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 traverses the restriction requirement, arguing that the shared technical feature is a grading system of hydrogenation catalysts, rather than catalyst composition, and that such feature is not disclosed in the prior art. The traverse is not persuasive. Even assuming, arguendo, that the common feature among the claims is the grading system of hydrogenation catalysts, such feature does not constitute a special technical feature defining a contribution over the prior art, as required under 37 CFR 1.475. Specifically, it is well known in the art to employ multiple catalysts arranged sequentially in a reactor (graded catalyst beds), wherein catalyst properties vary along the flow direction to optimize performance. For example, CN 106669787A teaches a reactor comprising a plurality of catalyst beds arranged in sequence and explicitly discloses graded catalyst layering schemes.
Applicant further relies on the claimed R value, defined as a ratio of (i) the molar surface content of a Group VIII metal determined by XPS to (ii) the bulk metal oxide content determined by XRF, to distinguish the claims. However, this R value merely quantifies the known relationship between surface metal concentration and bulk metal loading (i.e., surface enrichment), which is a well-established catalyst property. The use of XPS for surface composition and XRF for bulk composition, as well as the expression of such relationship using molar and weight units, represents conventional analytical practice and does not define a new physical property or structural limitation. Accordingly, even under Applicant’s characterization, the alleged common feature (grading system with R value) does not constitute a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art. Therefore, the claims are not linked by a single general inventive concept, and the restriction requirement is proper and is therefore make FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 12–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over CN 106669787 A in view of WO 2016/151454 A1.
CN ’787 teaches a hydrocracking catalyst grading method in which:
A reactor is divided into 2–8 reaction zones (preferably 3–5) arranged along the material flow direction
Different catalysts are sequentially loaded in these zones
A catalyst property (e.g., regeneration agent content) gradually increases along the flow direction, with adjacent zones differing by 5–40% (preferably 10–30%)
Relative catalyst quantities in adjacent zones are adjustable (e.g., 1:8 to 2:1)
Further, CN ’787 teaches characterization of surface active metal ratios (e.g., Ni/Al, Mo/Al) using XPS, reflecting differences in surface metal distribution across catalysts.
Thus, CN ’787 teaches:
M ≥ 2 (indeed up to 8) catalysts sequentially arranged in a flow direction
graded catalyst properties across zones
monotonic increase of a catalyst property along flow direction
WO ’454 teaches catalysts comprising Group VIII metals (e.g., Pt) having:
surface metal content determined by XPS (surface-sensitive measurement)
bulk metal content determined by ICP (bulk composition measurement)
See, e.g.:
WO ’454, p. 5–6: description of XPS measuring surface composition and ICP measuring bulk metal content
WO ’454, p. 5: definition of surface enrichment value (SEV) as:
SEV = (surface metal - bulk metal)/ (bulk metal)
WO ’454, Examples (pp. 8–10):
Example 2: enrichment ≈ 94%
Example 4: enrichment ≈ 89%
Example 3: enrichment ≈ 73%
These values demonstrate that catalysts can have different surface-to-bulk Group VIII metal relationships.
Since enrichment is defined as (surface − bulk)/bulk, the ratio of surface metal to bulk metal is: R ≈ surface/bulk = 1 + enrichment.
Accordingly, WO ’454 inherently teaches catalysts having different surface-to-bulk metal ratios R.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ catalysts having different surface-to-bulk Group VIII metal ratios (WO ’454) in the graded catalyst system of CN ’787, because:
CN ’787 teaches that catalysts are intentionally varied across zones to optimize reaction performance
CN ’787 further teaches monotonic increase of catalyst properties along the flow direction
WO ’454 teaches that surface metal accessibility (surface enrichment) is a key catalyst property affecting performance
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select surface-to-bulk metal ratio as the graded property in CN ’787 and to arrange catalysts such that this ratio increases along the flow direction, consistent with the general grading strategy taught in CN ’787.
Claim 13 (M ≥ 3)
CN ’787 explicitly teaches 3–5 (and up to 8) reaction zones, each containing a catalyst.
Claim 14 (R increase 1–20%)
CN ’787 teaches incremental increases of catalyst properties between adjacent zones (5–40%, preferably 10–30%), which overlaps the claimed 1–20% range. Thus, selecting a 1–20% increase is an optimization within a known range.
Claim 15 (R = 3–150%)
WO ’454 demonstrates that surface-to-bulk metal ratios vary depending on catalyst preparation. The claimed range represents optimization of a known property (surface enrichment).
Claim 16 (R = 10–50%)
A sub-range of claim 15; selection of a narrower range is routine optimization.
Claim 17 (reduction temperature relationship)
CN ’787 teaches catalysts with different compositions, metal distributions, and surface properties across zones, which inherently result in different reducibility and reduction temperatures, since reduction behavior depends on metal dispersion and composition.
Claim 18 (temperature difference 5–150°C)
The magnitude of reduction temperature differences is a result-effective variable depending on catalyst properties; selecting a range of 5–150°C would have been routine.
Claim 19 (volume ratio 1:20–20:1)
CN ’787 teaches adjustable relative catalyst quantities between adjacent zones (1:8–2:1), which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 20 (Group VIB + Group VIII metals)
CN ’787 explicitly teaches catalysts comprising Group VIII metals (Ni, Co) and Group VIB metals (Mo, W).
Claim 21 (specific metals and supports)
CN ’787 teaches Ni and/or Co (Group VIII), Mo and/or W (Group VIB), and supports including alumina and silica-alumina
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights