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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/29/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0038]-[0039] of the instant specification.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Claim Objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 03/09/2026 and accordingly they are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg.7-9 filed 05/29/2026 with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered however arguments directed to the claim limitation “wherein particles of an oxide of the catalyst in the bulk form or particles of the refractory oxide supports have a diameter of 13-20 mm” introduced in the amendment filed 05/29/2026, postdate the non-final rejection mailed 03/09/2026.
Upon further search and consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of 03/09/2026 is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eijsbouts et al. (CA2359906C) in view of Ren et al. (CN1554728A English), Adsetts (US3926584), Kawajiri et al. (US5198581), and Vannauker et al. (US20120318712A1; cited in IDS dated 12/12/2022).
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 that Eijsbouts and Ren are entirely silent on the active phase of a catalyst being formed by a nickel, molybdenum, and tungsten in a non-sulfide form.
However, as stated in the non-final, Eijsbouts teaches a catalyst comprising nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W), where the catalyst composition does not comprise sulphided forms of a compound of the formula NibMocWodOz, with b/(c+d) being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 - 3 and c/d being in the range of 0.1 - 10 or even being equal to or greater than 0.01, and z = [2b+6(c+d)]/2 (Pg. 32, par. 3)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eijsbouts et al. (CA2359906C) in view of Ren et al. (CN1554728A English), Adsetts (US3926584), Kawajiri et al. (US5198581), and Vannauker et al. (US20120318712A1; cited in IDS dated 12/12/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner first notes that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for generation of hydrogen and/or syngas through the steam reforming process of hydrocarbons” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations or serve to limit the structure of the claimed catalyst. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Eijsbouts teaches a catalyst comprising nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W), where the catalyst composition does not comprise sulphided forms of a compound of the formula NibMocWodOz, with b/(c+d) being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 - 3 and c/d being in the range of 0.1 - 10 or even being equal to or greater than 0.01, and z = [2b+6(c+d)]/2 (Pg. 32, par. 3). Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can be used in virtually all hydroprocessing processes, including process hydrocarbon feedstocks to provide hydrogen (Pg. 34-35, Use according to the invention). Eijsbouts teaches the catalysts have a surface area of at least 10 m2/g (Pg. 13, par. 4-Pg. 14, par. 1). Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can be present as bulk catalyst particles (i.e. presenting itself in bulk form) and that the surface area of the oxidic bulk catalyst particles is at least 60% of the surface area of the metal component relative to the bulk (Pg. 12, par. 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Eijsbouts (Mo/W from 0.1-10; surface area greater than 10 m2/g; surface area of metal oxide to bulk material of at least 60%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (Mo/W between 2:1 and 1:1; b) the surface area is in the range between 20 and 150 m2/g; it presents itself in bulk form or uses refractory oxide supports, with a surface area greater than 15 m2/g, in the proportion of 95% to 65% by weight in relation to the total composition). Therefore, the ranges in Eijsbouts renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires “the atomic ratio of Ni/(Mo+W) is between 6:1 and 5:1,” where Eijsbouts teaches a Ni/(Mo+W) value being in the range of 0. 75 - 1.5 or even 0.5 – 3 (Pg. 32, par. 3), which lies outside the claimed range.
Ren teaches a catalyst for hydrogenation that comprises 5.0-18.0% of nickel oxide, 1.0-11.0% of tungsten oxide, 0.1-8.0% of molybdenum oxide, 1.5-19.0% of titanium oxide, and 44.0-44.0% of aluminum oxide (Abstract). Converting the metal oxide to metal contents gives a taught range of nickel of 3.8 to 14.1, molybdenum of 0.88 to 9.8, and tungsten of 0.07 to 5.3, which affords a Ni/(Mo+W) ratio ranging from 0.27 to 16.5 taught in Ren (see calculations below). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Ren (Ni/Mo+W) ranging from 0.27 to 16.5) overlaps with the claimed range (Ni/(Mo+W) is between 6:1 and 5:1). Therefore, the range in Ren renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the metal combination and quantities in Ren improve the surface properties of the carrier, make more suitable pore size distributions, and provide a catalyst with very high activity (Pg. 3, par. 9-13).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a Ni/(W+Mo) ratio of between 0.26 to 14.9 in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve the surface properties of the carrier, make the pore size distributions more suitable, and provide a catalyst with very high activity, as taught by Ren.
Calculations:
NiO molar mass: 74.69 g/mol; Ni molar mass = 58.69 g/mol
MoO3 molar mass: 143.94 g/mol; Mo molar mass = 95.95 g/mol
WO3 molar mass: 231.84 g/mol; W molar mass = 183.84 g/mol Ni in NiO = 58.69/74.69 = 0.79
Mo in MoO3 = 95.95/143.94 = 0.67
W = WO3 = 183.84/231.84 = 0.79
Ni range taught in Ren = 5 to 18%; low end = 5*0.79 = 3.92; high end = 18 *0.79 = 14.1
W range taught in Ren = 1 to 11%; low end = 1*0.79 = 0.79; high end = 11 *0.79 = 8.72
Mo range taught in Ren = 0.1 to 8%; low end = 0.1*0.67 = 0.07; high end = 8 *0.67 = 5.3
High Ni/(Mo+W) = 14.1/(0.79+0.07) = 16.5; Low Ni/(Mo+W) = 3.92/(8.7+5.3) = 0.28
The claim further requires an alkali metal is present in a concentration ranging from 0.2% to 15% by weight,” to which Eijsbouts, and Ren are silent.
Adsetts teaches a nickel catalyst supported on alumina that contains an alkali metal compound, calculated as K2O, from 0.05 to 3.5% (Abstract; col. 2, lines 1-21). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Adsetts (0.05 to 3.5% calculated as K2O) overlaps with the claimed ranges (1% to 7% by weight, calculated as K2O). Therefore, the range in Adsetts renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, potassium incorporation extends the useful lifetime of the catalyst (col. 1, lines 4-28).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an alkali metal at a concentration of 0.05 to 3.5%, calculated as K2O, in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve useful lifetime of the catalyst as taught by Adsetts.
The claim further requires “wherein particles of an oxide of the catalyst in the bulk form or particles of the refractory oxide supports have a diameter of 13-20 mm”, to which Eijsbouts, Ren, and Adsetts are silent.
Kawajiri teaches a catalyst composition comprising molybdenum and tungsten oxide where catalyst particles with a diameter of 3 to 15 mm are preferably used (Abstract; col. 4, lines 7-11). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kawajiri (diameter of 3 to 15 mm) overlaps with the claimed range (diameter of 13-20 mm). Therefore, the range in Kawajiri renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, Kawajiri teaches catalyst particles within this range of diameters avoid localized temperature hot spots while still being able to fit into reaction pipes (col. 4, lines 6-50).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide catalyst particles with a diameter of 3 to 15 mm in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to avoid local hot spots forming in the catalyst particles while working with a particle size that still fits into reaction pipes, as taught by Kawajiri.
The claim further requires the “catalyst comprises 0.01% to 1% promoter noble metal by weight, where the promoter noble metal comprises Pt, Pd, Ru, Rh, or combination thereof,” to which Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can include transition metal additives including platinum (Pg. 22, par. 1) but does not discuss the concentration. Ren, Adsetts, and Kawajiri are silent regarding this limitation.
Vannauker teaches a catalyst that comprises Ni, W, and Mo that can further include a metal including Pt, Pd, Rh, and combinations thereof in a concentration of at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt% ([0027]; [0067]; [0071]). Vannauker teaches the metals as elemental metals (i.e. Pt) and meets the limitation of calculating the concentration “as a metallic element”. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Vannauker (at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (0.01% to 1% by weight). Therefore, the range in Vannauker renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, a catalyst comprising the metals taught by Vannauker allows for operation over a wider range of temperatures that provides catalysts with commercially viable run length (i.e. catalyst lifetimes) ([0027]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a promoter noble metal, including Pt, Pd, or Rh, in a concentration of at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt% in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve operation over a wider range of temperatures and provide catalysts with commercially viable run lengths, as taught by Vannauker.
Regarding claim 2, Eijsbouts in view of Ren, Adsetts, Kawajiri, and Vannauker teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts further teaches the catalyst can be supported on a binder material including alumina, zirconia, and titania (Pg. 19, par. 1-2; Pg. 43, Example 7).
Regarding claim 5, Eijsbouts in view of Ren, Adsetts, Kawajiri, and Vannauker teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts further teaches the catalyst can be supported on a binder material including alumina, zirconia, and titania, where the binder is generally present in the range of 0 to 75 wt% and displays a surface area in the range of 50-600 m2/g (Pg. 19, par. 1-2; Pg. 20, par. 1; Pg. 43, Example 7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Eijsbouts (0-75 wt.% of the total composition is binder; 50-600 m2/g) overlaps with the claimed ranges (95% to 65% refractory oxide support; 20 to 100 m2/g). Therefore, the ranges in Eijsbouts renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, Eijsbouts in view of Ren, Adsetts, Kawajiri, and Vannauker teach the catalyst of claim 1.
The claim further requires the alkali metal is potassium and that it is present in a concentration ranging from 1% to 7% by weight, calculated as K2O,” to which Eijsbouts, Ren, Kawajiri and Vannauker are silent.
Adsetts teaches a nickel catalyst supported on alumina that contains an alkali metal compound, calculated as K2O, from 0.05 to 3.5% (Abstract; col. 2, lines 1-21). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Adsetts (0.05 to 3.5% calculated as K2O) overlaps with the claimed ranges (1% to 7% by weight, calculated as K2O). Therefore, the range in Adsetts renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, potassium incorporation extends the useful lifetime of the catalyst (col. 1, lines 4-28).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an alkali metal at a concentration of 0.05 to 3.5%, calculated as K2O, in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve useful lifetime of the catalyst as taught by Adsetts.
Regarding claim 7, Eijsbouts in view of Ren, Adsetts, Kawajiri, and Vannauker teach the catalyst of claim 1.
Eijsbouts further teaches the catalyst can include transition metal additives including platinum (Pg. 22, par. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Eijsbouts in view of Ren, Adsetts, Kawajiri, and Vannauker teach the catalyst of claim 1.
The claim further requires the catalyst comprises 0.01% to 0.2% promoter noble metal by weight, where the promoter noble metal comprises Pt, Pd, Ru, Rh, or combination thereof to which Eijsbouts teaches the catalyst can include transition metal additives including platinum (Pg. 22, par. 1) but does not discuss the concentration. Ren, Adsetts, and Kawajiri are silent regarding this limitation.
Vannauker teaches a catalyst that comprises Ni, W, and Mo that can further include a metal including Pt, Pd, Rh, and combinations thereof in a concentration of at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt% ([0027]; [0067]; [0071]). Vannauker teaches the metals as elemental metals (i.e. Pt) and meets the limitation of calculating the concentration “as a metallic element”. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Vannauker (at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt%) overlaps with the claimed ranges (0.01% to 0.2% by weight). Therefore, the range in Vannauker renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, a catalyst comprising the metals taught by Vannauker allows for operation over a wider range of temperatures that provides catalysts with commercially viable run length (i.e. catalyst lifetimes) ([0027]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a promoter noble metal, including Pt, Pd, or Rh, in a concentration of at least about 0.1 wt% and less than 5 wt% in the catalyst of Eijsbouts in order to improve operation over a wider range of temperatures and provide catalysts with commercially viable run lengths, as taught by Vannauker.
Conclusion
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights