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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: LOA is referred to as Loss of Attrition while the instant application specification refers to LOA as loss-on-attrition. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN102463123A) and further in view of Wang (CN106807418A).
In regards to claim 1, Yang teaches a method for activating a spent hydroprocessing catalyst (Para. 0017 Line 164, “During the activation process of the hydroprocessing catalyst...”)
comprising a refractory oxide support (Para. 0013 Line 126, “The catalyst carrier is a porous refractory oxide...”; Para. 0005 Lines 47-49, “The deactivated catalyst caused by carbon deposits can be regenerated to restore its activity, but the deactivated catalyst caused by metal deposition pollution cannot be regenerated to restore its activity and can only be discarded”)
and one or more base metals taken from the group comprising nickel, cobalt, molybdenum and tungsten (Para. 0013 Line 126, “The Group VI active metal is W and/or Mo, the Group VIII active metal is Co and/or Ni...”)
optionally regenerating the catalyst (Para. 0013 Line 121-123, “In the method of the present invention, the catalyst before activation can be a regenerated catalyst obtained by regenerating a deactivated catalyst...”)
providing one or more activating solutions containing an organic acid and an alkaline additive (Para. 0012 Lines 115-117, “The catalyst is contacted with a solution containing an alkaline substance and a solution containing an organic additive, and finally subjected to heat treatment to obtain an activated catalyst”; Para. 0020 Lines 214-216, “The oxygen-containing organic compound is an oxygen-containing organic compound such as an organic acid, alcohol...”)
impregnating the catalytically active material with an aqueous solution (Para. 0017 Line 176-177, “The catalyst can be contacted with the alkaline substance and the organic additive by equal volume spraying or supersaturated impregnation...”)
and heat-treating the catalyst at a temperature of 120-450°C (Para. 00040 Lines 340- 341, “After the samples are left for 8 hours, they are dried at 120°C for 4 hours to obtain reactivated samples”).
Yang does not explicitly teach that the pH of the aqueous solution is higher than 3. Wang teaches an activation solution where the pH is between 2 and 6 (Para. 0008, “To address the problem of low pH value of the Mo-Ni-P impregnation solution, the industry has added alkaline nitrogen-containing compounds (such as ammonia solution) to the acidic impregnation solution to change its pH value between 2 and 6”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pH taught by Wang in the method taught by Yang for activating a catalyst since too low a pH would cause a decrease in the activity of the catalyst as well as reduce surface area (Para. 0007, “Too low a pH value will not only cause the specific surface area of the carrier to be lost during the impregnation process, thereby reducing the specific surface area of the catalyst; it will also cause the active components to interact too strongly with the carrier, reducing the dispersion of the active metal, and resulting in a decrease in the activity of the hydroprocessing catalyst”).
In regards to claim 2, Yang teaches an organic acid in the aqueous activating solution that has 6 or fewer carbon atoms (Para. 0029 Lines 271-272, “The regeneration agent C1 was activated with aqueous ammonia, mercaptopropionic acid and ethylene glycol”). Mercaptopropionic acid contains 3 carbon atoms.
In regards to claim 3, Yang teaches that the activating solution contains an organic acid with a hydroxyl group (Para. 0020 Lines 207-209, “The sulfur-containing organic compound may contain one or more carboxyl, carbonyl, ester...”).
In regards to claim 4, Yang does not explicitly teach that the pH of the aqueous solution is between 4 and 7. Wang teaches an activation solution where the pH is between 2 and 6 (Para. 0008, “To address the problem of low pH value of the Mo-Ni-P impregnation solution, the industry has added alkaline nitrogen-containing compounds (such as ammonia solution) to the acidic impregnation solution to change its pH value between 2 and 6”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pH taught by Wang in the method taught by Yang for activating a catalyst since too low a pH would cause a decrease in the activity of the catalyst (Para. 0007, “Too low a pH value will not only cause the specific surface area of the carrier to be lost during the impregnation process, thereby reducing the specific surface area of the catalyst; it will also cause the active components to interact too strongly with the carrier, reducing the dispersion of the active metal, and resulting in a decrease in the activity of the hydroprocessing catalyst”).
This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 5, Yang teaches that the catalyst is heat treated to a temperature of 120-220°C (Para. 00040 Lines 340-341, “After the samples are left for 8 hours, they are dried at 120°C for 4 hours to obtain reactivated samples”).
In regards to claims 8 and 9, Yang teaches that the alkaline additive can be ammonia and inorganic (Para. 0015 Lines 148-149, “In the method of the present invention, the alkaline substance is ammonia or a substance containing an amino group...”; Para. 0019 Lines 194-197, “The alkaline substances are generally ammonia and substances containing amino groups in their molecules, such as inorganic substances...”).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN102463123A), in view of Wang (CN106807418A), and further in view of Jansen (US7956000B2).
In regards to claim 6, Yang and Wang do not teach or suggest heat treating a catalyst between 350-450°C. However, Yang teaches that the heat treatment temperature and time are selected according to the alkaline substance and the organic additive used so that 40 wt% of the organic additive remains in the catalyst (Para. 0018 Lines 188-190, “The heat treatment temperature and time are selected according to the alkaline substance and organic additive used, ... , so that at least 40 wt% of the organic additive remains in the catalyst”). By using the oxalic acid taught by Yang as the organic additive, which has a boiling point of 365.1°C, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the catalyst could be heat treated at a temperature below the boiling point temperature to dry the catalyst (Para. 215-220, “These substances can be acids, such as acetic acid, oxalic acid, ...”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be able to heat treat the catalyst up to close to the boiling point to quickly and effectively dry the catalyst while ensuring at least 40 wt. % of organic additive remains within the catalyst. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 7, Yang and Wang do not teach or suggest using any of the specific organic acids in the method for activating a catalyst. However, Yang does state that the organic compound can be acids, and preferably with two carbon atoms and two oxygen atoms (Para. 0021 Lines 214-220, “Organic compounds containing at least two oxygen atoms and two carbon atoms are preferred, and the number of carbon atoms of the oxygen-containing organic compound is preferably 2-20. These substances can be acids, such as acetic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, ...”). Jansen teaches using acids such as hydroxypropionic acid as the organic acid to activate the catalyst. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acid such as hydroxypropionic acid as taught by Jansen in the method taught by Yang as the acid taught by Jansen fulfills the requirements for the method taught by Yang in being an acid with at least two carbon atoms and two oxygen atoms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to applicant’s remarks on pages 5-6 to the amended claim 1, Yang teaches the regeneration of a catalyst after use [0005-0006]. As such, Yang’s method can be used to improve activity of a spent catalyst that is regenerated [0022]. In regards to reducing LOA due to activation pH, the instant application specification states that by adjusting the activation solution to pH > 3, or 4 < pH < 7, the breakdown of the catalyst carrier is mitigated. As Wang teaches the overlapping range of pH of 2 to 6 [0012], to alleviate reducing the specific surface of the catalyst during impregnation and catalytic activity, this pH activation reduced loss of attrition of the catalyst as described. Even if not explicitly taught, as the conditions for synthesizing the catalyst would be the same when combining the two prior arts, the catalyst would exhibit the same properties as the catalyst in the instant application. In regards to applicant’s remarks on pages 6-7 regarding the motivation to combine and Yang and Wang as well as having no reasonable expectation of success, Yang teaches impregnation of a catalyst [0017], while Wang involves impregnating a hydroprocessing catalyst. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine both Yang and Wang as both are involved in producing a catalyst that involves an impregnation step. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights