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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the amendment filed 10/09/2025 for application 18/024924.
Claims 4, 7, 9, and 12 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11 and 13-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 4 and 12 have been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKADA et al. (USPGPUB 2009/0105511) in view of HAYES (US 3723557) and as evidenced by YOTOU (USPGPUB 2010/0267547).
OKADA et al. teach a metal catalyst loaded onto a catalyst carrier.
Regarding claim 4, OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 30 that platinum is loaded in an alumina carrier.
The alumina carrier is taught in paragraph 17 to be preferably a porous gamma alumina carrier. (y-alumina carrier).
The porous gamma alumina carrier is taught in paragraph 29 to have surface area of 150 m/g or more (a surface area of 200 m2/g or more), a fine pore volume of 0.40 cm3/g or greater (a pore volume of 0.50cm3/g or greater), an average fine pore diameter of 40 to 300 A (an average fine pore diameter of 60 to 150 A), and fine pores with the average fine pore diameter of +30 A occupying 60% or more of a total fine pore volume.
The loading amount of platinum particles is taught in paragraph 22 to be 0.05% by weight or more and 5.0% or less. (platinum are loaded on the y-alumina carrier in a range of 0.1 to 1.5 % by weight calculated as elemental platinum (Pt))
The size of the metal particle size (such as platinum) is taught in paragraph 27 to be at 10A or less at a metal dispersion ratio of 60%. The metal dispersion ratio is defined in paragraph 26 by the ratio of the number of metal atoms which are present on the outer face of the loaded metal particles with respect to a total number of the loaded metal atoms.
At a metal dispersion ratio of 60%, 70% or more to 100% of the metal particles may be from 8-10A at 70% or more. (70 % or more of the particles of the platinum have a size of 8 to 15 A)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
OKADA et al. teach measuring the metal particle size with a CO pulse method.
YOTOU teaches in paragraph 53 that measuring catalyst size may be done with transmission electron microscope (TEM) observation and CO pulse method.
Observing the metal particle size using transmission electron microscope would be an obvious alternative measuring method for determining metal particle sizes.
However, observing the particle size using a transmission electron microscope to measure the metal particle size would not affect the actual particle sizes.
Given that OKADA et al. teach the size of the metal particle size is at 10 A or less, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the process with the size of the platinum particles size being 10 A or less, such as from 8-10 A.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be led to apply a size of the metal particle size (such as platinum) of 10 A or less such as from 8 to 10 A.
OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 17 that the gamma-alumina carrier is obtained by washing by filtration a slurry of aluminum hydroxide generated by neutralizing aluminum salt (alkaline aqueous solution combined with acidic aqueous solution comprising aluminum), dehydrating and drying the obtained alumina hydrogel, and then calcining the resultant at 400 to 800°C (250 – 400°C) for about 1 to 6 hours (1 to 12 hours).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
The alumina carrier that was prepared is taught in paragraph 58 to be impregnated with an aqueous chloroplatinic acid solution whose pH was adjusted to 2.0 so that the platinum-loaded amount after calcination was 0.6% by weight. (a range of 0.5 to 1.5 % by weight calculated as elemental platinum) The resultant was dried (at 120°C for 3 hours) and calcined (at 400°C for 3 hours). (calcined at a temperature in a range of 250°C to 400°C)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
After the alumina carriers are impregnated with an aqueous chloroplatinic acid, dried and calcine, the resultant is taught in paragraph 61 to be placed in a flow-type hydrogen-reducing apparatus, and hydrogen reduction was carried out at 450°C. for 15 hours in a hydrogen stream (after calcination at 400°C), thereby yielding a 0.6 wt % platinum-loaded alumina catalyst. (temperature of the hydrogen reduction is higher than the temperature for calcining the boehmite after drying, is higher than the temperature for calcining the y- alumina carrier impregnated with the platinum and dried, and Is in a range of 300°C to 450°C)
The amount of sulfur is taught in paragraph 19 of OKADA to be preferably 0.15 % by weight or more and 5% by weight. (sulfur or sulfur compound in a range of 0.5 to 1.2 % by weight calculated as elemental sulfur (S))
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 35 that although alkali is not necessary for masking acid sites, it is generally preferable, in terms of performances of the catalyst, to mask the acid site with alkali metal.
HAYES teaches dehydrogenation catalysts that comprises effective amounts of platinum and an alkali metal on an alumina carrier material.
HAYES teaches in lines 34-48 of column 3 that the alkali metal is present from about 0.1 to about 5 wt%.
OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 14 the procedure comprises impregnating the obtained sulfur-containing catalyst carrier with an aqueous solution of catalyst metal compound and drying the resulting catalyst carrier to obtain a dried matter loading the catalyst metal compound; reducing the dried matter loading the catalyst metal compound as it is in a hydrogen atmosphere.
HAYES teaches in lines 14-48 of column 9 that the alkali metal is preferably added to the carrier material after other metals such as platinum as the alkali metal also neutralizes some of the acid. The impregnation with the alkali metal may be done without calcination being performed after.
It would be obvious to load about 0.1 to about 5 wt% of alkali metal onto the alumina carrier in OKADA et al. after platinum has been added and then subjecting the catalyst to hydrogen reduction without a calcination step in between given that OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 35 that although alkali is not necessary for masking acid sites, it is generally preferable, in terms of performances of the catalyst, to mask the acid site with alkali metal.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 35 that the alkali metal is taught to include potassium. HAYES teaches in lines 59-61 of column 9 that the alkali metal may be sodium or potassium.
Regarding claim 9, OKADA et al. teach that application of sulfur can be done with aqueous ammonium sulfate solution.
OKADA et al. teach in paragraphs 20-21 that after aqueous ammonium sulfate may be used to incorporate sulfur. The conditions for preparing the sulfur-containing catalyst container are taught to usually include a calcination temperature of greater than 100°C and lower than 1000°C and a time of 0.5 hour or more and 48 hours or less. (calcined at a temperature in a range of 250°C to 400°C for a time period in the range of 1 to 12 hours)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
Regarding claim 7, hydrogen reduction is taught in paragraph 61 to be carried out at 450°C. for 15 hours in a hydrogen stream. (time period of the hydrogen reduction is in a range of 1 to 15 hours).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
Regarding claim 12, OKADA et al. teach in paragraph 58 that hydrogen reduction is taught in paragraph 58 to occur for a period of 15 hours.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap. 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).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the more narrow range of 0.5 to 1.2 wt% for sulfur content used in the catalyst used allows for a uniform dispersion as well as long-term catalytic stability.
This is not persuasive as applicant has not present evidence to show how the more narrow range is critical and achieves unexpected results.
Applicant argues that YOTOU appears to be cited to illustrate a general supporting technique using ultrasonic radiation for coating catalysts on a honeycomb structure.
“YOTOU teaches in paragraph 53 that measuring catalyst size may be done with transmission electron microscope (TEM) observation and CO pulse method.
Observing the metal particle size using transmission electron microscope would be an obvious alternative measuring method for determining metal particle sizes.”
It is noted that the claims have been amended to include limitations from claims that were further rejected in view of HAYES (US 3723557).
OKADA teaches a process that follows substantially the same steps.
OKADA teaches that although alkali is not necessary for masking acid sites, it is generally preferable, in terms of performances of the catalyst, to mask the acid site with alkali metal.
HAYES is relied on to effective amounts of alkali metals that may used along with platinum metal on an alumina carrier for dehydrogenation catalysts.
HAYES further teaches that the alkali metal is preferably added to the carrier material after other metals such as platinum as the alkali metal also neutralizes some of the acid. HAYES further teaches that in the case of impregnation of alkali metal, calcination may be performed before or after the impregnation of alkali metal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SCHMIDT et al. (US 5004859) that hydrogen may be used to reduce the platinum group component at temperatures of about 425°C to 625°C.
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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights