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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 07/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimoto (CN 201310056621 A).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 201310056621 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Nishimoto teaches a ruthenium oxide supported catalyst, wherein the catalyst is for oxidizing hydrogen chloride with oxygen to produce chlorine (Nishimoto, Abstract; [0002]) (i.e., a catalyst for halogen production for oxidizing a hydrogen halide with oxygen to produce a halogen). Nishimoto teaches the carrier is impregnated with water and then dried to obtain a dry substance (Nishimoto, [0061]-[0062]), i.e., 0% by volume of water which falls within the claimed range of 4% or less by volume of water with respect to a pore volume of the catalyst. Further, Nishimoto teaches the catalyst is sealed in a container (Nishimoto, [0064]), which corresponds to being encapsulated in a package.
Regarding claim 3, Nishimoto teaches the catalyst for halogen production according to claim 1, wherein the catalyst is a ruthenium oxide supported catalyst with a titanium oxide carrier (Nishimoto, Abstract; [0060]-[0064]) (i.e., a supported ruthenium oxide catalyst with ruthenium oxide supported on a carrier).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Nishimoto teaches the catalyst for halogen production according to claim 1, wherein the catalyst is formed by impregnating a titanium dioxide carrier with an aqueous solution of ruthenium chloride hydrate followed by drying and sintering under air flow at 280°C (Nishimoto, [0060]-[0064]).
Nishimoto further teaches a weight ratio of ruthenium oxide/titanium dioxide carrier is preferably 0.1/99.9 to 20.0/80.0 (Nishimoto, [0033]). In the instant disclosure, the catalyst is formed using a titanium dioxide carrier that is soaked in an aqueous solution of ruthenium chloride hydrate and then heated to 250°C followed by calcination at 250°C, resulting in a catalyst comprising 4% by weight ruthenium oxide supported on the carrier and a halogen concentration of 0.15 wt% (Specification, [0117]-[0122]).
Therefore, as Nishimoto teaches a catalyst and method of making the catalyst that is substantially identical to the claimed catalyst, it is clear that a percentage of the halogen from the ruthenium chloride hydrate would remain in an amount that would at least overlap the range of the presently claimed halogen concentration range.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Ching-Yiu 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights