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. Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on October 18, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claims 3, 4, and 6-9 have been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency, the Specification has been amended to include a cross-reference to related applications, and the Abstract has been amended to improve its form for U. S. Patent practice. No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-9 are presently pending in this application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on October 18 2023. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). In Applicants’ aforementioned Preliminary Amendment, the amendment to the Specification and the Abstract intended to replace the original Abstract are on the same page. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 4, 5, 8 , and 9 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. Claims 4 and 5 are indefinite for the respective limitations “anatase-type” and “rutile-type. Claim 8 is indefinite for the limitation “flow-type”. The word “type” extends the scope of th is claim so as to render it indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the word “type” be removed from claims 4, 5, and 8 . Claim 9 is indefinite for failing to clearly set forth the manufacturing method claimed therein. It appears that claim 9 is intended to be directed to a method of manufacturing a hydrogenated organic compound comprising hydrogenating an aromatic halonitro compound by using the hydrogenation catalyst according to claim 1 . Further, claim 9 fails to clearly define or delineate process steps or parameters to describe the method claimed therein. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Selective hydrogenation of o-chloronitrobenzene over palladium supported nanotubular titanium dioxide derived catalysts,” by Lucky M. Sikhwivhilu et al. (hereinafter “Sikhwivhilu et al.”; Applicants’ submitted art). Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Sikhwivhilu et al. teach catalysts for the hydrogenation of ortho -chloronitrobenzene ( o -CNB) comprising titania (TiO 2 ) nanotubes synthesized from commercial titanium dioxide powder as support and palladium as catalyst metal. See the Abstract and Section 2.1 of Sikhwivhilu et al. Regarding claim 4 , Sikhwivhilu et al. teach an embodiment in which commercial titanium dioxide powder is employed as a reference support in preparing a catalyst comprising palladium. Said reference support exhibits a phase weight ratio of 4:1 (anatase:rutile), which converts to a weight percentage ratio of 80% anatase/20% rutile, thus reading upon the claim limitation “titania that includes, as a crystal structure, 38% or more of an anatase-type”. See Section 2.1 and page 2002 of Sikhwivhilu et al., right column, first full paragraph. Although the commercial titanium dioxide powder disclosed in this reference is employed as a reference support, it has been held that: A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments . Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. Denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also MPEP 2123 (II). Regarding claims 6 and 7 , Sikhwivhilu et al. teach, in Table 1 therein, pore diameters of both the commercial titanium dioxide and of the synthesized TiO 2 nanotubes of 5.9 nm (commercial) and 9.8 nm (synthesized). Given that the pore diameter here falls within Applicants' claimed range, the skilled artisan would reasonably anticipate the pore diameters taught by Sikhwivhilu et al. to also be "78 times or less of a longitudinal molecular length the aromatic halonitro compound". Regarding claims 8 and 9 , Sikhwivhilu et al. teach the vapor phase hydrogenation of o -CNB in a vertical fixed-bed reactor (“flow-type organic synthesis system”), wherein a reactant feed consisting of o -CNB dissolved in ethanol (“aromatic halonitro compound as a liquid raw material”) is fed into the reactor with the aforementioned catalyst comprising palladium and TiO 2 nanotubes. See Section 2.3 and page 2003, right column, first full paragraph, to page 2004, left column, of Sikhwivhilu et al. In view of these teachings, Sikhwivhilu et al. anticipate claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 . Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Liquid-phase hydrogenation of o-chloronitrobenzene over supported nickel catalysts,” by Jun Xiong, et al. (hereinafter “Xiong et al.”; Applicants’ submitted art ) . Regarding claim 1 , Xiong et al. teach a catalyst for the hydrogenation of o -chloronitrobenzene, comprising nickel on a TiO 2 support. See the Abstract and Section 2.1 of Xiong et al. Regarding claims 4 and 5 , Xiong et al. teach that the TiO 2 is in anatase form; see Section 2.1. As anatase is the only form of TiO 2 disclosed in this reference, the skilled artisan would anticipate the employment of all other forms of TiO 2 , i.e., rutile and brookite, absent from this reference. Therefore, the anatase phase TiO 2 here would be expected to exhibit a crystal structure of 100%, thus reading upon the claim limitations "38% or more of an anatase-type" in claim 4 , and "titania does not include, as the crystal structure, a rutile-type", in claim 5 . Regarding claims 8 and 9 , Xiong et al. teach the liquid phase hydrogenation of o -chloronitrobenzene, wherein a stainless steel reactor (“flow-type organic synthesis system”) is charged with o -chloronitrobenzene (“aromatic halonitro compound as a liquid raw material”), an ethanol solvent, and the aforementioned catalyst (“fixed catalyst...”), after which hydrogen is fed into the reactor (“hydrogen as a gas raw material”). See Section 2.2 of Xiong et al. In view of these teachings, Xiong et al. anticipate claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 . Claims 1, 2, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sander et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,140,539). Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Sander et al. teach a supported catalyst which comprises nickel as active component (“metal…selected from group 10 elements”), either alone or together with at least one metal of transition group I, V, VI and/or VIII (e.g., palladium, platinum), on support materials, examples of which include silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and titanium dioxide. See col. 6, lines 34-49 of Sander et al. Regarding claim 7 , Sander et al. teach that the aforementioned supports “are preferably mesoporous and have a mean pore diameter of 35-50 nm”. See col. 6, lines 53-54 of Sander et al. Further regarding claims 1 and 2 , and also regarding claims 8 and 9 , Sander et al. teach employment of the aforementioned supported catalyst in a process for the hydrogenation of aromatic nitro compounds, examples of which include chloronitrobenzene and chloronitrotoluenes (“aromatic halonitro compound as a liquid raw material”), wherein said process (a) can be carried out continuously or batchwise using customary reactors, e.g., stirred vessels or loop reactors (“flow-type organic synthesis system”), (b) is “carried out in the form of a continuous liquid-phase hydrogenation”, and (c) gives preference to using pure hydrogen as hydrogenation gas (“hydrogen gas as a gas raw material”). See col. 5, lines 1-40 of Sander et al. In view of these teachings, Sander et al. anticipate claims 1, 2, and 7-9 . 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo (JP 2015-188878, Applicants’ submitted art). Regarding claims 1 and 3 , Kudo teaches a hydrogenation catalyst comprising a Group 8 metal (e.g., cobalt and nickel) and a Group 6 metal (e.g., molybdenum and tungsten) supported on carrier formed by coating the surface of a substrate composed of an inorganic oxide typified by alumina with titania. See the Abstract of Kudo, as well as paragraphs [0024], [0026], [0050]). While Kudo teaches that the aforementioned hydrogenation catalyst is “capable of efficiently hydrogenating an aromatic hydrocarbon compound” (Abstract; paragraphs [0008], [0060]), this reference does not explicitly teach or suggest that said hydrogenation catalyst is “for hydrogenation of an aromatic halonitro compound”, as recited in Applicants’ claims. However, because Kudo teaches a catalyst structurally reading upon Applicants’ claims in their present form, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the hydrogenation catalyst disclosed in Kudo to effectively and successfully hydrogenate an aromatic halonitro compound, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2112.01. Moreover, the claim limitation “for hydrogenation of an aromatic halonitro compound” is considered a statement of intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the E xaminer’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use . Given that Kudo disclose s a hydrogenation catalyst structurally reading upon that instantly claimed , it is clear that said hydrogenation catalyst disclosed in Kudo would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. , for the hydrogenation of an aromatic halonitro compound , presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5713 . 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. /Patricia L. Hailey/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 March 23, 2026