DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser (“Bridging HCl and HBr Oxidation over Heterogeneous Catalysts for Halogen Production”) in view of Di Monte et al. (“Thermal Stabilization of CexZr1-xO2 Oxygen Storage Promoters by Addition of Al2O3: Effect of Thermal Aging on Textural, Structural, and Morphological Properties”).
With regard to Claim 1 and 4, Moser teaches a catalyst for hydrogen chloride oxidation (Page 72, 4.4. Conclusions).
Moser teaches a 2 wt% ruthenium oxide catalyst supported on alumina, wherein the ruthenium oxide is impregnated on the alumina (Page 57, 4.2.1. Catalysts; RuO2/SnO2-Al2O3… prepared by incipient wetness impregnation of corresponding carriers with aqueous solutions of RuCl3·xH2O).
Moser is silent to the catalyst comprising 0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a total amount of a metal oxide additive comprising ceria and zirconia, wherein the metal oxide additive is impregnated on the molding support.
Di Monte teaches 7 wt% ceria-zirconia supported on alumina (Page 4280, 3.5.), wherein the ceria-zirconia is impregnated on the alumina (Page 4274, 2. Experimental Section; impregnating to incipient wetness (i.w.) the resulting citrate-containing solution on γ-Al2O3). Di Monte notes that the addition of ceria-zirconia improves thermal stability (Page 4276, The addition of the CZMO phase to γ-Al2O3 confers an increased thermal stability to the transitional aluminas with respect to the CZMO-free support). Further, Moser notes that the incorporation of cerium prevents alumina transformation from γ- to α-form and thus prevents surface area loss (Page 38 of Moser at “3.1. Introduction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Moser to teach 0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a total amount of a metal oxide additive comprising ceria and zirconia, wherein the metal oxide additive is impregnated on the molding support, as taught in Di Monte, to improve thermal stability.
With regard to Claim 3, Di Monte teaches a weight ratio of ceria:zirconia in the metal oxide additive of 0.6:0.4, or 1:0.67 (Page 4274, 2.1. Experimental Section; CexZr1-xO2… (x = 1, 0.6, 0.2, 0)).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moser in view of Di Monte as applied to claim 1 above with Mondelli et al. (“Shaped RuO2/SnO2–Al2O3 Catalyst for Large-Scale Stable Cl2 Production by HCl Oxidation”) as an evidentiary reference to the catalyst physical characteristics.
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Moser teaches the ruthenium oxide catalyst supported on a support comprising alumina (Page 57, 4.2.1. Catalysts; RuO2/SnO2-Al2O3… prepared by incipient wetness impregnation of corresponding carriers with aqueous solutions of RuCl3·xH2O).
While Moser does not explicitly disclose the catalyst in pellet form having a diameter of 1 to 10 mm, Mondelli, which Moser discloses as being the way the catalyst is produced, teaches the method of making the catalyst and evidences its properties (Page 57 at “4.2.1. Catalysts”; The preparation and characterization of the catalysts used in this study have been detailed in recent publications).
Mondelli teaches the catalyst having a pellet form wherein the pellet form has a diameter of 2 mm (Page 658 of Mondelli, RuO2/SnO2–Al2O3-e …2 mm).
With regard to Claim 7, while Moser, Mondelli, and Di Monte do not explicitly disclose the catalyst having a crushing strength of 5 to 200 N, the product of Moser as evidenced by Mondelli in view of Di Monte and the product of the claimed invention appear to be substantially identical and thus would have the same physical properties (see above rejections). See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed February 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112 and of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Moser (“Bridging HCl and HBr Oxidation over Heterogeneous Catalysts for Halogen Production”) in view of Moser2 (“Supported CeO2 catalysts in technical form for sustainable chlorine production”), Seki (US 2010/0068126 A1) and Schmidt et al. (US 2009/0239736 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, the amendment filed February 11, 2026 has overcome the rejections. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Moser in view of Moser2, Seki, and Schmidt does not disclose the catalyst comprising 0.5 to 10 parts by weight of a total amount of a metal oxide additive comprising ceria and zirconia, wherein the metal oxide additive is impregnated on the molding support. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made of Claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Moser (“Bridging HCl and HBr Oxidation over Heterogeneous Catalysts for Halogen Production”) as evidenced by Mondelli et al. (“Shaped RuO2/SnO2–Al2O3 Catalyst for Large-Scale Stable Cl2 Production by HCl Oxidation”) in view of Di Monte et al. (“Thermal Stabilization of CexZr1-xO2 Oxygen Storage Promoters by Addition of Al2O3: Effect of Thermal Aging on Textural, Structural, and Morphological Properties”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (“Effect of synthesis method on the properties of ceria–zirconia modified alumina and the catalytic performance of its supported Pd-only three-way catalyst”) discloses ceria-zirconia modified alumina made by different methods including impregnation. However, the reference discloses 18 wt% ceria-zirconia, which is outside the range claimed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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.
/A.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights