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 .
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to the supplementary amendment filed 8/18/2026.
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.
Claims 14-22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McShea, III et al. (“McShea”), US4927857.
Regarding claims 14, 16, and 30, McShea teaches a catalyst active for catalytic oxidation of methane in source gases comprising methane and sulfur. See column 7, lines 49-54; column 8, lines 31-37; and column 10, lines 46-49 of McShea. The catalyst of McShea comprises stabilized alumina with platinum and palladium in a weight ratio of Pt:Pd of 1:4 (0.25:1). See CPO-3 in Table 1 and associated text. The platinum group metal loading (Pt + Pd content) is 275 g/ft3 and the alumina support coating loading is 1.79 g/in3 or 1.79 g/in3 * 1728 in3/ft3 = 3093 g/ft3. Thus, the Pt + Pd content of the Pt-Pd/alumina catalyst is (275 g/ft3) / (3093 g/ft3 + 275 g/ft3) * 100% = 8.2 wt.%.
When converted to the same amount of significant figures in the claim the Pt:Pd value would be 0.3:1, meeting the claim limitation. Further, McShea teaches a specific example in Table I-B with a weight ratio of Pt:Pd is 25:75 or 0.33:1. See Catalyst Sample No. 892-71-SSP. The catalyst is notable as having the low T50 and T75 values for Test Gas A.
Even further, McShea teaches mixtures of platinum and palladium having from 25-75% platinum and 25-75% palladium. This forms an overlapping range with the values recited in the instant claims. Importantly, McShea discusses the importance of the relative amounts of platinum and palladium (i.e. the Pt:Pd ratio) in providing qualities of the catalyst including effective catalytic activity in treating a wide range of hydrocarbons, with resistance to high temperatures and catalyst poisons. See column 7, lines 36-48. McShea teaches a preference for increasing the proportion of palladium when using feeds with a high methane content. See column 12, lines 6-9. Thus, the ratio thereof has been recognized as a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper ratio of Pt:Pd in the range claimed, depending on the intended feed, to achieve the above-mentioned advantages. It would have been obvious to increase the proportion of palladium in the catalyst McShea, into the claimed range, when using feeds with high methane contents as directed by McShea. See MPEP 2144.05.
This exemplified catalyst is stabilized with 5 wt.% ceria and not 3% lanthanum as required by the claim. However, McShea teaches the alumina can be stabilized with 2-10 wt. % of metals including lanthanum. See column 6, line 59 – column 7, line 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one stabilizer for another, as suggested by McShea to provide a catalyst support which is stable at high temperatures and maintains a high surface area. The amount of stabilizer disclosed in McShea overlaps the instantly claimed composition and thus renders the limitation prima facie obvious. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, McShea teaches only platinum and palladium as active phases in McShea. See CPO-3 in Table 1 and associated text.
Regarding claim 17, Pt:Pd of 1:4 (0.25:1). See CPO-3 in Table 1 and associated text. When converted to the same amount of significant figures in the claim the value would be 0.3:1, meeting the claim limitation. Alternatively, McShea teaches mixtures of platinum and palladium of 25-75% platinum and 25-75% palladium. This forms an overlapping range with the values recited in the instant claims. Further, McShea discusses the importance of the relative amounts of platinum and palladium in providing qualities of the catalyst including effective catalytic activity in treating a wide range of hydrocarbons, with resistance to high temperatures and catalyst poisons. See column 7, lines 36-48. Thus, the ratio thereof has been recognized as a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper ratio of Pt:Pd in the range depending on the intended feed into the range claimed to achieve the above-mentioned advantages.
Regarding claim 18, the catalyst of McShea discussed above is substantially similar to the claimed catalyst such that it would have activity upon methane in the required temperature range. See also Table I-A and associated text.
Regarding claims 20-21, the CPO-3 in Table 1 has 0.25 * 8.9% = 2.23 wt. % Pt and 8.9% - 2.23% = 5.78 wt.% Pd.
Regarding claim 21, McShea is silent regarding the value of T50 of the catalysts when subjected to the conditions required by the claim. However, the catalyst rendered obvious above is substantially identical in composition to the instantly claimed catalyst (see the rejection of claim 14 above) that it would have been expected to have a substantially identical T50 when subjected to the conditions specified in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, McShea teaches sequential incipient wetness impregnation and simultaneous wet impregnation. See column 8, line 50 – column 9, line 7 and column 9, lines 49-59.
Claim(s) 14-22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., “Oxidation of methane over Pt and Pd supported on alumina in lean-burn natural gas engine exhaust,” Catalysis Today 45 (1998) 147-151 in view of WO2017/079826 (WO’826).
Regarding claims 14, 16-17, and 30, Yamamoto teaches methane oxidation catalysts including alumina supporting platinum and palladium. A particular catalyst produced contains 9.6 g/l Pt and 18.3 g/l Pd which is a ratio of Pt:Pd of 0.54:1. See catalyst “Pt(10 g/l) – Pd(15 g/l)/alumina” in Table 1. The alumina support is contained at 200 g/L (First paragraph of Section 2) and thus the Pt-Pd/alumina catalyst contains (9.6 + 18.3)/(200 + 9.6 + 8.3) * 100% or 12.2 wt. % platinum and palladium.
Yamamoto does not teach the alumina contains 3 wt. % lanthanum. However, lanthanum modified alumina with lanthanum at this level was known to be used in methane oxidation catalysts to increase catalytic activity and provide temperature stability. WO’826 teaches using a 3 wt. % lanthanum modified alumina in catalytic oxidation of methane. See [0017] and Example 2 on pages 9-10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a support in place of the unmodified alumina in Yamamoto in order to increase catalytic activity and provide temperature stability.
Yamamoto’s platinum and palladium containing catalyst as modified with WO’826 is substantially the same as that claimed and would thus also be active in methane oxidation in the presence of sulfur. Further, Yamamoto teaches a natural gas feed, which commonly contains sulfur.
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto teaches only platinum and palladium as active phases. See Table 1 and associated text.
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto teaches the catalyst has activity upon methane at temperatures in the range of the claim, exemplifying 658K (385°C) and 673K (400°C). See Section 2.
Regarding claims 19-20, Yamamoto teaches 9.6 g/L Pt in 227.9 g/L total catalyst or about 4.2 wt. %. Yamamoto teaches 18.3 g/L palladium in the same catalyst or about 8.0 %. See catalyst “Pt(10 g/l) – Pd(15 g/l)/alumina” in Table 1.
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto in view of WO’826 is silent regarding the value of T50 of the catalysts when subjected to the conditions required by the claim. However, the catalyst of Yamamoto in view of WO’826 rendered obvious above is substantially identical in composition to the instantly claimed catalyst (see the rejection of claim 14 above) that it would have been expected to have a substantially identical T50 when subjected to the conditions specified in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto is silent regarding the preparation procedure of the catalysts described therein. However, WO’826 teaches the preparation method affects catalyst performance and teaches both incipient wetness impregnation with platinum added before palladium as well as wet simultaneous impregnation. See Example 5 on pages 11-12 of WO’826. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the production procedures described by WO’826 to prepare the catalyst of Yamamoto in order to provide a catalyst with better activity. See [0042] of WO’826.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment was sufficient to overcome the 112(b) rejection of claim 14. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/18/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 applicant argues that the instant claims require doping with 3% alumina and alleges that McShea’s teaching of “stabilized” alumina does not meet this limitation. Applicant argues that the claimed lanthanum-doped alumina has intimately incorporated lanthanum as opposed to the prior art which is alleged to only have a lanthanum additive.
This argument is unpersuasive because the term “doped” is defined in the specification and the stabilized alumina of the prior art meets this definition. In [0047], applicant defines doped as “[]it is meant that the methane oxidation catalyst contains lanthanum (La) in the alumina matrix. Without being limiting, lanthanum may also be present at least on the surface of the alumina, or a combination thereof.”
McShea teaches the stabilizer is incorporated into the support via impregnation (see Example 2) which would disperse the stabilizer in the alumina support and meet the claim limitation requiring the support be “doped” because the lanthanum is impregnated into the alumina matrix. McShea also discusses the stabilizer is incorporated “therein” referring to the support. See column 10, lines 56-60. There is no evidence that would lead one to believe the stabilized alumina of McShea is any different from the claimed “doped” alumina.
Regarding Yamamoto, applicant argues on the bottom of page 11 of the remarks of 8/18/2026 that it would not have been obvious to modify Yamamoto to include a lanthanum dopant disclosed in WO’826 because WO’826 teaches a preference for a Pt:Pd ratio which is different from that of Yamamoto. However, WO’826 was not utilized in the rejection as modifying the Pt:Pd ratio. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been dissuaded from stabilizing the alumina of Yamamoto simply because WO’826 teaches a different preferred Pt:Pd ratio for a catalyst used to treat a different feed than that of Yamamoto. In fact, the teaching WO’826 of the criticality of lanthanum doping shows a general applicability of the technique of lanthanum doping. The reference is replete with examples using many different palladium and platinum loadings with lanthanum stabilized alumina, and there is nothing to indicate the effect of lanthanum doping in increasing stability and activity would not translate to a catalyst such as that of Yamamoto.
On pages 12-13, applicant argues the claimed catalyst shows unexpected results of catalysts with the claimed Pt:Pd ratio range and with a PGM loading between 7 and 20% as shown in Table 7a and paragraph [0077] of the instant specification. This argument is unpersuasive.
First, the showing does not properly establish criticality by comparing a significant number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges. See MPEP 716.02(d). For instance, there is no showing that a Pt:Pd ratio of 0.3 (the claimed lower endpoint) has unexpected results over values immediately outside that endpoint such as values of 0.23-0.29. The showing does not contain a significant number of examples using PGM loadings both inside and outside the claimed 7-20 wt. % at each Pt:Pd value. The same is true of the upper endpoint of 0.75.
Second, the showing does not compare to the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e). In addition to teaching a broader range, McShea teaches specific Pt:Pd values of 0.25 and 0.33 (see the rejection above) with PGM loadings of about 8%. See the rejection above. The showings in the specification do not evaluate catalyst performance at these values and thus it is not possible to make a conclusion the instantly claimed invention shows unexpected results over McShea.
Third, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claim. In order to establish criticality, “the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.” See MPEP 716.02(d). In the instant case, the showing does not establish the unexpected results occur at each Pt:Pd value claimed AND throughout the whole range of PGM loading (7-20%).
Further, the prior art teaches or at least fairly suggests catalyst compositions meeting the limitation of the claims. Both McShea and Yamamoto in view of WO’826 teach broad ranges of catalyst compositions that can be optimized depending on different process limitations (intended gas feed, etc.). The fact that the inventor may have 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. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 21 and 22 are unpersuasive. The argument regarding unexpected results is addressed above. Regarding the preparation procedures, and resulting structure, it is noted that McShea teaches the claimed preparation methods. Regarding Yamamoto, the preparation procedures claimed are replete in the prior art, the fact that the inventor may have 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. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Felix et al., US2015/0064631, teaches a lanthanum-containing alumina supporting platinum and palladium. See [0008]. The Examples show 5.25% Pd and 1.75 % Pt (Pt:Pd = 0.33:1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY J ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
ANTHONY J. ZIMMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights