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 1-12, 16, 21, 26, and 28-29 in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 30-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0017] [0036] each recite “acyrilnitriles”, and [0044] recites “acyrilnitrile”. It is believed that these should be edited to read, “acrylonitriles” and “acrylonitrile”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11-12, 16, 21, 26, and 28 recite limitations directed to “metal complexes”. In Paragraph [0022], the instant Specification states, “In certain embodiments, wherein the catalytic material comprises a transition metal complex and an aromatic bottoms comprising C9 aromatics, C10 aromatics, C11 aromatics, C11+ aromatics, or a combination thereof, wherein the transition metal complex is dissolved or dispersed in the aromatic bottoms, wherein the transition metal complex comprises ligands, organometallics, salts, oxides, sulfides, or a combination thereof, and wherein a metal of the transition metal complex is selected from the group consisting of Mo, W, Ni, Co, Fe, Ru, Cr and combinations of two or more of the foregoing.” Therefore, salts, oxides, and sulfides are interpreted to read on “metal complexes”.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12, 16, 21, 26, and 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 2-12, 16, 21, 26, and 28-29 begin, “The method”, whereas the independent claim 1 begins “A process”. The claims should be edited to have consistent language.
Line 3 of claim 5 recites “acyrilnitriles”. It is believed that this should be edited to read, “acrylonitriles”.
Line 9 recites the phrase “as in as in claim 5”. This phrase should be edited to read, “as in claim 5”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu (U.S. Patent No. 8,809,465, 2014), as further evidenced by Wang (CN 118767990 A, 2024) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsu teaches a process for manufacturing catalyst particles having catalytic material embedded in a plastic carrier (Komatsu, Col. 19, line 37 – Col. 20, line 36), the process comprising:
mixing catalytic material and molten plastic materials to form a mixture (Komatsu, Col. 19, lines 53-54, “The resulting mixture was melt-kneaded at a resin temperature of 200°C); and
forming embedded catalyst particles from the mixture (Komatsu, Col. 19, lines 37-66, pellets of cobalt stearate in styrene-butadiene and polyethylene resins).
Komatsu does not explicitly teach that the catalyst particles are slurry-phase hydrocracking catalyst particles or that the catalytic material is effective for slurry-phase hydrocracking. However, Wang teaches that cobalt stearate is effective for hydrocracking (Wang, [006], [0094]-[0095]). Additionally, the dimensions of Komatsu’s particles fall within the ranges of the instant invention as recited in claims 2 and 3 (Komatsu, Col. 19, lines 60-66, cross-sectional dimension of 2.0 to 3.0 mm and length of 3.0 to 4.0 mm, giving an aspect ratio of 1:1-2:1). Therefore, Komatsu’s catalytic material is effective for slurry-phase hydrocracking, and Komatsu’s catalyst particles are slurry-phase hydrocracking particles. See MPEP 2112.I, citing, e.g., Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”). In the instant case, recognizing the latent properties of effectiveness for slurry-phase hydrocracking and identification as slurry-phase hydrocracking particles does not differentiate the claim from the known process taught by Komatsu, even though Komatsu is silent to these particular properties. Finally, while Wang is not prior art to the instant application, a factual reference demonstrating characteristics and properties of a material need not be available as prior art before the effective filing date of a claimed invention. See MPEP 2124, citing, e.g., In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Wang is only used herein to demonstrate that cobalt stearate is effective for hydrocracking (Wang, [006], [0094]-[0095]).
Regarding claim 2, Komatsu teaches the method as in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the embedded slurry-phase hydrocracking catalyst particles have an average cross-sectional dimension of 2.0 to 3.0 mm (Komatsu, Col. 19, lines 60-66).
Regarding claim 3, Komatsu teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein an average particle aspect ratio is 1:1-2:1 (Komatsu, Col. 19, lines 60-66, pellets having diameter from 2.0 to 3.0 mm and length from 3.0 to 4.0 mm).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 16, 21, 26, and 28-29 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: Komatsu (U.S. Patent No. 8,809,465, 2014) and de Assis (“Conversion of plastic waste into supports for nanostructured heterogeneous catalysts: Application in environmental remediation”, 2022) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 4 and its dependent claims 5-12, 16, 21, 26, and 28-29, Komatsu teaches the method as in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the molten plastic materials are formed by melting solid commercial plastic materials (Komatsu, Col. 19, lines 37-53, TUFTEC P2000, DYNARON 8601P, NEOZEX 20201J, and EVORUE SP0511), which differ from the claimed waste plastic materials. Moreover, Komatsu selects polymers for the plastic material having specific properties (see Komatsu, Col. 3, line 31 – Col. 4, line 67, for example). A waste plastic stream could not reasonably be selected to conform to the Komatsu’s exacting specifications. This is despite de Assis’ analysis of waste plastics as catalyst supports, which states generally, “Plastic waste is considered a technically viable material for use as catalytic supports since it is used in large quantities and at a low cost” (de Assis, Page 52, Paragraph 1). While it is desirable to realize these advantages in a supported catalyst, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation that the polymers making up Komatsu’s plastic material could be substituted with polymers from a waste plastic stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights