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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure proper grammar, it is suggested to amend “particles” to “particle” in line 1 of each of claims 1, 3, and 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2018/049389 A1) (Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Li teaches surface modified redox catalysts having an oxygen carrier core with an outer surface that has been modified to enhance the selectivity of the redox catalyst for oxidative dehydrogenation, wherein the surface modification can include forming a redox catalyst outer layer of the oxygen carrier (i.e., shell) (Li, Abstract) (i.e., a core-shell structured oxygen carrier particles). Li further teaches the oxygen carrier core can contain a metal oxide having a defected rock salt structure such as metal oxides having the chemical formula M1-xO where M may be Ni (Li, [0012]) (i.e., the metal oxide is an oxide of nickel). Further, the redox catalyst outer layer includes mixed-metal-oxide redox catalysts such as CaMnO3 (i.e., a perovskite-containing shell surrounding a part or a whole of the core) (Li, [0016]) (i.e., claim 3, the perovskite has an ABO3 structure, wherein A is calcium and B is manganese).
Given that Li discloses the core-shell catalyst that overlaps the presently claimed core-shell catalyst, including a nickel oxide core and a CaMnO3 perovskite shell, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the nickel oxide core and a CaMnO3 perovskite shell, which is both disclosed by Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the core-shell structured oxygen carrier particles of claim 1, wherein the redox catalyst outer layer and the oxygen carrier can be present at a molar ratio (redox catalyst/oxygen carrier) of about 0.5 to 2.5 (i.e., about 1:0.4 to about 1:2) (Li, [0018]), which falls within the claimed range.
Alternatively, claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. (“Effect of core and shell compositions on MeOx@LaySr1-yFeO3 core–shell redox catalysts for chemical looping reforming of methane”, 2015) (Neal) in view of Gonzalez-delaCruz et al. (“In Situ XAS Study of Synergic Effects on Ni-Co/ZrO2 Methane Reforming Catalysts”, 2011) (Gonzalez).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Neal teaches an MeOx@LaySr1-yFeO3 redox catalyst for the chemical looping reforming (CLR) process that converts methane into syngas through cyclic redox reactions of lattice oxygen within the redox catalyst. Within the CLR process, methane is partially oxidized to CO and H2 using active lattice oxygen of a redox catalyst, and in a subsequent step, the oxygen-depleted redox catalyst is regenerated by air (i.e., oxygen carrier particles) (Neal, Abstract).
Neal further teaches preparing a Co3O4@LSF821 (La0.8Sr0.2FeO3) core-shell catalyst (Neal, p. 392, 2.1. List of catalysts investigated and nomenclature) (i.e., a core-shell structured oxygen carrier particle comprising: a core containing a metal oxide; and a perovskite-containing shell surrounding a part or a whole of the core; claim 3, the perovskite has an ABO3 structure, wherein A is La and Sr and B is Fe).
However, Neal does not explicitly teach the metal oxide is at least two metal elements selected from the group consisting of cerium, nickel, and cobalt.
With respect to the difference, Gonzalez teaches bimetallic catalysts for methane reforming comprising nickel and cobalt (Gonzalez, Abstract). Gonzalez specifically teaches a mixed nickel-cobalt spinel form (Gonzalez, Abstract) (i.e., metal oxide, NiCo2O4).
As Gonzalez expressly teaches, compared to the monometallic catalysts, the bimetallic catalysts showed better activity and stability (Gonzalez, Abstract).
Gonzalez is analogous art as it is drawn to methane reforming catalysts comprising cobalt (Gonzalez, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of using a nickel-cobalt oxide as disclosed by Gonzalez, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core-shell catalyst of Neal by using a nickel-cobalt oxide core in order increase the activity and stability of the catalyst during methane reforming, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Neal teaches the core-shell structured oxygen carrier particle of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticle dispersions are prepared with a 1:1 molar ratio of the metal oxide to the perovskite (Neal, p. 392, 2.2. Catalyst preparation), which falls within the claimed range (i.e., a molar ratio of the metal oxide to the perovskite is 1:10 to 10:1).
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendment regarding “wherein the metal oxide is an oxide of cerium or nickel; or at least two metal elements selected from the group consisting of cerium, nickel, and cobalt” and based on applicant’s remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Neal, it is agreed that Neal alone would not meet the present claims. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejection as set forth above over Neal in view of Gonzalez, and over Li.
Applicant primarily argues:
“Claim 1 as now amended, from which each of claims 3 and 4 is directly dependent, recites
1. A core-shell structured oxygen carrier particles comprising: a core
containing a metal oxide; and a perovskite-containing shell surrounding a
part or a whole of the core, wherein the metal oxide is an oxide of
cerium or nickel; or at least two metal elements selected from the
group consisting of cerium, nickel and cobalt.
(Emphasis added).
Such core-shell particles of amended claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by Neal.”
Remarks, p. 8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Neal does not expressly teach the claimed “wherein the metal oxide is an oxide of cerium or nickel; or at least two metal elements selected from the group consisting of cerium, nickel, and cobalt”. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that Neal does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Gonzalez is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Neal. See item #8-9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Ching-Yiu 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732