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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 19007914 filed 1/2/2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 8/31/26 has been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
IDS filed on 1/2/25 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action. However, the information disclosure statement filed 1/2/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Applicants cite an international search reports along with its corresponding references and/or non-patent literature that was not included on the IDS nor a legible copy of each of the documents. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 1/2/25 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to in the recitation “molybdenium”, and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested to amend the claim to recite "molybdenum". Appropriate correction is suggested.
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, 12, 15 and all dependent claims 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms “characterized” in claims 1, 12 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “characterized” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to the claims.
The phrase "subjected to not less than a stoichiometric amount of hydrogen" in claim 1 is relative which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "subjected to not less than a stoichiometric amount of hydrogen" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention; as there are no values associated with the stoichiometric amount of hydrogen. If present, it should show the numerical relationships between the reactants and products. Applicant is required to further bring clarification and/or correction to the claims. The Examiner has taken the position that it is any optimal amount it takes to produce the desired product.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DELLEDONNE ET AL. (WO2011038911; 4/2011) in view of KASZTELAN ET AL. (JP4560749B2; 10/2010) and as evidence by BOONYAWAN YOOSUK ET AL: "Amorphous unsupported NiMo sulfide prepared by one step hydrothermal method for phenol hydrodeoxygenation", FUEL, IPC SIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRESS, GUILDFORD, GB, vol. 91, no. 1, 2 August 2011 (2011-08-02), pages 246-252, XP028324672, ISSN: 0016-2361, DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2011.08.001 [retrieved on 2011-08-09] in their entirety. Hereby referred to as DELLEDONNE, KASZTELAN and BOONYAWAN.
Regarding claim 1-16:
DELLEDONNE teaches catalysts and process for the liquefaction of lignin. DELLEDONNE teaches in claim 1 - a process for the liquefaction of lignin which comprises treating lignin with hydrogen in the presence of a catalytic composition (A) containing: a) a metallic component comprising a metal Mel, in oxide form, selected from molybdenum, tungsten and mixtures thereof, and a metal Me2, in oxide form, selected from nickel, cobalt and mixtures thereof, b) an at least slightly basic carrier.
DELLEDONNE teaches that the liquefaction process of the present invention is preferably affected at a pressure ranging from 5 to 25 MPa (i.e., 50 to 250 bar). The operating temperature preferably ranges from 300°C to 500°C (pg 22 ln 17-20)
DELLEDONNE teaches ligands which can be conveniently used are silica, alumina, silica-alumina, and alumina is preferably used. Preferably the ligand is present in the composition in a weight ratio ranging from 0.2 to 5, even more preferably from 0.5 to 2 with respect to the total weight of the catalytic composition. (pg 17 ln 11-16)
DELLEDONNE teaches for the process of the present invention, the lignin can be used as such or dispersed in a solvent. In the latter case, the solvent can be used in a weight ratio solvent/lignin lower than or equal to 20/1 (pg11 ln 3-7). The catalyst is preferably used in a weight ratio catalyst/lignin ranging from 0.1 to 20%, (pg 22 ln 22-23). The process of the present invention can be affected batchwise, in semi-continuous or in continuous, and in different types of reactors, according to what is normally known in the state of the art. The reaction is preferably carried out in continuous. When the process of the present invention is carried out in continuous, it can be affected in one or more catalytic reactors in series, fixed bed, fluidized bed, stirred or recirculated, or containing the catalyst in dispersion. (pg 22 ln 25 - pg 23 ln 8)
DELLEDONNE teaches that it is known in the art to use solid catalyst with solvent and liquid hydrocarbon as described on pg 12 ln 10-18 - an expert in the field is well aware that there are various methods for characterizing the basic properties of a carrier or catalyst, which are selected on the basis of the material to be characterized and application in which it will be tested. The definition of basicity is therefore not linked to a particular technique but comprises the different approaches present in the known art: a review on the definitions of acidity and basicity of carriers and solid catalysts, and on the measurement methods.
DELLEDONNE teaches among renewable sources for the production of bio- fuels, the following can be mentioned - cultivations of cereals, such as maize, wheat, barley, from which bioethanol, used as a substitute for gasolines, can be obtained through the fermentation of starches; and - cultivations of vegetable species with a high content of triglycerides or oils, such as rape, soya, sunflower, palm oils, used for producing biodiesel; - recently, with the development of new technologies, products of a lignocellulosic origin have also been added; (i) also as waste products of the crops indicated above, of the wood and food industries, (pg 1 ln 18 - pg 2 ln 2; pg 2 ln 6-7)
DELLEDONNE teaches that the hydrocarbon cuts thus obtained prove to have an oxygen content lower than 6% by weight (pg 10 ln 1-2)
DELLEDONNE does not explicitly teach that the catalyst is unsupported; however, it is within the scope of DELLEDONNE as taught by KASZTELAN.
KASZTELAN teaches that it is known in the art to use supported or unsupported for said processes and products.
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0002] hydrorefining and hydroconversion of hydrocarbon feedstocks such as hydrogenation, hydrodenitrification, hydrodeoxygenation, hydrodearomatics, hydrodesulfurization, hydrodemetallation. It also relates to the use of mixed sulfides as catalysts. These hydrocarbon feedstocks include at least one aromatic compound, and / or olefin compound, and / or naphthene compound, and / or paraffin compound. The feedstock also contains metal and / or nitrogen and / or oxygen and / or sulfur. [0001] The present invention relates to Group IIIB containing sulfur and lanthanoids and actinoids (Group 3) and at least one element selected from Group IVB (Group 4) elements, Group VII B (Group 7) and Group VIII (No. 8, The present invention relates to a catalyst including a multimetal sulfide phase including at least one element selected from elements of Group 9 and Group 10). The mixed sulfide phase is generally an amorphous or incompletely crystallized oxide type porous matrix, optionally in groups VB (Group 5) and VIB (Group 6). Or at least one element selected from P, B and Si, and optionally at least one anion source of Group VIIA (Group 17).
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0008] by reaction impregnated with sulfur compounds in the liquid phase of suitable precursors in the form of mixed oxides of transition metals or rare earth metals, followed by treatment under hydrogen in a traversed bed reactor The synthesis of lumps (not supported on a support) or supported mixed sulfides is known to those skilled in the art.
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0009] In addition, under hydrogen, an oxide precursor that is agglomerated or supported on a porous matrix, and a sulfur-containing hydrocarbon feed, particularly a sulfur-containing petroleum fraction, such as gasoline, kerosene and gas oil, The synthesis of sulfurized catalysts that are either bulk or supported on a porous matrix, optionally by treatment with sulfur-containing petroleum fractions to which sulfur compounds such as dimethyl disulfide are added, is also known to those skilled in the art. It is well known.
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0030] The mixture may include a carbon source. The carbon source can be in any form known to those skilled in the art, such as graphite, petroleum coke, oil coke, amorphous carbon, carbon black, and partial combustion of plant or animal compounds or even hydrocarbons or by cracking.
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0005] In general, the properties of a single sulfide are often improved by adding a second element that leads to the formation of a homogeneous blend of the two elements in the sulfide phase. Therefore, it is called mixed sulfide. For example, the addition of nickel to molybdenum sulfide greatly improves the catalytic activity of tungsten sulfide in the hydrogenation of aromatic compounds. By adding cobalt to molybdenum sulfide, the activity of molybdenum sulfide in the hydrodesulfurization reaction of petroleum fractions is greatly improved.
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0011] Further, sulfides supported on a bulk sulfide catalyst or porous matrix by treatment of oxide precursors supported on the bulk or porous matrix under hydrogen / hydrogen sulfide or nitrogen / hydrogen sulfide mixtures The synthesis of catalysts is also known to those skilled in the art.
KASZTELAN teaches in para [0038] In addition to at least one of the compounds described above, the matrix may be a crystallized aluminosilicate type molecular sieve or a synthetic or natural zeolite type molecular sieve, such as zeolite Y, zeolite X, zeolite L, zeolite beta, small fine particles. It may also contain at least one compound selected from the group consisting of mordenite with pores, mordenite with large pores, zeolite omega, zeolite NU-10, zeolite ZSM-22 and zeolite ZSM-5. From said disclosure one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize small fine particles would include 1-50um.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize KASZTELAN unsupported and support catalyst to be combine with DELLEDONNE catalyst; as both teaches that these catalysts are used for hydrotreating, as well as the overlapping components.
DELLEDONNE in view of KASZTELAN disclose various catalyst preparation for use in hydrotreating process; however, it is also evident by BOONYAWAN disclosing a process for making a Ni-Mo sulfide catalyst starting from (NH4MoS4, which is reacted with nickel nitrate in organic solvent and treated with hydrogen (see 2.2, catalyst preparation).
Therefore, from the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 417.
In addition, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that adding duplicate / repeating process steps or recognizing additional instrumentation for analysis or additional analysis would not have been expected to confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the final product obtained according to the claim limitations would merely have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art product.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical product, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Also see in re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.”).
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
Again, BOONYAWAN is considered a teaching reference, not a modifying reference. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
