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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on August 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings set forth in the Office Action dated xx are hereby withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the drawings.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that catalyst D is the only example in Bi-Zeng that combines the claimed elements. This argument is not persuasive. Catalyst D in Bi-Zeng is impregnated with Ni, Mo, W and prepared using citric acid. The catalyst as claimed in this application, comprises Ni and at least one of Mo and W. Therefore, catalyst C and catalyst D both comprise of Ni and at least one of Mo and W with a zeolite and citric acid (paragraphs [0061]-[0062]). During the impregnation process taught by Bi-Zeng the catalyst is aged for 2 h and then heated for 10 mins at 160 °C and then ramped to 360 °C (paragraph [0062]). The citric acid is present during the impregnation, during the first drying step.
Applicant argues that Bi Zeng heats catalyst D above the decomposition temperature of citric acid. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant points to paragraph [0038] for the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent. In the same paragraph one embodiment states “the drying step is conducted at a temperature sufficient to remove the impregnation solution solvent, but below the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent” (paragraph [0038]). Thus, the modifying agent (citric acid) is not decomposed.
The applicant argues lack of support for the retention of the citric acid in catalyst D taught by Bi-Zeng. This argument is not persuasive. The applicant points to two sentences in Bi-Zeng with “generally, when an organic acid is used in the impregnation, calcination to oxides is not employed” (paragraph [0036]), and “the drying step is conducted at a temperature sufficient to remove the impregnation solution solvent, but below the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent (paragraph [0038]). Neither step demonstrate the decomposition of organic acid. Bi-Zeng teaches another embodiment where the dried impregnated extrudate is then calcined at a temperature above the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent (paragraph [0038]). As stated above when an organic acid is employed the catalyst is not calcined, therefore the catalyst is not heated to a temperature above the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent.
The applicant argues the claimed dispersion is achieved under conditions Bi Zeng does not use. This argument is not persuasive. The applicant argues citric acid serves as a ligand for the metals during deposition (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]). Bi Zeng teaches the organic complexing agent preferably being a bidentate ligand, with organic acids as a preferred class of organic complexing agents, and a preferred organic acid is citric acid (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]).
The impregnation method in the instant application is by incipient wetness or ion exchange in solution and is a commonly used technique for introducing metals into a catalyst composition that includes a support (paragraph [0068]). Additionally, it is stated that many variables can affect the dispersion of the metal salt during impregnation, and after impregnating a support with a metal salt, the support can be dried to remove the excess water (paragraph [0068]). The specification states that the Group 8-10 metal is deposited by impregnation, the dispersion agent can be added to the impregnation solution (paragraph [0071]). Additionally, the specification states that by using a dispersion agent, the nature of how metals are deposited is altered (paragraph [0073]).
Bi Zeng teaches incipient wetness as an impregnation technique (paragraph [0037], [0061], [0062]). During the impregnation the soaked extrudates are aged for 2 h, and heated at 160 °C for ten minutes before ramping the temperature (paragraphs [0061], [0062]).
It is stated in the specification the dispersion happens during impregnation, and the metal is introduced into the catalyst support at this step. The specification is silent on the dispersion agent being required during the drying step, the drying step is stated to remove excess water and does not state that removing the water changes the metal structure of the catalyst. The same method for impregnation (incipient wetness) is used by both this application and Bi Zeng.
The applicant argues Figure 6 demonstrates the retention of the dispersion agent through low temperature drying, not the mere transient presence of citric acid at some earlier point in a process that later decomposes it, that produces the claimed single layer dispersion. This argument is not persuasive. Figure 6 demonstrates the change in the metal stack heigh when no citric acid (A) and when citric acid (B-D) is added. Figure 6 does not provide further evidence that the dispersion agent is required after the impregnation of the metal.
Applicant argues the inherency position is not supported. This argument is not persuasive. The applicant argues the citric acid is decomposed, and the inherency depends on the citric acid. Bi-Zeng teaches “generally, when an organic acid is used in the impregnation, calcination to oxides is not employed” (paragraph [0036]), and “the drying step is conducted at a temperature sufficient to remove the impregnation solution solvent, but below the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent (paragraph [0038]). As stated above when an organic acid is employed the catalyst is not calcined, therefore the catalyst is not heated to a temperature above the decomposition temperature of the modifying agent (citric acid). Additionally, the specification of the instant application states the impregnation method is by incipient wetness or ion exchange in solution, and is a commonly used technique for introducing metals into a catalyst composition that includes a support (paragraph [0068]). Additionally, many variables can affect the dispersion of the metal salt during impregnation, and after impregnating a support with a metal salt, the support can be dried to remove the excess water (paragraph [0068]). The specification states the Group 8-10 metal is deposited by impregnation, the dispersion agent can be added to the impregnation solution (paragraph [0071]). Additionally, the specification states by using a dispersion agent, the nature of how metals are deposited is altered (paragraph [0073]). The specification does not teach the presence of the citric acid after the drying step after the metal has already been impregnated on the support.
As set forth above and as previously summarized in the September 2, 2026 interview summary, it is submitted that a prima facie case has been established.
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 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