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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 14, 25 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (U.S. Pat. No. 4,031,137) in view of Matalon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,240,498).
Regarding claims 1 and 27-29,Schmitt teaches a catalyst porous carbon particulate composition comprising carbon black spheres, a carbon binder and activator which meets the limitation of a shaped porous carbon product comprising a carbonaceous material selected from the group consisting of activated carbon, carbon black, graphite, and combinations thereof and a carbonized binder comprising a carbonization product of an organic binder and a catalytically active component or precursor (column 1, lines 5-15). Schmitt teaches extrudate surface area 150, 275, 400 which is encompassed by a BET specific surface area from about 5 m2/g to about 500 m2/g (Table III). Schmitt teaches a pore volume of at least 0.2 cc/g which meets the limitation a specific pore volume greater than about 0.1 cm3/g (column 2, lines 15-25). Schmitt teaches pore size distribution exhibiting peaks at a pore radius in excess of 10 angstrom units which encompasses a mean pore diameter greater than about 10 nm (column 2, lines 15-25). Schmitt teaches composition was extruded through a hole of 1/16 inch which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the shaped porous carbon product has a diameter of at least about 50 µm (column 7, lines 25-35). Schmitt does not teach a radial piece crush strength greater than about 4.4 N/mm (1 Ibs/mm). Schmitt does not teach wherein the binder comprises: (i) a saccharide selected from the group consisting of glucose, fructose, hydrates thereof, syrups thereof, and mixtures thereof and/or (ii) a cellulosic compound selected from the group consisting of ethylcellulose, ethylmethylcellulose, hydroxvethylcellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, methylhydroxvethylcellulose, ethylhydroxvethylcellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, and mixtures thereof.
Matalon et al. teaches a binder useful in carbon containing refractories, and to refractory compositions useful in the formation of shaped or unshaped carbon-containing refractory articles (column 1, lines 5-15). Matalon et al. teaches the binder composition has an effective shelf life of three months or longer and gives off no objectionable smell either before or after being pyrolyzed (column 4, lines 25-40). Matalon et al. teaches the binder is also free of any skin or respiratory irritants, and is in effect non-carcinogenic (column 4, lines 25-40). Matalon et al. teaches use of the binder composition in a refractory also gives a product of excellent strength, as the carbon residue of the binder composition after pyrolysis is greater than 20%, and in some cases even greater than 30% of the total binder content (column 4, lines 25-40). Matalon et al. teaches a carbonaceous binder composition which comprises a polymerized and dehydrated carbohydrate, a monomer or polymer of resorcinol, and water (column 3, lines 50-65). Matalon et al. teaches sugar employed can be any conventional sugar, such as a mono- or oligosaccharide (which includes disaccharides and higher) of the reducing or non-reducing type or a mixture of such monosaccharides and oligosaccharides such as found in corn syrup which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the binder comprises: (i) a saccharide selected from the group consisting of glucose, fructose, hydrates thereof, syrups thereof, and mixtures thereof and/or (ii) cellulosic compound selected from the group consisting of ethylcellulose, ethylmethylcellulose, hydroxvethylcellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, methylhydroxvethylcellulose, ethylhydroxvethylcellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, and mixtures thereof (column 4, lines 55-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the sugar binder taught by Matalon et al. for the catalyst porous carbon particulate composition taught by Schmitt because the binder composition in a refractory also gives a product of excellent strength and is non-toxic.
Schmitt in view of Matalon et al. teaches a catalyst comparable to that instantly claimed, with respect to (1) a porous carbonaceous support comprising carbon black and a carbonized binder and (2) an activator/catalyst component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ inventions to reasonably expect Schmitt in view of Matalon et al. porous carbon catalyst to exhibit the properties of a radial piece crush strength in values comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. A newly discovered property does not render a compound unobvious, if (1) the claimed compound is structurally obvious from a prior art compound, (2) the claimed compound possesses the same property for which the prior art compounds were useful, and (3) the prior art compound in fact possesses the newly discovered property of the claimed compound. Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (DC ED Pa 1970) 420 F2d 950, 164 U.S.P.Q 556.
Regarding claim 2, Schmitt teaches normal ratio of carbon black spheres to binder will be from about 10:1 to 0.1:1 which meets the limitation wherein the carbonaceous material content of the shaped porous carbon product is from about 35 wt.% to about 80 wt.% (column 4, lines 15-25).
Regarding claims 3-11, Schmitt teaches activators include platinum metals (e.g., ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, platinum) and , molybdenum, tungsten, cobalt, nickel; exemplary effective amounts range from about 1/1000 to about 10 (column 5, lines 25-40; column 6; lines 30-40).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Schmitt teaches carbon particulates comprising carbon black and carbonized binder (Examples 1-7). The catalyst composition of claim 1, wherein the shaped porous carbon product comprises a combination of at least two of activated carbon, carbon black, and graphite. 14. The catalyst composition of claim 1, wherein the shaped porous carbon product comprises carbon black and at least one of activated carbon or graphite.
Regarding claim 25, Matalon et al. teaches carbohydrate can be a monosaccharide such as the reducing sugars glucose or fructose, an oligosaccharide such as sucrose, a polysaccharide such as a starch, or any mixture of the foregoing which meets the limitation of wherein the saccharide is selected from the group consisting of glucose (column 3, lines 50-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the sugar binder taught by Matalon et al. for the catalyst porous carbon particulate composition taught by Schmitt because the binder composition in a refractory also gives a product of excellent strength and is non-toxic.
Claim(s) 22, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Matalon et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolff et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0178357).
Regarding claims 22 and 3, Schmitt in view of Matalon et al. teaches a catalyst composition comprising: a shaped porous carbon product comprising a carbonaceous material selected from the group consisting of activated carbon, carbon black, graphite, and combinations thereof and a carbonized binder comprising a carbonization product of an organic binder. Schmitt in view of Matalon et al. does not teach catalyst composition of claim 1, wherein cellulosic compound such as hydroxyethylcellulose.
Wolff et al. teaches a process for the production of a mechanically stable, porous shaped activated carbon article (paragraph 35). Wolff et al. teaches green molding binder added is cellulose ether or a cellulose ether derivative such as hydroxyethylcellulose (paragraphs 47 and 48). Wolff et al. teaches in order to improve the strength of the green molding obtained on conclusion of extrusion it is preferable to add liquid starch (paragraph 46). Wolff et al. teaches the cellulose ether binds the water surrounding the activated carbon and contributes to stabilization of the green molding (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious to add a cellulosic compound such as hydroxyethylcellulose to the shaped porous carbon product taught by Schmitt in view of Matalon et al. because cellulosic compound such as hydroxyethylcellulose contributes to stabilization of the green molding.
Regarding claim 31, Schmitt teaches carbon black spheres to binder will be from about 10:1 to 0.1:1 which encompasses wherein the binder comprises from about 30 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of the shaped porous carbon product (column 4, lines 15-25). Additionally, Matalon et al. teaches use of the binder composition in a refractory also gives a product of excellent strength, as the carbon residue of the binder composition after pyrolysis is greater than 20%, and in some cases even greater than 30% of the total binder content (column 4, lines 25-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 07/17/2026
Prosecution Insights