DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are amended.
Claim 10 is new.
Claims 1-10 are pending, with claims 5-9 being withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected.
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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devi et al. (JP 5610408 B2) (Devi) in view of Kowalik et al. “The effect of the precursor ageing on properties of the Cu/ZnO/Al2O3catalyst for low temperature water–gas shift (LT-WGS)” (Kowalik), Alexander et al. (US 2018/0327259 A1) (Alexander) and Ruettinger et al. (US 20030230029 A1) (Ruettinger).
Regarding claim 1, Devi discloses a method of preparing a transition metal containing catalyst that can be used in water gas shift reactions (Devi, page 3 – [Technical Field of the Invention]; page 6; page 7 – INDUSTRIAL-APPLICABILITY”) (i.e., a method of preparing a water-gas shift catalyst).
Devi further discloses preparing the catalyst using a coprecipitation process, including mixing a salt aqueous solution containing a salt of each element (e.g., Ce, Pt) of a perovskite material and a neutralizer, where the salt aqueous solution can be specifically cerium nitrate (i.e., a soluble salt of cerium), tetraammineplatinum nitrate (i.e., a soluble compound of platinum), and where the neutralizer can be ammonia (i.e., an aqueous solution of ammonia, i.e., ammonium hydroxide), and stirring to form a gel, where the pH of the gel is adjusted to about 9-10.5, and the gel is aged at 80 °C to obtain a precipitate (Devi, pages 5-7; page 8 – Example 5; page 11),
wherein the pH of the suspension falls within the claimed range, and
wherein the temperatures followed by aging the precipitate falls within the claimed range.
Devi further discloses filtering the precipitate (i.e., formed precipitate), washing the precipitate (i.e., formed precipitate) with water, and drying the precipitate (i.e., formed precipitate) at 100 °C for 12 hours and calcining at 500 °C for 3 hours (Devi, page 11), wherein the drying temperature falls within the claimed range.
Devi does not explicitly disclose (1) the duration of aging is 0.5 to 2.0 hours, (2) the duration of drying is 1 to 6 hours, (3) calcination at a temperature between 300 °C and 400 °C, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference (1) and (3), Kowalik teaches preparation catalyst for water gas shift reaction, via coprecipitation method (Kowalik, Title and Abstract).
Kowalik further teaches aging the sample for various aging time, e.g., 1, 2, 4 hours (Kowalik, page 128, right column – 2.1. Synthesis), which falls within the claimed range.
Kowalik further teaches calcination at 300 °C (Kowalik, page 130, right column – first paragraph), which falls within the claimed range.
As Kowalik expressly teaches, no significant changes in morphology are observed with the increasing ageing time, which indicates that the morphology is determined at the initial stage of the precursor ageing and is stable throughout this process (Kowalik, page 130, right column – first paragraph).
As Kowalik further expressly teaches, Prolonged ageing time results in a decrease of the catalytic activity (Kowalik, page 132, left and right columns).
Kowalik and Devi are analogous art as they are both drawn to catalysts for water gas shift reaction.
In light of the motivation of the effect of aging time disclosed by Kowalik as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the less prolonged aging time of Kowalik in Devi, in order to prevent a decrease of the catalytic activity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (2), Alexander teaches a water gas shift catalyst (Title and Abstract), where catalyst precursors can be prepared using coprecipitation process ([0037]).
Alexander further teaches a drying time can be in the range 0.25 to 8 hours, e.g., 0.5 to 5 hours ([0045]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As Alexander expressly teaches, such drying effectively removes the liquid without causing bulk conversion of the precipitated compounds to crystalline oxides (Alexander, [0045]).
Alexander and Devi are analogous art as they are both drawn to catalysts for water gas shift reaction.
In light of the motivation of carrying out the drying time disclosed by Alexander as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to using the drying time of Alexander in Devi, in order to provide effectively removes the liquid without causing bulk conversion of the precipitated compounds to crystalline oxides, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Devi in view of Kowalik and Alexander does not explicitly teach shaping the formed precipitate to obtain catalyst pellets having 0.1 to 0.4% m/m of platinum, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Ruettinger teaches a platinum-based water-gas shift catalyst containing a platinum group metal dispersed on an inorganic oxide, e.g., cerium oxide-zirconia support (Ruettinger, Abstract; [0013]).
Ruettinger further teaches shaping the catalyst into the desired shape, e.g., pellets, for preparing the catalyst in the form of tablets (Ruettinger, [0046]; [0059]-[0060]).
Ruettinger is analogous art as it is drawn to catalysts for water gas shift reaction.
In light of the motivation of shaping the material disclosed by Ruettinger as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shape the material in Devi, in order to prepare the catalyst of Devi in view of Kowalik and Alexander in the form of tablets and obtain a desired shape, e.g., pellets, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Ruettinger further teaches the catalyst comprising about 0.01 to 10 wt. % of platinum (Ruettinger, [0016]; [0047]), which overlaps the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devi et al. (JP 5610408 B2) (Devi) in view of Kowalik et al. “The effect of the precursor ageing on properties of the Cu/ZnO/Al2O3catalyst for low temperature water–gas shift (LT-WGS)” (Kowalik), Alexander et al. (US 2018/0327259 A1) (Alexander) and Ruettinger et al. (US 20030230029 A1) (Ruettinger), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tan et al. “Preparation of gold, platinum, palladium and silver nanoparticles by the reduction of their salts with a weak reductant–potassium bitartrate” (Tan).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Devi in view of Kowalik, Alexander, Ruettinger teaches the salt aqueous solution being specifically cerium nitrate (i.e., the soluble salt of cerium is in the form of nitrate), and tetraammineplatinum nitrate (i.e., a soluble compound of platinum) (Devi, page 8, Example 5).
Devi in view of Kowalik, Alexande and Ruettinger does not explicitly disclose the soluble compound of platinum is in the form of hexachloroplatinic acid, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Tan teaches preparation of gold, platinum, palladium and silver nanoparticles (Tan, Title and Abstract).
Tan further teaches the preparation of platinum for applications as catalysts, which includes using an aqueous solution of H2PtCl6 (i.e., in the form of hexachloroplatinic acid) (Tan, page 1069, Introduction, first paragraph; page 1070, left column, first full paragraph).
As Tan expressly teaches, all the platinum colloids prepared through the reduction of H2PtCl6 by potassium bitartrate in the presence or absence of protective agents have extremely high stability with no precipitation being observed after standing for more than half a year (Tan, page 1072, left column, last paragraph).
Tan is analogous art as it is drawn to preparation of platinum particles.
In light of the motivation of using H2PtCl6 disclosed by Tan as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the H2PtCl6 as the soluble compound of platinum in Devi in view of Kowalik, Alexander, and Ruettinger, in order to optimal stability and catalytic activity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devi et al. (JP 5610408 B2) (Devi) in view of Kowalik et al. “The effect of the precursor ageing on properties of the Cu/ZnO/Al2O3catalyst for low temperature water–gas shift (LT-WGS)” (Kowalik), Alexander et al. (US 2018/0327259 A1) (Alexander) and Ruettinger et al. (US 20030230029 A1) (Ruettinger), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palma et al. “Platinum Based Catalysts in the Water Gas Shift Reaction: Recent Advances” (Palma).
Regarding claims 3-4, as applied to claim 1, Devi does not disclose having sodium in the catalyst, thus it is clear that sodium is not required in the catalyst, and hence, a content of sodium in the catalyst would necessarily be 0% m/m, which falls within the claimed range.
Ruettinger further teaches the inorganic oxide support has a specific surface area of at least 10 m2/g, e.g., at least 50 m2/g (Ruettinger, [0049]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Devi in view of Kowalik, Alexander, and Ruettinger does not explicitly teach the platinum has average particle diameter (a) smaller than 2 nm, and (b) less than 1 nm, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference (a) and (b), Palma teaches platinum based catalysts in the water gas shift reaction (Palma, Title).
Palma further teaches a best catalytic activity is attributable to a smaller particle Pt size, and the best activity and stability can be achieved for particle sizes < 1.7 nm (Palma, Abstract; page 10 – 2.2.1 Effect of the Preparation Method). Palma further teaches the best stability can be achieved for particle sizes < 1 nm (Palma, page 12 - 2.2.4 Conclusions). Given that Palma teaches platinum particle size of < 1 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that an average platinum particle size (e.g., diameter) would be necessarily less than 1 nm, which falls within the claimed range.
As Palma expressly teaches, the particle size plays a crucial role in determining their catalytic activity, enhancing the performance of the nanometric catalytic systems (Palma, Abstract); the particle size had a significant influence on the catalytic activity (Palma, page 11, 2nd paragraph).
Palma is an analogous art as it is drawn to catalysts for water gas shift reaction.
In light of the motivation of having the particle size disclosed by Palma as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particle size of Palma in Devi in view of Ruettinger, Kowalik and Alexander, in order to achieve optimal catalytic activity and stability, and provide enhanced performance of the nanometric catalytic systems.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devi et al. (JP 5610408 B2) (Devi) in view of Kowalik et al. “The effect of the precursor ageing on properties of the Cu/ZnO/Al2O3catalyst for low temperature water–gas shift (LT-WGS)” (Kowalik), Alexander et al. (US 2018/0327259 A1) (Alexander) and Ruettinger et al. (US 20030230029 A1) (Ruettinger), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosner et al. “Water gas shift reactor modelling and new dimensionless number for thermal management/design of isothermal reactors” (Rosner).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Devi in view of Kowalik, Alexander, and Ruettinger does not explicitly disclose shaping the formed precipitate to obtain catalyst pellets with dimensions of 0.3-0.7 cm in diameter and 0.5-1.0 cm in length, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Rosner teaches water gas shift reactor modelling and new dimensionless number for thermal management/design of isothermal reactors (Rosner, Title and Abstract).
Rosner further teaches a catalyst used for water gas shift reaction, where the catalyst is provided typically in a pellet form with a pellet radius of 0.0015 m, which correspond to a pellet diameter of 0.3 cm (i.e., 0.0015 m × 2 = 0.003 m, i.e., 0.3 cm), and a pellet height of 0.0065 m (i.e., 0.65 cm) (page 7, page 18, Table 4), where the pellet diameter and pellet height (i.e., length) fall within the claimed range.
Rosner is analogous art as it is drawn to catalyst for water gas shift reaction.
In light of the motivation of providing the catalyst in a pellet form disclosed by Rosner as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the catalyst pellet of Devi in view of Kowalik, Alexander, and Ruettinger to have the size of Rosner as typical properties of catalysts for a water gas shift reaction, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims 1-2, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
In response to the amended claims 3-4, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
In response to the amended claims 1-4, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicants primarily argue:
“Devi does not disclose ammonium hydroxide.”
Remarks, page 5
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Devi discloses a salt aqueous solution containing a neutralizer, e.g., ammonia (Devi, page 7, third and fifth paragraphs), and thus Devi discloses an aqueous solution of ammonia, which is ammonium hydroxide.
Applicants further argue:
“Devi teaches away from obtaining "catalyst pellets having 0.1 to 0.4% m/m of platinum," as claimed…Devi explicitly states:
…The substituted noble metals (Pt, Rh, Au) in the perovskite structure reach at least 5%.
(Devi, p. 6.)
Because Devi requires the noble metals such as platinum to be "at least 5%" of its perovskite structure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason for the platinum content to be significantly less than the minimum required in Devi's perovskite to meet the claimed range of 0.1-0.4% m/m.”
Remarks, pages 5-6
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Applicant argues that Devi teaches away from the claimed invention because Devi discloses substituted noble metals (Pt, Rh, Au) in a total amount of at least 5% (Devi, page 6).
However, although Devi discloses substituted noble metals (Pt, Rh, Au) in a total amount of at least 5%, Devi does not disclose that any individual element or specifically the element of platinum must be present in an amount of at least 5%. Devi also does not discourage the use of any individual element or specifically the element of platinum at a lower concentration.
Accordingly, the disclosure of Devi would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid the claimed composition range.
Conclusion
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 JIALAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/J.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights