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 § 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahimi et al (Catalytic Cracking of Hydrocarbons over modified ZSM-5 zeolites to produce light olefins; Applied Catalysis A: General 398 (2011) 1-17 (Reference supplied by IDS) evidenced by Van der Bij et al, Phosphorus promotion and poising in zeolite-based materials: synthesis, characterization and catalysis; Chem. Soc. Rev., 2015, 44, 7406-7428 and Ikeguchi et al (WO 2014097350 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 5, 7, Rahimi et al disclose porous zeolite catalysts (Page 3, column 1, paragraph 1) and catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons over modified ZSM-5 zeolites to produce light olefins (Title). Rahimi et also disclose that the catalyst is used in catalytic cracking for producing olefins and BTX from various hydrocarbon feed stocks ranging from heavy hydrocarbons to ethane (Abstract, Table 2), including naphtha, kerosene and light gas oil (LGO) (Page 5, column1, paragraph 2). It is known to those skilled in the art that the feed range in Rahimi et al covers a wide range of boiling point, including as claimed. Rahimi et al further disclose Lewis acid sites in the P-supported ZSM-5 49.4 to 89.7 for different phosphorus loadings (Page 13, Table 8). Rahimi et al also disclose Si/Al ratio for different ZSM zeolites in the range of 20 to 200 (Page 4, column 2, paragraph 2, Table 2; page 7, column 1, last paragraph).
Rahimi et al disclose a method of preparation of phosphorus supported ZSM-5 by using similar ingredients (Page 6, column 2, paragraph3; page 9, column 1, last paragraph) as the claimed invention (Specification, page 13, 14). Rahimi et al also disclose heating and calcination of P-supported zeolite (Page 12, column 2, paragraph 2) similar to the claimed invention. Thus, it is expected that the phosphorus is supported in internal pores and on the surface of the zeolite as claimed. It is also evidenced by Van der Bij et al.
Van der Bij et al disclose a method of phosphorus introduction in zeolites similar to Rahimi et al and similar to the claimed invention (Page 7408, column 2, paragraph 2). Van der Bij et al also disclose distribution of phosphorus on the outside surface and internal pores of zeolite (Page 7411, column 2, paragraph 3.21.; page 7412, column 2, paragraph 3.2.2).
With respect to claim 2, Rahimi et al disclose phosphorus supported zeolite has the amount of total acid sites in the range of 340.5 to 591.3 µmole/g (Page 13, Table 8).
With respect to claim 3, Rahimi et al disclose ratio of amounts of Lewis acid sites (L) and Bronsted acid sites (B) in the range of L/B = 0.01 to 0.08 at 200o C and 0.05 to 0.08 at 350o C (Page 13, Table 8).
With respect to claim 4, Rahimi et al disclose in typical examples, 0.5% to 2.0 wt% phosphorus loading with Si/Al ratio of 25-200 (Page 6, paragraph 4.3.4 and page 7, Table 3). Thus, P/Al ratio can easily be calculated and expected to be in a range as claimed.This is evidenced by Ikeguchi et al.
Ikeguchi et al disclose, “The supported amount of phosphorus is 0.01 to 10, preferably 0.1 to 2, and more preferably the total number of moles of aluminum contained in the zeolite and the supported aluminum, it is 0.2 to 1, more preferably 0.4 to 0.8 (Page 5, paragraph 2, last 2 lines). P/Al ratio for Example 2 is 0.6 (Page 8, Example 2).
With respect to claim 6, Rahimi et al disclose special pore structure such as the tri-dimensional micropore topology and large surface area in ZSM-5 (Page 3, column 1, paragraph 1).
Van der Bij et al also disclose average pore size of channels in ZSM-5 is 5.5 to 6.36 Å (Page 7407, column 1, paragraph 2).
With respect to claim 8, Rahimi et al disclose limitations of claim 1 and discussed above. Rahimi et al also disclose using this P-supported zeolite catalyst in fluidized bed catalytic cracking reactor (Page 5, column 1, paragraph 3). It is known to those skilled in the art that a catalyst used in a fluidized bed reactor must have been prepared using binders. This is evidenced by Ikeguchi et al.
Ikeguchi et al disclose a porous zeolite with pores and supported with phosphorus in internal pores and the surface ((Page 4, last paragraph). Ikeguchi et al also disclose that the catalyst is used for producing olefins and aromatics (which are basic chemical raw material) through catalytic cracking of a hydrocarbon feed varying in a wide range from alkanes having 2-20 carbon atoms to naphtha (Page 5, paragraph 4, 6; page 6, paragraph 1, 2). Ikeguchi et al also disclose that the catalyst may contain one or more clay minerals such as kaolin and bentonite and/or inorganic oxides such as silica, alumina and zirconia as a binder (Page 5, paragraph 4).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, limitations of claim 1 have already been discussed under claim 1. Rahimi et al disclose P-modified (incipient -wetness impregnation with an aqueous solution of (NH4)2HPO4 HZSM-5 catalyst (Page 6, column 2, paragraph 4.3.4; page 9, column 1, paragraph 5). This is evidenced by Ikeguchi et al.
Ikeguchi et al disclose the details of catalyst preparation by mixing the zeolite and phosphorus compound in a solvent in contents corresponding to P/Al ratio of 0.6, drying the mixture at 120oC for 8 hours and calcining at 600oC for over 200 minutes (Page 4, paragraph 5; page 8, last paragraph). Although Ikeguchi et al use diammonium hydrogen phosphate in the experiment but disclose that phosphoric acid is preferable (Page 5, paragraph 2).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Rahimi et al disclose catalytic cracking of naphtha feed stock over phosphorus modified ZSM-5 to produce light olefins at 650oC using 4 cm3 catalyst and 8 cm3/min feed. Weight of catalyst (kg) per unit volumetric feed rate (m3/s) = 1.44 (Page 4, Table 2). Thus, weight ratio of catalyst to the reactant can be calculated.
Ikeguchi et al also disclose catalytic cracking of n-hexane in a similar condition at 650oC and a total pressure of 0.15 MPa (1.5 bar) using 0.83 gm catalyst and 16.6 gm/hr of hydrocarbon feed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Argauer et al, Crystalline Zeolite ZSM-5 and method of preparing the same, US 3,702,886.
Kim Mi Jin, Catalyst for production of light olefin and production method of light olefins through catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons using the catalyst, KR 20140067565 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights