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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recited “catalyst consists of a metal aluminate spinel and one of a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum dopant” is obtained via impregnated a metal aluminate spinel support, then going through calcining under high temperature (up to 2100 °F) (see instantly published application US2024/0083755 para. [0037], [0052], [0053]). For reasonable and broadest interpretation, any catalyst containing a metal aluminate spinel and one of a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum which is obtained via impregnated or depositing nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum onto such metal aluminate spinel support and going through calcining under similar high temperature would be considered as meet the instantly claimed “catalyst consisting of a metal aluminate spinel and one of a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum dopant”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( (a) 1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ranjbar et al. (Effect of MgAl2O4 Catalyst Support Synthesis Method on the Catalytic Activity of Nickel Nano Catalyst in Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction, Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Summer 2019), IAChE) as evidenced by Ranjbar’2018 (Reverse water gas shift reaction and CO2 mitigation: nanocrystalline MgO as a support for nickel based catalysts, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 6 (2018) 4945–4952).
Ranjbar et al. teaches a catalyst composition consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) supported with nickel (page 2 last para. -page 3 left col. last para.), wherein the catalyst composition contains no precious metal chosen from Rh, Pt, Au, Ag, Pd or Ir. Ranjbar et al. discloses the wet impregnation method is employed as the method shown in evidence document Ranjbar 2018 (see page 4947 section 2.3.) wherein nickel being impregnated onto support, then gone through high temperature (i.e. 600 °C) calcining. Therefore, Ranjbar et al. teaches a catalyst consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) and a nickel dopant as that of instantly claimed. Ranjbar et al. further teaches such catalyst having high long-term stability when used in reverse water gas shift reaction loaded in catalytic reactor (converting carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide) (Fig. 7) and such non-noble metals (nickel) are more attractive economically (page 2 left col.2nd para.).
Regarding claim 1, Ranjbar et al. does not expressly teach the catalyst composition “having a hardness between 4 Mohs and 10 Mohs”, or “catalyst being chemically and physically stable at temperature of 2100 ºF such that after a thermal treatment at 2100 ºF, the BET surface area of the catalyst is between 0 and 20% of the pre-treatment surface area, or the catalyst can convert CO2 to CO where the CO2 conversion is between 70% and 100% at temperature between 1300 ºF and 1800 ºF and pressure above 50 psi and wherein the catalyst does not coke during the conversion, and wherein the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 1% per 1000 hours of operation”
However, Ranjbar et al. teaches a same catalyst composition consisting of magnesium aluminum spinel and a same nickel dopant as that of instantly claimed (see also instantly filed specification page 15 line 9-page 17 line 8, example 1-3), therefore, same or substantially the same property, i.e. hardness between 4 Mohs to 10 Mohs would be associated expected.
As for the claimed “catalyst being chemically and physically stable at temperature of 2100 ºF such that after a thermal treatment at 2100 ºF, the BET surface area of the catalyst is between 0 and 20% of the pre-treatment surface area, or the catalyst can convert CO2 to CO where the CO2 conversion is between 70% and 100% at temperature between 1300 ºF and 1800 ºF and pressure above 50 psi and wherein the catalyst does not coke during the conversion, and wherein the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 1% per 1000 hours of operation”, Ranjabar et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition consisting of magnesium aluminum spinel and a same nickel dopant as that of instantly claimed, therefore, same or substantially the same properties or function, such as “catalyst being chemically and physically stable at temperature of 2100 ºF such that after a thermal treatment at 2100 ºF, the BET surface area of the catalyst is between 0 and 20% of the pre-treatment surface area, or the catalyst can convert CO2 to CO where the CO2 conversion is between 70% and 100% at temperature between 1300 ºF and 1800 ºF and pressure above 50 psi and wherein the catalyst does not coke during the conversion, and wherein the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 1% per 1000 hours of operation” as those of instantly claimed would be associated or expected.
As for the claimed “catalyst can be loaded readily into catalytic reactors where the pressure drop from the inlet to the outlet of the catalytic reactor is between 0 and 50 psi”, it is noted that such feature is intended use for the recited catalyst composition, but does not structurally limit the instantly claimed catalyst composition, therefore, such feature cannot render the claimed catalyst composition patentable distinct.
Regarding claim 4, such limitations are taught as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5-6, as for nickel forming a solid solution on the metal aluminate, Ranjbar et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same method forming a same catalyst composition consisting of nickel dopant onto a same magnesium aluminate spinel as that of instant claimed (para. [0001], [0024], [0035], example 1, table 1-2), therefore, same or substantially the same nickel forming a solid solution on the magnesium aluminate, or same or substantially the same nickel dopant being included in the magnesium aluminate spinel concentration from 0.0 to 35 wt.% would be envisioned or expected from the same or substantially the same method producing a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Ranjbar et al. further teaches the obtained catalyst composition having surface area of 155.1, or 121.7 or 124.2 m2/g (page 3 section 2.4 -2.5 and table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights