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 .
Specification
Applicant's replacement sheet of Fig. 7 A, filed on 08/31/2026, has been reviewed and entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 80-83, 85-88 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Bohringer et al. (US2016/0296911) in view of Takahashi (WO2019/131270) (For applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2020/384444 has been used for citations).
Bohringer et al. teaches a process of producing a catalyst system for hydrogenation comprising at least one catalytically active component, wherein at least one catalytically active component is fixed on a catalyst carrier, wherein the catalytically active component comprises at least one metal selected from the group of Cu, Ag, Au, Zn, Hg, Sn, Ce, Ti, Zr, V, Nb, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Bi, Ru, Os, Co, Rh, Re, Ir, Ni, Pd and Pt (preferably Pd, Pt and Ru), wherein said method comprises the following steps in the hereinbelow defined sequence (a) to (d): (a) providing a spherical activated carbon as a catalyst carrier, wherein the activated carbon has a Gurvich total pore volume in the range from 0.5 cm3/g to 4 cm3/g, wherein preferably 50% to 95%, of the total pore volume, in particular of the Gurvich total pore volume, of the catalyst system and/or of the activated carbon is formed by pores having pore diameters of 0.8-60 nm (para [0069]-[0072], [0158],[0224], claim 15, 20), wherein 10% to 85% of the Gurvich total pore volume of the activated carbon is formed by pores having pore diameters in the range from 0.8 nm to 60 nm, and wherein the activated carbon has a specific BET surface area in the range from 800 m2/g to 3500 m2/g; then (b) surface-oxidizing the spherical activated carbon provided in step (a), wherein the surface oxidation of the activated carbon leads to a formation of oxygen-containing functional groups on the surface of the activated carbon, wherein the surface oxidized activated carbon having 1.5 wt.% to 25 wt.% of oxygen containing functional groups and having hydrophilic surface (para. [0095], [0096]); then (c) providing the surface-oxidized activated carbon of step (b) with at least one catalytically active component to obtain a catalyst system by fixing the catalytically active component on the catalyst carrier; then (d) reducing the catalyst system obtained in step (c) in the form of the activated carbon endowed with the catalytically active component under temperature of in the range from 0° C to 750° C, more preferably 100° C to 500° C (para. [0138]), and wherein the obtained catalytic active component having a crystallite size most preferably from 2 nm to 20 nm (para. [0145]).
Bohringer et al. expressly teaches the activated carbon comprising mesopores and macropores having average pore diameter 0.8-60 nm (para. [0158], [0168]-[0170], [0212]) wherein macropores referring to pores having diameter larger than 50 nm.
As for the claimed ratio Q of the total pore volume to specific BET surface area, Bohringer et al. already teaches a pore volume overlapping or within the claimed total pore volume, and a specific BET surface area overlapping or within the claimed specific BET surface area range, therefore, an Q ratio overlapping or within the claimed Q ratio is expected. As for the claimed oxygen content, Bohringer et al. teaches an oxygen content overlapping or within the claimed oxygen content thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Bohringer et al. also teaches the oxygen functional group content on the oxidized activated carbon is adjustable (para. [0096]). As for the instantly claimed oxidized carbon hydrophilicity: determined as water-vapor adsorption behavior, such that 30% to 100% of the maximum water-vapor saturation loading of the oxidized activated carbon being reached at partial pressure p/p0 of 0.6, Bohringer et al. (para. [0092]-[0096]) already teaches a same or substantially the same oxidation process/step using same or substantially the same oxidizing agent under same or substantially the same temperature obtaining same or substantially the same oxidized activated carbon having same or substantially the same oxygen content as that of instant application of obtaining the oxidized activated carbon (see the published application US2023/0372920 para. [0213]-[0217]), therefore, such same or substantially the same oxidized activated carbon as shown by Bohringer et al. would have same or substantially the same hydrophilicity, i.e. determined as water-vapor adsorption behavior, such that 30% to 100% of the maximum water-vapor saturation loading of the oxidized activated carbon being reached at partial pressure p/p0 of 0.6, as that of instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 80, Bohringer et al. does not expressly teach the dispersion degree of the catalytically active component.
Takahashi teaches palladium supported onto oxidated activated carbon carrier having a dispersion degree of 16% to 29% (table 2, para. [0117]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known dispersion degree as shown by Takahashi to modify the catalyst of Bohringer et al. because adopting such well-known technique of catalytic active component dispersion degree to modify a well-known oxidized activated carbon supported hydrogenation catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 81-83 and 88, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 85, Bohringer et al. teaches catalytic active precursor in step (b) being supported onto oxidized activated carbon carrier and then converted to catalytical active component in step (d) (para. [00690-[0072], [0138]-[0139], [0145], exemplary embodiments, claim 15, 29).
Regarding claim 86, Bohringer et al. also teaches providing the surface-oxidized activated carbon with the catalytically active component comprises fixing the surface-oxidized activated carbon with the catalytically active component, wherein the fixing is affected by at least one of immersing, wetting, impregnating, spraying and spray-dispensing the surface-oxidized activated carbon in or with the catalytically active component used in the form of a solution or dispersion (claim 25, para. [0124]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 87, Bohringer et al. already teaches an overlapping reducing temperature as that of instantly claimed as discussed above. Bohringer et al. also teaches reducing temperature can be 1 hour. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known reducing time as shown by Bohringer et al. to reduce the catalytic active precursor for help obtaining a desired catalyst active component loaded oxidized activated carbon catalyst for intended application, e.g. hydrogenation because adopting such well-known technique of reducing time to modify a well-known oxidized activated carbon supported catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on 08/31/2026 have been acknowledged and thus previous objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about Bohringer et al. disclosed activated carbon formed via high micro/microporosity, it is noted that instant claims only require an activated carbon formed via mesopore and macropore having pore diameters in the range of 2nm to 500 nm, Bohringer et al. expressly teaches the activated carbon comprising mesopores and macropores having average diameter 0.8-60 nm (para. [0158], [0168]-[0170], [0212]) wherein macropores referring to pores having diameter larger than 50 nm. Even if with high micro/mesoporosity, Bohringer et al. teaches the activated carbon comprising macropores as well (para. [0158], [0168]-[0170]). Furthermore, Bohringer et al. disclosed activated carbon can have average pore diameter being 60nm, wherein size of 60 nm pores are macropores. In response to applicant's argument that Bohringer et al. fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., activated carbon has a specified pore volume wherein a defined fraction 50-90% is formed by pores having pore diameters in the range of 2nm to 500nm ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicants’ arguments about Bohringer et al. disclosed activated carbon having an average pore diameter of only about 5 nm (para. [0241]) but instant application using an activated carbon having an average pore diameter in the range of 15 nm to 100nm, first of, such alleged average pore diameter of 15-100 nm not being claimed. Secondly, reference’s teachings are not limited by its preferred embodiment. In this case, Bohringer et al. discloses activated carbon having an average pore diameter from 0.8 to 60 nm (para. [0168]-[0170], [0212]), which overlaps with that of instantly claimed activated carbon pore diameter range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144. 05 I).
In response to applicant’s arguments about Bohringer et al. not showing ratio of Q leading to particular good effect of instant application, the office has already been reasonably established that Bohringer et al. disclosed Q ratio being same or substantially as that of instantly claimed, therefore same or substantially the same advantage as applicant argued would be expected. In response to applicant’s arguments about Bohringer et al. not indicating any specific level of microporosity, instant claims do not recite any specific macro-porosity at all (see claim 80). As long as Bohringer et al disclosed activated carbon has one macropore, it would meet the claimed limitation of macro-pore. Specifically, Bohringer et al. teaches activated carbon having macropores, even if with Bohringer et al. disclosed high micro/mesoporosity, for example, be 30 to 99% of micro/mesoporosity, with 100% porosity, presence of macro-porosity can be up to 70% (para. [0158], [0168]-[0170, [0212]). Therefore, Bohringer et al. disclosed pore structure leading to different Q ratio arguments are not found convincing.
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). Applicants are 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 JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
