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 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the 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, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0256424) in view of Schmitt (U.S. Pat. No. 3,978,000).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26 Zhang et al. teaches support of the active components includes one or more compositions selected from the group consisting of active carbon which meets the limitation of a porous carbon matrix (paragraph 10). Zhang et al. teaches metal loading of the first active component is about 0.05-50 wt %, and the metal loading of the second active component is about 1-80 wt % (paragraph 10). Zhang et al. teaches a metallic platinum tungsten catalyst comprising 0.5% Pt-15% W which meets the limitation of wherein the metal component of the porous, shaped metal-carbon product is present at a metal loading of at least about 10 wt% and is selected from the group consisting of Ni, W, and combinations thereof and comprising a second metal different from the metal component of the metal- carbon product and deposited on the surfaces of the porous, shaped metal-carbon product, wherein the second metal is a noble metal (paragraph 24). Zhang et al. does not teach the activated carbon is shaped.
Schmitt teaches a catalyst composition comprising a porous carbon particulate made up of carbon black spheres, carbon binder and an activator which meets the limitation of porous shaped metal-carbon product comprising a porous carbon matrix and a metal component (column 1, lines 4-10). Schmitt teaches there continues to exist the need for substantially pure carbon structures that have desirable levels of porosity or controlled pore size distribution and are free of or improved with respect to deficiencies of the prior art carbons, which structures serve admirably as supports for catalyst materials (column 1, lines 60-68). Schmitt teaches “In accordance with the present invention pores of the carbon particulate are formed by packing together of suitable carbon black spheres and binding the spheres together in packed relationship with a carbon binder. The use of the carbon binder allows the carbon particulate to possess improved mechanical strength” (column 2, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the carbon particulate taught by Schmitt for the carbon support taught by Zhang et al. because the carbon particulate taught by Schmitt is a pure carbon structure with minimal to no impurities with improved mechanical strength and controlled pore structure thereby allowing the skilled artisan to optimize a catalyst structure.
Regarding claim 12, Schmitt teaches enough binder is required to hold the carbon structure together after carbonization of the binder the product is a carbonization product of a carbonaceous material with water, a water-soluble organic binder (column 4, lines 10-20). Schmitt teaches RhCl3 which meets the limitation a metal precursor selected from the group consisting of a metal carbonate, a metal oxide, a metal hydroxide, a salt of a metal acid, a heteropoly acid, a metal carboxylate, a metal carbide, a metal chloride, a metal amine complex-containing compound, a hydrate thereof (column 9, lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 13, Schmitt teaches carbon black (column 9, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 17, Schmitt teaches a crush strength of 5.4 and 7.7 which meets the limitation of wherein the product exhibits a radial piece crush strength of greater than about 4.4 N/mm (column 7, Table 1).
Regarding claims 18 and 24, Schmitt teaches a BET specific surface area in the range of from about 20 m2/g to about 500 m2/g, a pore volume of from about 0.1 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g (column 9, Table III). Schmitt teaches pore radii in excess of 10 angstrom which encompasses pores having a diameter in the range of from 1.7 nm to 100 nm (column 2, lines 15-20). Schmitt teaches
Regarding claim 27, Zhang et al. teaches ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, iridium, and platinum which are known in the art as noble metals (abstract). Schmitt teaches a carbon particle activated with a noble metal such as platinum or rhodium could be used for catalyzing hydrogenation reactions of molecules containing several benzene rings (column 1, lines 15-25). It is well known in the art that noble metals are a group of metallic elements—primarily gold, silver, platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium, and iridium. It would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success a noble metal such as Au, gold, for the catalyst taught by Schmitt to optimize the reaction depending on the type of reaction and reactants.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Schmitt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0093360).
Zhang et al. in view of Schmitt teaches a catalyst composition comprising a porous carbon particulate made up of carbon black spheres, carbon binder and an activator which meets the limitation of porous shaped metal-carbon product comprising a porous carbon matrix and a metal component. Zhang et al. in view of Schmitt teaches the use of carbon black and carbon binder then the particulate will possess good mechanical strength (column 2, lines 30-45). Zhang et al. in view of Schmitt does not teach graphene or nanotubes.
Ma et al. teaches rigid three dimensional structures comprising carbon nanotubes and having high surface area and porosity, low bulk density, low amount of micropores and high crush strength and to methods of preparing and using such structures (paragraph 2). Ma et al. teaches single walled carbon nanotubes which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of graphene and nanotubes (paragraph 110). Ma et al. teaches activating support in situ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use carbon nanotubes in the composite carbon material taught by Schmitt to optimize surface area, porosity, bulk density, low amount of micropores and crush strength.
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 02/26/2026
Prosecution Insights