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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 86-100, in the reply filed on 09/14/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 101-105 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/14/2026.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 09/14/2026 has been made of record and entered.
Claims 1-85 were originally canceled.
Claims 86-105 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 86-105 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 86-100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur et al. (US 2018/0065108 A1), hereinafter “Thakur et al. ‘108 in view of Thakur et al. (US 2016/0038917 A1), hereinafter “Thakur et al. ‘917”.
The claimed invention relates to a hydrogenation catalyst comprising:
copper oxide;
an alkali metal component; and
an acid-stabilized silica;
wherein the hydrogenation catalyst has a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller ("BET") surface area of greater than or equal to about 15 m²/g, and
wherein the copper oxide is present in an amount from 70.0 wt% to 80.0 wt% of the hydrogenation catalyst (as recited in instant claim 86).
Thakur et al. ‘108 discloses a catalyst comprising:
a mixed metal oxide comprising Cu and at least one of Mn, Zn, Ni, or Co;
an alumina;
silica; and
calcium;
wherein the catalyst comprises a surface, wherein the percent of Cu at the surface in relation to total Cu content of the catalyst is from about 0.5% to about 20% (see p. 8, claim 1).
The catalyst comprises about 15 wt% to about 50 wt% Cu (see p. 8, claim 3).
The catalyst may be substantially free of sodium and/or chromium, the amount of sodium and/or chromium in the catalyst may be less than about 0.4 wt%, less than about 0.3 wt%, less than about 0.2 wt%, less than about 0.1 wt%, etc. (see p. 3, [0031]).
The catalyst has a BET surface area from about 10 m2/g to about 150 m2/g (see p. 8, claim 16; [0032]), meeting the instantly claimed range of “greater than or equal to about 15 m2/g”.
Regarding claim 86, Thakur et al. ‘108 differs from the claimed hydrogenation catalyst in that the Cu contained in the catalyst is in an amount from about 15 wt% to about 50 wt% Cu (see p. 8, claim 3), whereas the instant claim 1 requires that “the copper oxide being present in an amount from 70.0 wt% to 80.0 wt% of the hydrogenation catalyst”.
Thakur et al. ‘917 is in the same field of art, catalysts for hydrogenation, and fairly teaches to use copper in an amount ranging from 30 wt% to 85 wt% (see p. 7, claim 3). It is considered a person skilled in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) would have been motivated by Thakur et al. ‘917 to adjust the copper amount of Thakur et al. ‘108 from the range of 15 wt% to 50 wt% to the range of 30 wt% to 85 wt% because it is a workable and effective range. See also In re Boesch.
Regarding claims 87 & 93, the mixed metal oxide comprises Cu and Mn, and the catalyst comprises about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% Mn (see p. 8, claim 5; [0026]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “from 0 wt% to about 5 wt%”.
Regarding claims 88 & 94, silica is present in the catalyst at about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% (see p. 8, claim 9; [0029]), which overlaps with the clamed range of “from about 5.0 wt% to about 20.0 wt%”.
Regarding claims 89 & 99, the disclosed catalyst may be free or contains less than 0.01 wt.% of chromium (see p. 3, [0031]), meeting the instantly claimed range of “less than 0.01 wt%”.
Regarding claims 90 & 91, the disclosed catalyst may be substantially free of sodium and the amount of sodium in the catalyst may be less than about 0.4 wt%, less than about 0.3 wt%, less than about 0.2 wt%, less than about 0.1 wt%, etc. (see p. 3, [0031]), meeting the instantly claimed range of “from 0 wt% to about 8.0 wt%”.
Regarding claim 92, calcium is present in the catalyst at about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% (see p. 8, claim 11; [0030]), which is falling within the instantly claimed range of “about 1.0 wt% to about 18.0%”.
Regarding claim 95, the catalyst may further include a clay material (see p. 4, [0038]). The amount of clay material is from about 3 wt to about 8 wt% (see [0038]), which is falling within the instantly claimed range of “about 0 wt% to about 10 wt%”.
Regarding claims 96 & 100, the disclosed catalyst is a calcined and an extruded catalyst (see p. 5, [0040] & [0041]).
Regarding claim 97, the disclosed catalyst has a pore volume from about 0.10 cm3/g to about 0.80 cm3/g (see p. 8, claim 18; [0033]), meeting the instantly claimed range of “≥ 0.25 cm3/g”.
Regarding claim 98, the disclosed catalyst has a bulk density of from about 0.3 g/cm3 to about 1.6 g/cm3 (see p. 8, claim 19; [0034]), meeting the instantly claimed range of “about 0.8 g/cm3 to about 1.5 g/cm3”.
Claims 86-100 are unpatentable as being obvious over Thakur et al. ‘108 in view of Thakur et al. ‘917.
Citations
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 9,169,192 B2 (relates to a hydrogenation catalyst consists of: copper (20-60 wt%; 30-70 wt%), calcium silicate, an alkali metal (sodium) (0.22 to 2.5 wt%)).
US 6,049,008 (relates to a shaped catalyst composition comprising (i) at least one metal selected from copper, manganese, zinc, nickel, cobalt and iron, (ii) calcium silicate, and (iii) at least one clay material).
US 5,124,295 (relates to a copper chromite catalyst prepared from a blend comprising from about 20 to about 80% by weight of copper chromite and from about 20 to about 80% by weight of at least one extrudable inorganic binder, the catalyst has a surface area from about 20 to about 225 m2/g and a pore volume between about 0.35 to about 1 cc/g).
Conclusion
7. Claims 86-105 are pending. Claims 86-100 are rejected. Claims 101-105 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
September 24, 2026
