DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 14-16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1, 4, and 12-13 are cancelled. New claims 19-20 are added. Claims 2-3, 5-11, and 14-20 pending in the instant application. Claims 8-11, 14-18 remain withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. Travis B. Ribar on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2-3 and 5 overcome the rejection. The rejection to claims 2-3 and 5 is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant cancelled the rejected claim 4. The rejection is moot.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant canceled the rejected claim 1. The rejection to claim 1 is moot.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 2-3 by further limiting dehydrogenation catalyst wherein the metal active component comprises cobalt, and wherein the cobalt is supported in an amount of 1 to 5wt% based on the alumina carrier overcomes the rejection over the `831 publication because the `831 publication fails to teach a dehydrogenation catalyst comprising cobalt. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
In terms of the rejection over Tan et al., the prior art teaches a supported cobalt (Co) catalyst on a boron (B) modified γ-Al₂O₃ support (B-γ-Al₂O₃) further comprising a minor platinum. However, Tan et al. teaches the catalyst is 20wt% Co/ B-γ-Al₂O₃ (see “2.2. Catalyst synthesis and testing” at p.51, Figs. 2-3 at p. 56, and “4. Conclusions” at p.58), but not “in an amount of 1 to 5 wt% based on the alumina carrier” according to claim 5. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-3 and 5-7 is hereby withdrawn. The rejection of claims 1 and 4 is moot because the claims are cancelled.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 19-20 are clear of prior art.
Rejoinder
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 19-20 are direct to a would-be allowable product except the objection to claims 2-3. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP §821.04(B), claims 8-11, and 14-18 drawn to a method of making and using the allowed product are eligible for rejoinder. Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 09/10/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment filed 03/26/2026:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, amended claim 16 depends on claim 1 which has been canceled. In addition, “a reaction temperature” and “a flow rate” are not defined in claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite. Claims 17-18 depending on claim 16 are rejected, accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to for depending on subsequent claim 7. A dependent claim should depend on a preceding claim, not a subsequent one.
Claim 3 depending on claim 2 is also objected to. To overcome the objection, claims 2 and 3 should be cancelled and renumbered as new claims 21-22, which depends on preceding claim 5, and claim 21, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusions
Claims 16-18 are rejected.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to.
Claims 5-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731