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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "type" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riguetto et al. (“Ru-Sn catalysts for selective hydrogenation of crotonaldehyde: Effect of the Sn/(Ru + Sn) ratio”), cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Riguetto et al. discloses reduction of a bimetallic hydrogenation catalyst, Ru-Sn/SiO2, in a fixed-bed glass reactor. The reactor was heated to 773K while flowing H2 (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 2, Riguetto et al. discloses the first metal can be Pt, Ru, or Rh and the second metal can be Fe or Sn (1. Introduction)
Regarding claim 3, Riguetto et al. discloses a sample that is 3% by mass ruthenium and 5% by mass tin (2.1 Sample preparation) (Table 1). With a 100g basis the molar ratio of ruthenium to tin is 0.705. The claimed range is 1/3 to 2, so this sample anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Riguetto et al. discloses a carrier that is silica (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 6, Riguetto et al. discloses a sample that is 3% ruthenium by mass and 5% tin by mass for a bimetallic compound of 8% by mass (Table 1). The claimed range is 1-20 parts by weight of bimetallic compound based on 100 parts by weight carrier. This translates to a mass percentage of 1/101 to 20/120 bimetallic compound which Riguetto et al. anticipates.
Regarding claim 7, Riguetto et al. discloses a heating rate of 10 K/min which is the same as 10°C/min (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 8, Riguetto et al. discloses the reduction being carried out in a fixed-bed glass reactor (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 9, Riguetto et al. discloses reduction in hydrogen (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 11, Riguetto et al. discloses keeping the reactor at a high temperature for 20 minutes (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 12, Riguetto et al. discloses the reactor being kept at 773 K (500 °C) (2.1 Sample preparation).
Regarding claim 13, Riguetto et al. discloses a rate of 10 K/min from room temperature to 773 K. If we assume room temperature is 298 K, heating will take roughly 48 minutes. Plus 20 minutes of temperature maintenance gives a little over an hour of total time.
Regarding claims 14-16, the intended use of the product produced is noted. However, it is the position of the examiner that the intended use does not limit the method of reducing instantly claimed. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the product produced by Riguetto et al. would be capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20200082915, translated document), cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses reducing a bimetallic hydrogenation catalyst by heating and supplying a reducing gas (paragraph 0089) (paragraph 0091). The bimetallic catalyst is added to a convection oven which serves as a reactor (paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. discloses a first metal of Pd, Rh, Ru or Pt (paragraph 0083) and a second metal of Sn, Fe, Re, or Ga (paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. discloses a molar ratio of 0.5-3 with Second metal/first metal (paragraph 0058). When we take the inverse to get the same ratio that is claimed, we get 0.33-2.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. discloses a carbon carrier (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. discloses a carbon carrier that can be activated carbon, carbon black, graphite, graphene, OMC, or CNT (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses a reducing gas that is hydrogen (paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. discloses a preparation of a catalyst using a ruthenium tin precursor solution with 3.9 g of RuCl3 and 3.5 g of SnCl2 (paragraph 0100). The precursor solution is added to 10 g of the carbon carrier. Using conservation of mass, we cannot have more than 3.9 g of Ru, 3.5 g of Sn, and 10 g of carbon. Therefore, we will use the absolute maximum values to anticipate this claim since the gas supplied needs to be greater. A table below shows calculations.
Ruthenium (Ru)
Tin (Sn)
Mass = 3.9 g
Mass = 3.5 g
Wt frac = 3.9 g/(10 g + 3.5 g + 3.9 g) = 0.224
Wt frac = 3.5 g/(10 g + 3.5 g + 3.9 g) = 0.201
Mol/unit mass = 0.224/101.07 g/mol = 0.00222 mol/g catalyst
Mol/unit mass = 0.201/118.71 g/mol = 0.00169 mol/g catalyst
Moles of bimetallic compound per unit mass of catalyst = 0.00222 mol/g catalyst + 0.00169 mol/g catalyst = 0.00391 mol/g catalyst. Kim et al. discloses reducing at a flowrate of 100 cubic cm/min 30% H2 and flowing for 3 hours (paragraph 0100). Calculations are shown below for the total mols of H2.
Assuming ideal gas: PV=nRT
30 cc/min = 0.03 L/min
(1atm)(0.03L/min)=n(0.08206 L*atm/(mol*K))(773K)
n = (5*10-4 mol/min)(60min/1hr)(3hrs) = 0.09 mol
Therefore, we see that the experimental example supplies a greater amount of reducing gas than the number of moles of bimetallic compound per mass of catalyst.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. discloses maintaining the temperature of the reactor (paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. discloses the reactor being maintained at 500 °C (paragraph 0100).
Regarding claims 14-16, the intended use of the product produced is noted. However, it is the position of the examiner that the intended use does not limit the method of reducing instantly claimed. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the product produced by Kim et al. would be capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Regarding claims 17-18, Kim et al. discloses using a reduced bimetallic catalyst in a hydrogenation reaction of cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid producing cyclohexane dimethanol at a yield of 85-99% (paragraph 0074). It is noted that claims 17-18 are directed to a process of using a product by process. The product by process limitations are noted However, when the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process of making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324. It is further noted that claim 1 is anticipated by Kim et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742