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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and species A in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smieja et al. “Re(bipy-tBu)(CO)3Cl-improved Catalytic Activity for Reduction of CO2:IR Spectroelectrochemical and Mechanistic Studies” and in view of Oh, et al “Graphite-Conjected Rhenium Catalysts for CO2 Reduction”.
As to Claims 3 and 4, Smieja describes a CO2 catalyst (abstract and Introduction, para. 1), one of which can include a metal complex with a bipyridine ligand (see Introduction, para. 2), which can include Re(bipyridine)(CO)3Cl, where the bipyridine is a 2,2’-bipyridine) (see Introduction, para. 2, described as being known in the field). Smieja explains that other known complexes can include:
Re(Bipyridine-COOH)(CO)3Cl, where bipyridineCOOH=4,4’-dicarboxyl-2,2’bipyridine (see Introduction on pg 9284, lines 9-15). Other compounds known can include Re(dmb)(CO)3Cl, where dmb= 4,4’-dimethyl-2,2’-bipyridine (see page 9204, lines 9-12), as well as RE(bipy-tBu)(CO)3Cl, where bipy-tiBu=4,4’-di-tert-butyl,2,2’bipyridine (see page 9204, lines 9-15).
In each of these, the R can very (such as dicarboxyl, dimethyl or di-tert-butyl). As to if these groups are electron donating or withdrawing, since in one example, the R group can be di-tertbutyl, which matches the compound useable in Claim 6 of the current claim “tBu”, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would have the same properties.
The compound includes a halogen, which meets X is a halogen of Claim 1.
The reference does not specifically state that their product is dispersed on the surface of a carbon support.
Oh describes a CO2 reduction catalyst (title) and explains in the background that these catalysts, when deposited on a surface, offer greater stability than without use of a support (Introduction, lines 10-15). Surfaces useable in depositing CO2 reduction catalysts include carbon surfaces, such as graphite (title and page 1820, right col, para. 2). Some of the CO2 reduction catalysts used can include a ruthenium-based diphenyl composition (see abstract, line 1, Re(5,6-diamino-1,10-phenantrholine)(CO)3Cl).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the compound of Simieja on a carbon support, as taught by Oh because depositing a CO2 reduction catalyst on the surface of a carbon support is known to offer greater stability.
As to Claims 5 and 6, Simieja teaches that the following compounds are known: Re(Bipyridine-COOH)(CO)3Cl, where bipyridineCOOH=4,4’-dicarboxyl-2,2’bipyridine (see Introduction on pg 9284, lines 9-15). Other compounds known can include Re(dmb)(CO)3Cl, where dmb= 4,4’-dimethyl-2,2’-bipyridine (see page 9204, lines 9-12), as well as RE(bipy-tBu)(CO)3Cl, where bipy-tiBu=4,4’-di-tert-butyl,2,2’bipyridine (see page 9204, lines 9-15).
In each of these, the R can very (such as dicarboxyl, dimethyl or di-tert-butyl). As to if these groups are electron donating or withdrawing, since in one example, the R group can be di-tertbutyl, which matches the compound useable in Claim 6 of the current claim “tBu”, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would have the same properties.
As to Claim 10, Smieja and Oh describe the same catalyst claimed in Claim 1. The turnover number of Claim 10 describes the catalytic properties of the catalyst compound. Therefore, since the catalyst composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would have the same properties.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smieja and Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smieja et al. “Kinetic and Structural studies, origins of selectivity, and interfacial charge transfer. . “, Smieja II.
Smieja and Oh does not describe the current density of the composition.
Smieja II analyzes CO catalysts that can include: Re(bipy-tBu)(CO)3(L) compositions useable as CO2 reduction (abstract). The reference explains that L can be a halide or a neutral ligand (pg 15646, right col, para. 2). When certain reagents were added to the composition, the current densities were changed (see page 15648, right col., last para). This included use of CH3OH and CD3OD (see Fig. 6). Depending on the concentration of these reagents, Smieja II showed that the current density can be adjust to 4 mA/cm2 or higher (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the reagent addition and concentration to obtain the desired current density, such as to one that is 4 mA/cm2 or higher, as taught by Smieja II for use with the catalyst composition of Smieja and Oh because it is known to optimize this feature for producing the desired catalytic composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as by adjusting the reagents through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Smieja describes the catalyst above, but this reference and none of the other references describe positioning the catalyst material on a multi-walled carbon nanotube.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 January 7, 2026