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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-18 were amended and claim 19 newly added via the instant amendment dated 7 July 2026 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 7 July 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection 4-9, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment removing “in particular . . .” from claims 4, 5 (and 9 as it depends from claim 4), 14 and 15, and setting forth a proper Markush Group in claims 6-8.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) over Ishihara is MAINTAINED.
The traversal is that Ihihara does not use “an impregnation solution for a different support to produce a different catalyst” (Remarks at 7). Applicants cite to a definition for what “source” is, and argue that I requires “two different entities” (Id.). The Instant Specification sets forth in [0028] a definition:
According to the present invention, “support” (which will be impregnated with the impregnation solution resulting from the solution of extracted metal/metals) is understood to mean a “new” support of oxides but also a support which has already been impregnated with another impregnation solution (reference is made to preimpregnated support) or a support which is in fact a catalyst (a support provided with metals) but which contains an insufficient amount of metals, such as a spent or regenerated catalyst.
This definition permits explicitly that the support can be a spent catalyst. Ishihara in “Examples 1-8” explicitly discloses that the catalyst to be treated is in fact spent. Given such, it meets the requirement of being a “support” as explicit defined (and thusly limiting the claim’s usage of the term “support”). There is no requirement in the claim or definition in the Instant Specification that thusly requires the “carrier” or “source”. If Applicants regard that the source catalyst support and recycled support must be different than that should be positively claimed, if support for such exists. As it stands, there is no requirement that the same spent catalyst cannot be the source of recycling and that to which the catalyst metals are recycled to.
The rejections of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ishihara n view of ansen; 10 and 12 over Ishihara in view of McCarthy; 12 and 14 over Ishihara in view of Fischer; and 18 over Ishihara in view of Kibby were all made en masse over the independent claim rejection and are thusly maintained as that rejection was maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 6 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.
As to claim 6, the newly added limitation of “wherein the extraction is carried out with a solution comprising the organic compound which is a sugar, or contains a furan ring or comprises one or more chemical functions selected from the group consisting of . . .” is indefinite as to if the compound is a sugar which contains a furan ring or a sugar which contains one of the chemical groups, or if it can be a sugar or an organic compound containing the listed chemical functions. For the puproses of compact prosecution it is being construed as the latter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara.
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.), the catalyst of Ishihara per “Examples 1-8” can be a spent catalyst (inter alia one devoid of metals as they are inactivated via catalysis);
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 vis a vis pre-impregnated) 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 claims 4, 6 and 7, a chelating agent can be added to the extraction solution (which comprises a solvent, Id.) and chelating agents have complexing properties (Id., citric acid can be utilized and it has a carboxylic group thusly meeting “organic compound . . . comprises one or more chemical functions”).
As to claim 5, nitric acid is utilized (Id.).
Regarding claim 9, as the reference teaches that 0.2 is the upper limit and lists a reason 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
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 Jansen. 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 McCarthy.
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 Fischer.
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 Kibby.
Regarding claim 18, Ishihara does not expressly state a 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.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of US PG Pub No. 20170173564 to Ovesen et al. (hereinafter, “Ovesen at __”).
As to claim 19, Ishihara does not expressly state a ratio of the organic acid:extracted metals.
Ovesen in a method of recycling via impregnating supports for catalysts (Ovesen at [0009]) that a organic acid:extracted metal weight ratio can be 2-20:1 (0.1-2:1, 192.12 g/mol*0.1-2=19.212-384.24:95.95=0.2-4:1) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.4-1.2:1 and is thusly prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
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 organic:metal ratio of Ovesen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being improvement in the extraction agent solubility (Ovesen at [0018]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-19 are finally rejected.
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 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 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, Curtis 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