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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-18 are pending and presented for examination. Applicants are requested to ensure the claims are amended to be in proper US form.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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 4-9, 14 and 15 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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14, and recite the language of “in particular . . .” or “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite as to if the “solution comprising a solvent” is being further limited for claim 4 (claims 5, 7 and 9 depend from 4 and is rejected for the same reason) and “a mineral acid” for claim 5. For the purposes of compact prosecution they are being construed as not being further limited by the language after “in particular”.
For claim 9 the range is being construed as between 0.2 and 25, not the language after “preferably”.
As to claim 6 it is unclear if “and also” is limiting the Markush groups or not, they are being treated as separate embodiments outside of the Markush groupings for the purposes of compact prosecution
As to claims 6 and 15, the claims recite “the organic compounds” and “the (optional) organic compound(s)” respectively, but this lacks antecedent basis as there are no “organic compounds” in claim 1 from which it depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution they are being construed as both dependent upon claim 4 (And since the language in claim 4 is not being construed as being limiting they are being treated as thusly not necessarily requiring “the organic compounds”).
In claim 16 it is indefinite as to what stage a1, a2, and a3 refer to, it appears they are referring to the stages outlined in claim 10 which is how the claim is being construed as being dependent upon and that thusly a1 is decoking, a2 is separation of compounds of contaminants/impurities type, and a3 is mechanical grinding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2012139626A to Ishihara et al. (hereinafter, “Ishihara at __”; pagination to the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 17, Ishihara discloses a process for the production of a recycled catalyst (Ishihara at 1 & 5) comprising a Group VIB and VIII metal (molybdenum and iron, etc., Id.; While the claim also states that P and S are present, they are optional so they are not required by the claim) and a support based on an oxide (alumina, 2, which can also have phosphorus in it, Id.);
An extraction step wherein the spent catalyst is added to a solvent (acid solution) to obtain a solution of extracted metals; and
Impregnating the spent catalyst carrier (which is alumina regenerated with metals per the Example catalysts) with the extracted solutions resulting from the extraction solution (Id.) wherein thusly the metals present are common from the original spent catalyst and the recycled catalyst and no additional steps are performed such that the metal ions would be in the liquid phase from the extraction until the impregnation (Id.) and as such the solvent is common for claims 2 and 3.
With respect to claim 4, a chelating agent can be added to the extraction solution (which comprises a solvent, Id.) and chelating agents have complexing properties (Id.).
As to claim 5, nitric acid is utilized (Id.).
Concerning claims 6 and 7, citric acid is the chelating agent.
Regarding claim 9, as the reference teaches that 0.2 is the upper limit and lists a reason for why going higher is not preferred it is considered to be present with sufficient specificity to abut upon the claimed range of 0.2-25; first full paragraph of page 4).
Turning to claim 11, addition of the chelating agent meets “modification of the composition of the solution addition of at least one compound”.
Concerning claim 13, sulfidation is performed (6th paragraph of 6).
Turning to claim 16, this is a combination of the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 13 and are thusly cited to in their entirety. Note that steps (c)-(e) & (g) are optional and thusly not required by the claim, and the same holds true for the “optional makeup solution”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 20110094939 to Jansen et al. (hereinafter, “Jansen at __”). Claim 9 is rejected under the same grounds as an alternative to that of just Ishihara.
Regarding claim 8, Ishihara does not expressly state addition of the claimed organic compounds.
Jansen in a method of regenerating a catalyst (Jansen at “Abstract”) discloses that polyethylene glycol (Jansen at [0033], with a molecular weight between 200 and 600) can be used as an additive to a makeup solution, especially with citric acid like in Ishihara (Jansen at [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ishihara in view of the addition of ethylene glycol of Jansen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being an increase in activity of the final product (Jansen at [0031]).
As to claim 9, 0.1+0.5=0.6 to 1 is the molar ratio of CA+PEG:acid (Jansen at [0054]).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent No. 8128811 to McCarthy et al. (hereinafter, “McCarthy at __”).
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara does not expressly state a liquid pretreatment of the spent catalyst.
McCarthy in a method of regenerating a hydroprocessing catalyst (McCarthy at “Abstract”) discloses usage of solvent stripping (McCarthy at 5:30-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ishihara in view of the liquid processing of McCarthy. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so is to remove hydrocarbons (Id.).
Turning to claim 12, McCarthy also discloses during impregnation adding additional metal species (McCarthy at 2:58-61).
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent No. 6589905 to Fischer et al. (hereinafter, “Fischer at __”).
Regarding claim 14, Ishihara does not expressly state that at least part of the impregnation solution is reused after impregnation.
Fischer in a method of making catalysts discloses that impregnation solution can be recycled and made up with additional metals (Fischer at 14:23-26). This also covers claim 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ishihara in view of the impregnation solution recycling of Fischer. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being a process improvement in not having to make new impregnation solution and that it also provides for additional component addition (Id.).
As to claim 15, part of the solvent can be evaporated (meeting withdrawing part of the solvent, Id.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US PG Pub No. 20110306685 to Kibby et al. (hereinafter, “Kibby at __”).
Regarding claim 18, Ishihara does not expressly state a pre or post impregnation.
Kibby in a method of making a catalyst discloses usage of repeated impregnations (Kibby at [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Ishihara in view of the repeated impregnations of Kibby. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being control of the metal content (Id.).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN111151236 to Han et al. (cited and provided by Applicants) discloses a method of regenerating a Cs loaded silica catalyst via extracting the Cs with a solvent and then impregnating the support with the solution. However Cs is not a Group VIB or VIII metal.
WO2008031897 to Oogen et al. (cited and provided by Applicants) discloses a method of recycling a Group VIB or VIII loaded catalyst via a solvent but does not disclose impregnation and requires precipitation which the instant claim does not permit as this would take the metals out of the solution. There is also no rationale to combine this with Han because Oogjen does not want silica present at all which would ruin any rationale to combine and there is no motivation present in Han to combine with Oogjen anyways.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights