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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/15/2025 has entered prosecution.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 are pending examination.
The 112(a) rejections of Claims 7 and 8 are maintained, as the claim language still provides that the catalyst particles (understood the be the catalytically active component embedded in the mesoporous support) require the limitations of both claim 7 and 8.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 3 and 5 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically in the instant specification applicant discloses an example where SBA-15 is synthesized and then wet impregnated with a Pt and Co solution to form Co3O4 crystals with a size of “13.4 nm” (para 0065-0066). As the exemplary demonstration utilizes a wet impregnation method to form catalyst particles in a mesoporous support, regarding claim 7, it is unclear how micron sized particles could fit in the pores of a mesoporous system, wherein mesopores are understood to be between 2 and 50 nm in diameter (see evidentiary reference [Rouquerol, J., Avnir, D., Fairbridge, C. W., Everett, D. H., Haynes, J. M., Pernicone, N., Ramsay, J. D. F., Sing, K. S. W. and Unger, K. K.. "Recommendations for the characterization of porous solids (Technical Report)" Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 66, no. 8, 1994, pp. 1739-1758] page 1745). Further, regarding claim 8, it is not clear from the specification how applicant is able to control or modulate the distance between catalyst particles either on the surface of the mesoporous support or within the pores of the support.
Applicant demonstrates that it is the dielectric elements which manipulate the electric field rather than the catalyst particle (para 0032). To this extent, it is understood that applicant intended to apply the limitations of Claims 7 and 8 to the particles comprising the mesoporous support which have been impregnated with catalyst nanoparticles, rather than the catalyst nanoparticles directly. Support for this interpretation may be found in a publication from the applicant whereby the consequences of particle size and gap distance are demonstrated for the “non-catalytic system” (abstract of Juchan Kim, Jaekwon Jeoung, Jonghyun Jeon, Jip Kim, Young Sun Mok, Kyoung-Su Ha, Effects of dielectric particles on non-oxidative coupling of methane in a dielectric barrier discharge plasma reactor, Chemical Engineering Journal, 2019, 377, 119896) comprising ordered mesoporous dielectric support materials in relation to the effect on change in breakdown voltage and effects on conversion efficiency of a feedstock material, rather than a catalyst particle system.
In relation to the claim language and the level of detail provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill would not be enabled by this system to know sufficiently (a) how to impregnate microparticle catalysts into a mesoporous structure and (b) how to control the spacing of catalyst particles on a surface in a repeatable fashion.
As to the Wands Factors:
As to the quantity of experimentation, sophisticated methods of materials synthesis, microscopy, and spectroscopy would need to be applied to determine reproducible catalyst particle spacing atop a mesoporous structure. It is unclear, based on definitions, how one would experimentally manage placing microparticles in a mesoporous structure. These would be beyond burdensome tasks to one of ordinary skill in the art to know the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As to the guidance presented, there is not enough guidance to understand how applicant determines that catalyst particle spacing or how applicant impregnates catalyst microparticles into a mesoporous structure.
As to the working examples, there is not enough information in the specification to perform an exemplary demonstration of the present invention.
As to the state of the prior art, there are systems that teach to the dielectric mesoporous materials with defined particle dimensions and gap spacing, but not catalyst particles.
Accordingly, clarification in the claims are required in order to clarify that it is the particles comprising the mesoporous support impregnated with the catalytically active material that has the size and gap spacing limitations of claim 7 and 8.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kui Zhang, Teuku Mukhriza, Xiaoteng Liu, Pier Paolo Greco, Elijah Chiremba,"A study on CO2 and CH4 conversion to synthesis gas and higher hydrocarbons by the combination of catalysts and dielectric-barrier discharges". Applied Catalysis A: General, 2015, 502, 138-149 in view of Li Bian, Lijuan Zhang, Ziting Zhu, Zhenhua Li, "Methanation of carbon oxides on Ni/Ce/SBA-15 pretreated with dielectric barrier discharge plasma". Molecular Catalysis, 2018, 446, 131-139 further in view of Lee, H., Kim, D.H. Direct methanol synthesis from methane in a plasma-catalyst hybrid system at low temperature using metal oxide-coated glass beads. Sci Rep 8, 9956 (2018).
Regarding Claim 1, 2 Zhang teaches a method for valorizing CO2 into syn-gas (a process referred to as the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis [page 138]) and higher hydrocarbons by dielectric-barrier discharge at low temperature and ambient pressure (abstract). Zhang teaches the sol-gel synthesis of a Ni/SiO2 system (page 139, col. 2, section 2.1), whereby the SiO2 serves as a catalyst support (page 147, col, 1). The Ni/SiO2 system is packed between an outer quartz tube and an inner quartz tube (Fig. 1; page 140, section 2.3) at a volume of 100 cm3, which defines the discharge region (page 140, col. 1, last paragraph). Zhang further teaches that the properties of a catalyst may be modified by exposure to the strong electric field in a DBD and thus influence the reactions in a non-thermal plasma (page 145, col. 1, para 2 after eq. 7). Accordingly, it is understood that Zhang teaches an adiabatic system whereby the initial temperature of the system was room temperature and the interaction of the plasma with the catalyst caused an increase in the temperature as the reaction progressed.
However, Zhang does not teach that the silica support is a mesoporous structure nor that the DBD reactor comprises an external furnace and an insulating material.
Bian teaches a method of synthesizing an ordered mesoporous Ni/Ce/SBA-15(silica) system with improved stability and performance during CO methanation (page 131, abstract), in order to upgrade carbon dioxide and syngas into methane (page 131, section 1; equations 1 and 2).
Bian teaches that the mesoporous silica support (SBA-15) is an important factor affecting catalytic performance that has particular relevance in catalysis owing to its tunable large pores (5-30 nm), high specific surface area, and good hydrothermal stability (page 132, col. 1, para 1). Bian teaches that the synthesis of the ordered mesoporous structure is done first by synthesizing the SBA-15 support by a sol-gel method, followed by calcination (page 132, section 2.1), after which the Ni-based catalysts were deposited by a wet impregnation method in the support (page 132, section 2.1).
Lee teaches a plasma-catalyst hybrid DBD system is used to synthesize methanol from methane (abstract).
Lee teaches the DBD reactor system shown in Fig. 5 of Lee below. Lee teaches that the reactor comprises a furnace (bottom paragraph of page 5 to page 6). Lee teaches that the DBD reactor contains Quartz wool (bottom paragraph of page 5), which is understood to be a heat insulating material, in order to monitor the temperature of the system without exposing the conductive thermocouple to the plasma directly.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the silica support of Zhang could be substituted for the ordered mesoporous silica support of Bian in order that one would arrive at a dielectric barrier discharge catalyst support structure with improved catalytic activity to make hydrocarbons from COx (see MPEP 2143 I D). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the system of Zhang in view of Bian was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the furnace and packed DBD reactor bed of Lee in order that one would arrive at a DBD system that can effectively monitor the temperature of the system without the risk of interference from the thermal probe.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang teaches that the dielectric barrier discharge reactor was operated at ambient pressure (page 139, col. 2, para 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang teaches that after reduction of the catalyst at 550 °C the catalyst is allowed back to room temperature before the feed gases are added (page 140, section 2.3). Accordingly, while 550 °C as disclosed by Zhang is outside the required range of 300 – 500 of the instant claim, the courts have held broadly where ranges are so close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties there exists a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang in view of Bian teaches to Claim 1.
However, Zhang in view of Bian does not teach that the catalyst is active in the pores of the mesoporous support by means of a wet impregnation method.
Bian teaches that the synthesis of the ordered mesoporous structure is done first by synthesizing the SBA-15 support by a sol-gel method, followed by calcination (page 132, section 2.1), after which the Ni-based catalysts were deposited by a wet impregnation method in the support using an aqueous solution (page 132, section 2.1). Bian teaches that the pores of the mesoporous support in conjunction with catalysts inside the mesoporous structure improves selectivity for CO methanation (page 135, section 3.3).
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ni/silica catalyst-on-support of Zhang could be substituted for the Ni particle impregnated ordered mesoporous silica support of Bian in order that one would arrive at a dielectric barrier discharge catalyst support structure with improved catalytic activity to make hydrocarbons from COx (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Zhang does not teach the use of a mesoporous structure nor that Bian teaches to the catalytic activity for converting CO2. These arguments are a piecemeal analysis on the supplied references which do not compel a motivation against their application to the present claims. Bian is appropriately applied as it belongs to the same field of endeavor as Zhang, and would therefore be obvious to incorporate the teachings of in order to modify Zhang to arrive at the present invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759