DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 were subjected to restriction requirement mailed on 01/19/2026.
Applicants filed a response, and elected species a-i, claims 1-2 and 4-11, and withdrew claim 3, with traverse on 01/19/2026.
Claims 1-11 are pending, and claim 3 is withdrawn after consideration.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-11 are rejected.
Claim 7 is objected to.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species a-i, claims 1-2 and 4-11 in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/19/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
First, there are two different Abstracts filed 05/16/2023. I tis unclear which Abstract is to be included with the application.
Furthermore, in one Abstract, line 1, it recites “ Described is a catalyst (emphasis added)”; in another Abstract, it recites “The present invention relates to (emphasis added)”
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 recites a phrase “palladium is spaced inward from the surface of the carrier by a distance in a range of 5 µm to 10 µm”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to “location of any of the palladium is inward from the surface of the carrier by a distance in a range of 5 µm to 10 µm” according to specification, FIG. 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 1, it is suggested to amend “palladium” to “the palladium” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Claim 7, line 1, it is suggested to amend “palladium” to “the palladium” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6, line 2, recites a phrase “a ring-like form”. The addition of the word “like” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “like” is intended to convey. Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase to “a ring-shaped form”.
Claim 10, line 1, recites a phrase “the halogen element”, which lacks antecedent basis, as claim 5, only recites “at least one element selected from the group consisting of chlorine, phosphorus and fluorine”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what “halogen element” is referring to, i.e., “the chlorine and the fluorine” as what is commonly understood to be halogen elements, or “at least one element selected from the group consisting of chlorine, phosphorus and fluorine” according to specification (page 5, 1st paragraph).
The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to the at least one element selected from the group consisting of chlorine, phosphorus and fluorine. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
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, 4-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 112439432A (Zhang), in view of Li et al., Synthesis of high surface area MgAl2O4 spinel as catalyst support via layered double hydroxides-containing precursor, Applied Clay Science, 2016 (Li).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Zhang et al., CN 112439432A (Zhang). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Zhang teaches an anthraquinone hydrogenation catalyst (Zhang, Abstract); wherein the active alumina modified by phosphorus as carrier, palladium as main active component.
Further regarding claims 1-2, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the carrier has a spinel structure.
With respect to the difference, Li teaches magnesium aluminate spinel (MgAl2O4) as a catalyst support (Li, Title; Abstract).
As Li expressly teaches, this high-surface area MgAl2O4 appeared a promising catalyst support, and exemplary metal catalyst supported on the MgAl2O4 possesses well-dispersed metal nanoparticles and stable activity (Li, Abstract; page 249, Conclusion); on the other hand, MgAl2O4 has also attracted much attention as catalyst support because of its interesting properties such as low acidity, high thermal resistance, good thermal stability, and good interaction with the active species (Li, page 243, left column, 1st paragraph).
Li is analogous art as Li is drawn to magnesium aluminate spinel (MgAl2O4) as a catalyst support.
In light of the motivation of using magnesium aluminate spinel (MgAl2O4) as a catalyst support, as taught by Li, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnesium aluminate spinel (MgAl2O4), instead of the active alumina, in the catalyst of Zhang, in order to obtain the interesting properties such as low acidity, high thermal resistance, good thermal stability, and/or good interaction with the active species, and higher surface, dispersed metal and stable activity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation in the claim that the catalyst is “for regenerating a working solution for synthesizing hydrogen peroxide” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Zhang in view of Li teaches the catalyst as presently claimed, it is clear that the catalyst of Zhang in view of Li would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for regenerating a working solution for synthesizing hydrogen peroxide, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Li further teaches in the anthraquinone hydrogenation catalyst, auxiliary active component is, for example cerium (Zhang, Abstract).
Given that Zhang in view of Li teaches the catalyst that overlaps the presently claimed catalyst, including cerium as the auxiliary active component, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the catalyst, which is both disclosed by Zhang in view of Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Li further teaches the mass content of the main active component (i.e., palladium) is 0.01% to 10%; and BET surface areas of the MgAl2O4 spinels are for example 105 m2/g (Li, page 245, Table 1), which corresponds to a palladium density (reading upon an activity density) of 0.0001 wt%/m2 to 0.1%/m2 (i.e., 0.01%/105=0.0001%, 10%/105=0.1%), which overlap the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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 9, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Li further teaches the mass content of the auxiliary active component in the catalyst is 0 to 8% (Zhang, Abstract); and BET surface areas of the MgAl2O4 spinels are for example 105 m2/g (Li, page 245, Table 1), which corresponds to an auxiliary active component density of 0 wt%/m2 to 0.08 %/m2 (i.e., 0/105=0%, 8%/105=0.08%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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 10, as applied to claim 5, Zhang in view of Li further teaches the mass content of the phosphorus is 0.1 to 30% (Zhang, Abstract); and BET surface areas of the MgAl2O4 spinels are for example 105 m2/g (Li, page 245, Table 1), which corresponds to an phophorus content of 0.0001 wt%/m2 to 0.3 %/m2 (i.e., 0.1/105=0.0001%, 30%/105=0.3%), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Furthermore, Zhang in view of Li teaches, in Embodiment 1 for example, when phosphorus was introduced to the carrier, phosphorus containing reagent was added and mixed uniformly with the carrier (Zhang, page 1, Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Li further teaches the MgAl2O4 spinel (sample ip-LDHs-MgAl2O4) has a BET specific surface area of 132 m2/g, pore volume of 0.35 cm3/g, and pore diameter of 8.2 nm (Li, page 245, Table 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al., CN 102626618A (Yu) (provided in IDS received on 05/16/2023).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Yu et al., CN 102626618A (Yu). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Zhang in view of Li does not explicitly disclose wherein in the carrier, palladium is spaced inward from the surface of the carrier and is present in a ring-like form.
With respect to the difference, Yu teaches palladium alumina catalyst for production of hydrogen peroxide (Yu, Abstract). Yu specifically teaches the catalyst active component is uniformly distributed egg shell type catalyst, i.e., the catalyst active component is directly inward adjacent to the surface of the carrier in a ring-shaped form (Yu, page 3, 1st paragraph).
As Yu expressly teaches, it (i.e., the egg shell type catalyst) not only can avoid the trickle bed reactor in the anthraquinone long residence time in the catalyst and deep hydrogenation and so on, so as to improve the selectivity of the catalyst, but also to reduce the palladium content and catalyst production cost (Yu, page 3, 1st paragraph).
Yu is analogous art as Yu is drawn to palladium alumina catalyst for production of hydrogen peroxide.
In light of the motivation of using an egg shell type catalyst for production of hydrogen peroxide, as taught by Yu, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use prepare the catalyst of Zhang in view of Li, into an egg shell type catalyst, i.e., with palladium as the shell, i.e., the catalyst active component is directly inward adjacent to the surface of the carrier in a ring-shaped form, in order to avoid the trickle bed reactor in the anthraquinone long residence time in the catalyst and deep hydrogenation and so on, so as to improve the selectivity of the catalyst, and/or to reduce the palladium content and catalyst production cost, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, none of Zhang, Li or Yu discloses or suggests wherein in the carrier, palladium is spaced inward from the surface of the carrier by a distance in a range of 5 m to 10 m, as presently claimed. Instead, Yu teaches the catalyst active component is uniformly distributed egg shell type catalyst, i.e., the catalyst active component is directly inward adjacent to the surface of the carrier (Yu, page 3, 1st paragraph), i.e., not by a distance in a range of 5 µm to 10 µm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732