycol (claim 14).
Ryan (US 2010/0222623 A1), applied in the rejection, generally suggests that suitable tantalum sources may include “ammonium tantalum oxalate, Ta2O5, TaCl5, tantalic acid or Ta(OC2H5)5 as well as the more conventional tantalum oxalate” ([0014]). However, there is no sufficient teaching or guidance which would have reasonably motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a tantalum source by hydrolysis of TaCl5 in ammonium hydroxide or to add anhydrous tantalous oxide as well as citric acid, oxalic acid, and ethylene glycol to a slurry containing oxides of Mo, V, and Te.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Y Chong whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights