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 .
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
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 § 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 1-3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howk (U. S. Patent No. 2,487,054) in view of Iversen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,459,510).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, and 8, Howk teaches a method for effecting the conversion of furfural to tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol, wherein furfural is subjected to hydrogenation in the presence of a ruthenium catalyst. In said method, a reactor is charged with furfural and ethanol, pressured with hydrogen, and heated to about 100°C. Howk further teaches the feasibility in the hydrogenation occurring at pressures in excess of 100 pounds per square inch (6.8948 bar), and generally in excess of 1000 pounds per square inch (68.9476 bar), and in carrying out the aforementioned method in the presence of organic solvents including methanol and propanol. See col. 1, line 53 to col. 2, line 11, col. 2, line 22 to col. 9 of Howk.
Regarding claim 5, the Example of Howk depicts an embodiment in which 72 parts of furfural, 75 parts ethanol, 0.5 parts magnesium oxide, and 2.5 parts of a ruthenium dioxide catalyst are placed in an autoclave, heated to 110°C and 150 atm pressure of hydrogen, at which temperature hydrogen absorption was rapid and ceased at the theoretical ·amount required for complete conversion of the furfural to tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. The autoclave was cooled, the contents discharged, and filtered to remove the catalyst. Upon fractional distillation of the filtrate, after removal of the alcohol, 56 parts of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol was collected. Testing of the product “failed to detect any unchanged furfural.” See col. 2, lines 22-41 of Howk. From this teaching, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect a furfural conversion of 100%, i.e., conversion of furfural in its entirety.
While Howk further teaches that the ruthenium catalyst is in the form of finely divided ruthenium, in the form of either free metal, oxide, or salt, and that the catalyst may be supported on a carrier such as charcoal, silica gel, or alumina (see col. 3, lines 17-23 of Howk), this reference does not teach or suggest that the catalyst is a “red mud-supported catalyst”, e.g., a “red mud-supported ruthenium (Ru@RM) catalyst”, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Iversen et al. teach a catalyst comprising a Group VIIIB metal, e.g., Ru, supported on a supporting structure, wherein examples of the supporting structure include silica gel, carbon, and red mud. See col. 4, lines 6-25 of Iversen et al.
Because Iversen et al. teach silica gel, carbon, and red mud as functionally equivalent support structures for catalysts comprising ruthenium, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method and ruthenium catalyst disclosed in Howk by substituting the silica gel support disclosed in Howk with red mud, as suggested by Iversen et al.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howk (U. S. Patent No. 2,487,054) in view of Iversen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,459,510) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (CN 108043404; English translation provided and relied upon by the Examiner).
Howk and Iversen et al. are relied upon for their combined teachings with respect to claim 1, as stated above. Neither of these references teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims 14-16 and 18-20 regarding the preparation of the “red mud-supported catalyst”, or regarding the limitations of Applicants’ claim 17 regarding the BET specific surface area of the calcined material.
Regarding claims 14, 18, and 20, Guo et al. teach the preparation of a catalyst from red mud, wherein the red mud is subjected to acid hydrolysis leaching and aging to form a first slurry, followed by aging the slurry and subjecting it to solid-liquid separation to obtain a solid and a separated liquid. The separated liquid is pH-adjusted to form a second slurry, which is then subjected to solid-liquid separation to obtain a solid iron-titanium-aluminum composite precursor, which is calcined to obtain an iron-titanium-aluminum catalyst. Guo further teach the feasibility in, prior to calcination, using the iron-titanium-aluminum composite precursor as a carrier and loading thereon noble metals, examples of which include rhodium, ruthenium, and iridium. See paragraphs [0011]-[0015] and [0021]-[0048] of Guo et al., which additionally teaches the feasibility in crushing the red mud prior to acid hydrolysis (“grinding…”), and also teaches calcination temperatures of 400°C-1200°C, or from 500°C-1000°C (“calcining a red mud material at a temperature of 400 to 600°C to form a calcined material”), as well as paragraph [0050], which teaches that loading of the noble metals may be performed by, for example, impregnation, coprecipitation, or submolten salt methods (“mixing a metal salt…”; “metal salt is at least one selected from…an iridium salt, a rhodium salt, and a ruthenium salt”).
The calcining of the iron-titanium aluminum composite precursor before addition of the noble metal is considered to read upon the claim limitation “calcining a red mud material at a temperature of 400 to 600°C” in claim 14. The calcining of the iron-titanium-aluminum composite precursor after addition of the noble metal at the aforementioned temperatures is considered to read upon Applicants’ claim limitations “heating the precursor material” and “heating is performed at a temperature of 350 to 450°C”, as respectively recited in claims 14 and 20.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Guo teaches that red mud is a waste residue discharged during the extraction of alumina from bauxite in the aluminum industry, and contains iron oxide, titanium oxide, and aluminum oxide. See paragraphs [0004] and [0006] of Guo et al.
Regarding claim 17, it is considered that because Guo et al. teach the preparation of a catalyst comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claim 14 (from which claim 17 depends) with respect to the treatment of the red mud material to form the iron-titanium-aluminum composite precursor, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the iron-titanium-aluminum composite precursor disclosed in this reference to exhibit a BET specific surface area comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 19, Guo et al. teach that the noble metal is present in loading amounts ranging from 0.1 to 5%, or from 0.1 to 2 wt. %, of the weight of the iron-titanium-aluminum composite precursor. See paragraphs [0059], [0063], and [0064] of Guo et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method obtained by the combined teachings of Howk in view of Iversen et al. by incorporating therein the preparation of the catalyst system as taught by Guo et al., motivated by the references’ common teachings regarding catalysts comprising ruthenium and, as a support material, red mud.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 9-13 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:
Claims 4, 6, and 9-13 are objected to, as neither Howk, Iversen et al., Guo et al., nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of these claims. For example, Howk does not teach or suggest the employment of an inert gas with hydrogen in Patentee’s method, nor does this reference teach or suggest a catalyst comprising rhodium, or the formation of a conversion product comprising, in addition to tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol, furfuryl alcohol, valeric acid, diethyl-furfuryl ether, and ethyl furfurylether. Iversen et al. and Guo et al. do not cure these deficiencies exhibited by Howk.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 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 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights