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 .
The amendment dated 01/07/2026 has been considered and entered. The amendment overcomes the rejection based on indefiniteness which is hereby withdrawn. The response based on the prior art was considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
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.
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 – 4, 11 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quignard et al. (BR PI 1100583-B1)
In regards to claims 1, 11, Quignard teaches hydroliquefaction process of biomass (abstract). The process comprises a catalyst comprise 0.5% to 10% of nickel (Ni), 1 to 30% of molybdenum on a phosphorus-doped alumina (i.e., aluminum oxide) support [0084]. Calcination is a process that generally occurs in air or oxygen (aerobic) at high temperatures. Quignard does not teach the presence of nickel-phosphide. Quignard does not particularly recite the steps of preparing the catalyst or the step of phosphorus doping. Composite comprising aluminum oxide-nickel has been known to be prepared by calcination of layered double hydroxide of nickel aluminum hydroxide to form a nickel-aluminum oxide, at calcination temperatures of 500℃ or more (see Hu et al. CN 109592755A and Wang et al. CN 108993555B).
The process of doping metals with phosphorus in inert gas is also known in view of Tang et al. (CN 111229267A). Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art would have known to prepare the compound of Quignard in view of the steps known in the art in view of Hu, Wang and Tang, as they teach conventional method of preparing the phosphorus doped compound of Quignard.
In regards to claim 2, Quignard, Hu, Wang and Tang teach the process. Quignard teaches the composition can comprise a metal oxide at from 5 to 40%, and thus allows for the presence of the aluminum (Al) and Ni to be present at amounts overlapping the claimed range [0085]. The step of preparing the precursor material, i.e., Ni-Al based layered double hydroxide used in the instant process is a product by process which is provided as long as the product itself is provided. The process of making the product used in the claimed process does not carry patentable weight.
In regards to claim 3, Quignard, Hu, Wang and Tang teach the process. Hu teaches a hydrothermal reaction of Ni-Al-precursor (i.e., aluminum hydroxide) ingredients which are dissolved in water (aqueous) and a buffer solution such as sodium hydroxide-sodium carbonate (i.e., alkali precursor) added to adjust the pH of the solution to alkali, heating at 50 to 70℃, and reacting at a hydrothermal temperature of from 90 to 120℃ for 8 to 12 hours, washing the reaction product and drying (specification). It is noted that the precursor to the Ni-Al based layered double hydroxide used in the claimed process does not carry patentable weight or is provided for in the product-by-process limitation so long as the product itself which is used in the instant process, namely, the Ni-Al based layered double hydroxide is taught. The amount of the alkali base is a results effective parameter that will change based on the pH of the composition.
In regards to claim 4, Quignard, Hu, Wang and Tang teach the process. Hu teaches the calcination process at high temperatures but does not particularly recite the temperature and heating rate of the claims. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
In regards to claims 12, 13, Quignard teaches a catalyst comprising the claimed phosphorus-doped nickel-aluminum oxide which does not contain a nickel phosphide phase.
In regards to claims 14 – 16, Quignard teaches the use of the catalyst in hydrodeoxygenation [0010, 0079]. The process can comprise an oil such as vegetable and animal fats such as coconut oil etc., of the claims. While the process conditions such as the temperature, pressure, space velocity and reaction time of the claims are not particularly recited, they are parameters that are routinely optimized by persons of ordinary skill in the art thus making them obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Quignard fails to particularly recite the phosphorus component of claim 5, the ratio of P:Ni of claim 6, or the passivation of the doped phosphorus compound with an oxygen gas mixture having Ar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are drawn to a process of making a nickel aluminum oxide compound (NiAl2O4) which is different from the nickel-alumina (i.e., Ni/Al2O3) composite of Quignard that does not have a chemical bond. The argument is not persuasive.
The claim recites nickel-aluminum oxide but does not recite that it has the structure NiAl2O4 as argued. Also, Ni/Al2O3 of Quignard is a nickel-aluminum oxide as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights