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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims in the reply filed on July 7, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected an invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 725, 730. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi-Zeng et al. (WO 2022/046623 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Bi-Zeng et al. teaches a catalyst comprised of an alumina, silica-alumina (corresponding to a binder), and a zeolite containing base impregnated with Ni, Mo, and W (paragraph [0005]). The zeolite is taught as any suitable zeolite including ZSM-12 and USY, which correspond to the MTW and FAU framework respectively (paragraph [0031]). The catalyst comprises 2-10 wt% of a Ni precursor, 3-15 wt% of a Mo precursor, and 10-50 wt% of a W precursor (paragraph [0006]), because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The catalyst can be sulfided (paragraph [0040]). Regarding the ratio of the metal layer locations of a single layer to locations of two or more, the specification of this application teaches a dispersion agent can reduce or minimize large clusters of metal on the catalyst, which can be characterized by stack height measurements (paragraph [0069]). The dispersion agent is classified as carboxylic acids and alcohols that include 5-15 carbon atoms, with citric acid as an example (paragraph [0070]). Bi-Zeng et al. teaches an organic complexing agent, with organic acids as a preferred class (paragraph [0018]). A preferred organic acid is citric acid (paragraph [0018]). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties" (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it is obvious the composition taught by Bi-Zeng et al. has a ratio of metal layer locations comprising a single layer to metal layer locations comprising two layers of 1.1 or more and a ratio of metal layer locations comprising a single layer to metal layer locations comprising two or more layers of 1.1 or more. Bi-Zeng et al. impregnate the same claimed and disclosed zeolitic framework with the same claimed and disclosed metals in overlapping amounts and utilize the same claimed dispersion agent/complexing agent/citric acid as disclosed prior to drying. It follows therefore that the same claimed effects and physical properties (e.g. the ratio of metal layer locations comprising a single layer to metal layer locations comprising two layers being 1.1 or more) would be present in the catalyst of Bi-Zeng et al. (e.g. Figure 6, examples A-D, in the published application discloses the ratio when no dispersion agent is utilized (example A – outside of the claimed range) and the ratios where a dispersion agent, such as citric acid, is utilized (examples B-D – inside the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Bi-Zeng et al. teaches any suitable zeolite including ZSM-12 and USY, which correspond to the MTW and FAU framework respectively (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Bi-Zeng et al. teaches ZSM-12 and USY (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Bi-Zeng et al. teaches sulfiding the catalyst (paragraphs [0040]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Bi-Zeng et al. teaches a trimetallic catalyst of Ni, Mo, and W (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Bi-Zeng et al. explicitly teaches a trimetallic catalyst of Ni, Mo, and W (paragraph [0005]), and is silent on the addition of a noble metal. It is the position of the examiner that this qualifies as substantially free of Pt, Pd, Ru, Rh, Os, and Ir.
Regarding claim 9, Bi-Zeng et a. teaches the zeolite can comprise 0.5-60 wt% of the base, in which the base comprises of alumina, silica alumina, and zeolite (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Bi-Zeng et al. teaches the catalyst comprises 2-10 wt% of a Ni precursor, 3-15 wt% of a Mo precursor, and 10-50 wt% of a W precursor (paragraph [0006]), because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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 (571) 272-1176. 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.
/H.E.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights