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 .
In view of the appeal brief, filed on 1/20/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) request reinstatement of the appeal.
If reinstatement of the appeal is requested, such request must be accompanied by a supplemental appeal brief, but no new amendments, affidavits (37 CFR 1.130, 1.131 or 1.132) or other evidence are permitted. See 37 CFR 1.193(b)(2).
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/PREM C SINGH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
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.
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, 4-6, 8, 10, 18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fécant et al. (US 8,841,231 B2) in view of Daudin et al. (US 2013/0261357 A1).
Fécant et al. discloses a selective hydrogenation catalyst supported on porous alumina and comprising nickel (a Group VIII metal) as an active metal (see Fécant Examples 1–4). Fécant further teaches that the active metal is preferentially localized in a peripheral (egg-shell/crust) region of the alumina support and that the radial distribution of the metal is measured using an electron microprobe (Castaing-type microprobe) by acquiring concentration profiles from the outer surface toward the center of the catalyst particle (see Fécant Example 10 and Figure 6). Fécant defines crust thickness as the distance from the outer surface containing 80 wt.% of the metal and discloses crust thicknesses in the hundreds of micrometers range (see Fécant Example 10 and Table 2). Fécant also discloses alumina supports having BET surface areas overlapping the claimed 110–190 m²/g range (e.g., about 140 m²/g) and explicitly discloses an alumina support having a porous volume of 1.02 mL/g (1.02 cm³/g), which falls within the claimed 0.3–1.1 cm³/g total pore-volume range (see Fécant, catalyst preparation examples describing the alumina support properties, cols. 13–14). Fécant further explains that peripheral localization of the active metal improves hydrogenation selectivity by limiting diffusion into the core of the catalyst particle (see Fécant Example 10 discussion; also see col. 4, lines 62-66; col. 5, lines 25-45; col. 8, lines 41-57).
Fécant does not teach the catalyst comprised a metal of Group VIB and the ratio of Ni/Mo.
Daudin et al. discloses selective hydrogenation catalysts comprising an active phase containing a Group VIB metal (molybdenum) and a Group VIII metal (nickel) supported on alumina, wherein the Group VIB metal content and Group VIII metal content, measured in oxide form, overlap the ranges recited in claim 1 (see Daudin ¶¶ [0018]–[0023]). Daudin further discloses Ni/Mo molar ratios overlapping the claimed range (see Daudin ¶ [0021]) and teaches depositing the metals on the alumina support by impregnation (see Daudin ¶¶ [0050]–[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nickel-based, alumina-supported egg-shell catalyst architecture of Fécant et al. by incorporating the Group VIB metal (molybdenum) and Ni/Mo loadings taught by Daudin et al., because both references are directed to selective hydrogenation catalysts, Fécant teaches that peripheral metal localization verified by electron microprobe analysis improves hydrogenation selectivity, and Daudin teaches that Ni/Mo active phases on alumina are effective for selective hydrogenation, such that the modification represents a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Claim 2
Fécant et al. teaches defining a peripheral “crust” as the region containing 80 wt.% of an active metal and discloses catalysts in which at least 80 wt.% of the active metal is localized in the crust (Fécant, Example 10; Table 2). Daudin et al. teaches Ni/Mo selective hydrogenation catalysts in which molybdenum (a Group VIB metal) is less mobile than nickel during impregnation and post-impregnation treatment, and that the distribution of molybdenum significantly affects catalytic selectivity (Daudin, ¶¶ [0018]–[0023], [0050]–[0055]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to apply the peripheral localization strategy taught by Fécant to the Group VIB metal (molybdenum) in the Ni/Mo catalyst system of Daudin, resulting in at least 80 wt.% of the Group VIB metal being distributed in a peripheral crust, as recited in claim 2.
Claims 4–6 and 8
Further limitations on metal ratios and contents are obvious refinements of the Daudin active phase combined with the Fécant crust-type catalyst structure (Fécant Example 10).
Claim 10
Ni/Mo active phase explicitly taught by Daudin ¶¶ [0018]–[0021].
Claim 18
Crust thickness 500–800 µm overlaps the thicknesses disclosed in Fécant Example 10; Table 2.
Claim 20
Total pore volume 0.3–1.1 cm³/g overlaps Fécant Table 1.
Claims 21–24
Metal contents and pore-volume fractions are obvious optimizations in view of Fécant’s controlled-porosity supports (Examples 1–4; Table 1) combined with Daudin’s Ni/Mo chemistry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771