DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/641,668 application filed 22 April 2024, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. In the instant case, if the Cu-based catalysts of claims 3 and 4 are the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claims are unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Applicant is further reminded “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, Cu-Mx/HEOs catalysts in instant claim 1 has been interpreted as “Cu is the active component, M is a reducible auxiliary metal selected from Zn, Fe, Co, Cr, Ni, Ga, Ti, Mn…and x represents the proportion of M relative to the active metal Cu, where x=1-5. HEOs represents the Cu-based high-entropy oxide carrier, wherein the elemental composition in the carrier is Cu and M1-5 which denotes a mixture of any five of Zn, Mg, Co, Ga, Al, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cr…” [paragraph 0007 of the published application].
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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 recites several limitations which lack insufficient antecedent basis in the claim (amongst several other minor issues). For the sake of brevity, it is suggested that claim 1 be rewritten as follows:
“1. A method for preparing Cu-based selective hydrogenation catalysts, comprising steps as follows:
(1) Dissolving M2+ and M3+ metal salts with an M2+/M3+ ion molar ratio of 2-3:1 in deionized water to prepare a mixed salt solution,
wherein the M2+ salts is a mixture of three types of salts, in which Cu salts is indispensable,
further the M2+ salts is a mixture of Cu(NO3)2·3H2O and any two of Zn(NO3)2·6H2O, Mg(NO3)2·6H2O, Co(NO3)2·6H2O, Ni(NO3)2·6H2O;
the M3+ salts is a mixture of any three types of salts selected from Ga(NO3)3·3H2O, Al(NO3)3·9H2O, Fe(NO3)3·9H2O, Mn(NO3)3·4H2O and Cr(NO3)3·9H2O;
the total concentration of metal ions in the mixed salt solution is 0.12-0.36 mol·l-1,
wherein Cu ions account for 15-20% of the total molar amount of metal ions,
the other two types of M2+ metal ions have similar concentrations, and together account for 35-40 % of the total molar amount of metal ions,
and the remaining three types of M3+ metal ions have similar concentrations, and together account for 40-50% of the total molar amount of metal ions;
furthermore, dissolving a mix of any two of NaOH, KOH, Na2CO3, or NaHCO3 in deionized water to prepare an alkaline solution with a concentration of 0.12-0.36 mol·l-1;
(2) starting nucleation reactor, setting [[the]] a stator-rotor gap of the nucleation reactor to 0.1-1 mm and [[the]] a speed to 1000-3000 rpm, feeding the mixed salt solution and the alkaline solution in step (1) into the reactor at the same rate of 10-30 ml·min-1 with a peristaltic pump to nucleate rapidly and [[controling]] controlling the total number of metal cations in the mixed salt solution to be equal to the number of anions in the alkaline solution, and collecting [[the]] a nucleation slurry at [[the]] an outlet;
(3) [[transfering]] transferring the nucleation slurry to a crystallization vessel, and crystallizing and growing at 60-120°C for 6-18 hours to obtain a crystallization product, cooling the crystallization product naturally to room temperature, centrifuging and washing the crystallization product with deionized water to neutrality, drying the crystallization product in a freeze dryer for 12-24 hours to obtain hexa-element layered composite metal hydroxide high-entropy hydrotalcite denoted as HEHs, with a configurational entropy value Sconfig > 1.5R;
(4) heating the HEHs obtained in step (3) with a heating rate of 5-10°C·min-1 to 400-800°C in air atmosphere and calcining for 3-6 hours to obtain hexa-element high-entropy oxides denoted as HEOs;
(5) heating with a rate of 2-10°C/min to 400-800°C and reducing the [[HEHs]] HEOs obtained in step (4) in a 10-20 vol. H2/N2 atmosphere for 3-6 hours to obtain Cu-Mx/HEOs catalysts.”
Note: in the preceding, Mn(NO3)4·4H2O is not a M3+ salt but, rather, a M4+ salt.
With respect to claim 4, said claim recites “M is Co or Fe; M1-5 is a mixture of Zn, Co, Fe, Ga, and Al.” The recitation treats M and M1-5 as separate reducible auxiliary metal entities when they are not. From claim 3, the catalyst is Cu-Mx where M is clearly “selected from Zn, Fe, Co, Cr, Ni, Ga, Ti, and Mn” and x “represents the ratio of M to active metal Cu” wherein “x is 1 to 5.” Moreover, M comprises five metals (“…a mixture of any five of Zn, Mg, Co, Ga, Al, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cr”). Therefore, it is not clear what the recitation that “M is Co or Fe; M1-5 is a mixture of Zn, Co, Fe, Ga, and Al” means since the further limitations do not appear to have support in claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al (CN 111233455).
Note: in the discussion that follows regarding Liang et al, reference will be made to the English language machine translation provided by Clarivate Analytics, which is attached with this correspondence.
Liang et al discloses “a hexahydric chromium spinel iron-cobalt based high-entropy manganese-magnesium-copper oxide and its preparation method, belonging to the oxide powder material field of entropy. the high entropy oxide chemical formula is (FeCoCrMnMgCu)3O4, the crystal structure is face-centered cubic structure, the space point group is Fd-3m” [abstract; see, also page 3 of translation]. Note that the instant application discloses that the catalyst of the instant application has a spinel structure [see, e.g., paragraphs 0017-0018 & figure 1]. It is well known in the art that spinel is a mineral of the cubic space group Fd3m that can coordinate a wide variety of metal cations in either tetrahedral (A sub-lattice) or octahedral (B sub-lattice) sites and oxygen is arranged in a face-centered-cubic lattice. Therefore, it is the position of the Office that the spinel of Liang et al corresponds to the Cu-based catalyst of instant claims 3 and 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest prior art appears to be Liu et al (US 2022/0234036), which discloses “[a] method for preparing Cuy/MMgOx interfacial catalyst for selective alkyne hydrogenation, wherein comprises the following steps: A. Prepare the mixed salt solution by dissolving Cu salt, Mg salt and M salt in 100 ml deionized water according to the metal ion molar ratio of 1~8/1~4/1, the total amount of three metal ions is 1.0~1.6 mol L−1; two kinds of alkali solutions are dissolved in deionized water to prepare alkali solution with concentration of 1.0~1.6 mol L−1; Cu salt comprises Cu(NO3)2·3H2O or CuCl2; Mg salt comprises Mg(NO3)2·6H2O or MgCl2; M salt is any one of them: Fe(NO3)3·9H2O, FeCl3, Cr(NO3)3·9H2O, CrCl3, VCl3; Alkali solutions are any two of them: NaOH, KOH, Na2CO3 or NaHCO3; B. Turn on the nucleation reactor, set the stator-rotor gap of the reactor to be 0.1~0.5 mm and the rotation speed to be 100~3000 rpm, and transport the mixed salt solution and alkali solution in step A to the reactor at a rate of 0.5-2 mL min−1 by a peristaltic pump for nucleation, and control the total number of metal cations in the salt solution to be equal to the number of anions in the alkali solution; collect nucleation slurry at slurry outlet; C. The nucleation slurry is transferred to a reaction kettle and crystallized at 60-180° C. for 18-36 h. After naturally cooling down to ambient temperature, the crystallized products are centrifuged and washed to neutral with deionized water, and then dried at 50˜80° C. for 24˜36 h, obtaining the layered double hydroxides, namely CuyFeMg4-LDHs precursor, where y is any integer between 1 and 8; D. The CuyFeMg4-LDHs obtained in step C is heated to 240-300° C. at a heating rate of 5-10° C. min−1 and calcined for 2-6 h, obtaining the corresponding mixed metal oxide of CuyFeMg4-MMO, where y is any integer between 1 and 8; E. The CuyFeMg4-MMO obtained in step D is reduced at 400-800° C. at a heating rate of 5˜10° C. min−1 in an atmosphere of 10 vol. % H2/N2 for 4-6 h. After naturally cooling down to ambient temperature, 3 vol. % O2/N2 is introduced to passivate for 0.5-1 h, obtaining Cuy-MMgOx interfacial catalyst, where y is any integer between 1 and 8; x is any number between 1 and 2.5” [see claim 1]. Clearly, the catalyst of Liu et al does not possess 6 metals of which 5 are auxiliary. Also, the required calcining temperature of instant claim 1 is higher than the 240-300o C of the reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luksic et al in the Journal of Nuclear Materials (2015, vol 466, pp 526-538), which discloses “[s]pinel is a mineral of the cubic space group Fd3m that can coordinate a wide variety of metal cations in either tetrahedral (A sub-lattice) or octahedral (B sub-lattice) sites. In all spinel, oxygen is arranged in a face-centered-cubic lattice, wherein these sites are situated” [see paragraph under the heading “2.1 Spinel”].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
3 September 2026
Prosecution Insights