DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to the type of hydrocarbon which is dehydrogenated using the catalyst as catalysts are different depending on the hydrocarbon which is dehydrogenated and it follows that the type of catalysis reaction for which the catalyst is used does not provide a clear and unambiguous delimitation for the catalyst as such and accordingly the composition of the catalyst is unclear. Further the claim recites the step of “processing….to produce a processed raw material” however it is unclear as to how the material is processed. Also the claim recites the step of “using” however it fails to recite how the material is used to produce a cement. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(q). Clarification is requested.
In claim 8 it is unclear as to how the raw material is used as an alumina source. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arutyunov et al “Reprocessing of Spent Cr-containing Dehydrogenation Catalyst IM-2201”.
The reference teaches a method of reprocessing a Cr-containing dehydrogenation catalyst. The method involves reducing the amount of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) to produce a stable material that is suitable for further use a secondary feedstock in other industrial processes such as construction materials (see page 83, 4th full paragraph). The catalyst contains Al, Si, K, Cr and O (see page 81, paragraph 3). The reference teaches on page 83, 7th paragraph, that the catalysts may be used as additives for industrial construction materials such as cements, concretes, etc.
The instant claim is met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches the use of a spent hydrogenation catalyst comprising alumina as an additive for cement. Note that the amount of Cr may be reduced and this would meet the processing step. As it may be added to cement, this meets the using step.
As for claim 2, based on the composition of the catalyst which includes aluminum, chromium and oxygen this would meet the claimed limitation of chromium supported on alumina absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches that the catalyst may be used as an additive for cement. Since the catalyst contain aluminum it is believed that it would meet an alumina source for cement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Dhamri et al “Use of alumina spent catalyst and RFCC wastes from petroleum refinery to substitute bauxite in the preparation of Portland cement clinker”.
The reference teaches the use of a spent alumina catalyst as a substitute for bauxite in the preparation of clinker (see the abstract). According to the flow chart on page 853, the spent catalyst is thermally treated and then utilized as a component in the product of Portland cement.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a spent alumina catalyst which is thermally treated and then used to produce a cement. While the reference does not recite that the spent alumina catalyst is a dehydrogenation catalyst it would have been obvious to utilize any type of spent alumina catalyst in light of the fact that the instant claim does not require a catalyst having any particular composition. Therefore it would appear obvious in the absence of evidence showing otherwise to substitute another spent alumina catalyst for the spent alumina catalyst of the reference absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 8, as the reference teaches that the spent alumina catalyst is used as a substitute for bauxite and since bauxite is a material comprising a high aluminum oxide content (see Table 3) then it is clear that it is being used as an alumina source.
References Cited By The Examiner
UK Patent No. GB 2530458 B teaches spent cracking catalyst containing compositions.
The reference fails to teach a dehydrogenation catalyst comprising alumina.
Russia Patent Specification No. RU 2553795 C2 teaches a complex additive for concrete comprising a deactivated catalyst for dehydrogenating cyclohexanol from ε-caprolactam. The catalyst comprises calcium, zinc and copper.
The reference fails to teach a dehydrogenation catalyst comprising alumina.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 9-14 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 and provided that all 112(b) rejections are overcome.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
February 2, 2026