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 of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/23/2026.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura et al. (EP 2409761 B1) (Okamura).
Regarding claim 1, Okamura teaches a catalyst used for producing hydrogen through the decomposition of ammonia (Okamura, [0001]; [0003]), wherein the catalyst contains:
a manganese-cerium oxide as “A component” (Okamura, [0023]) (i.e., one or more rare earth elements (B) including cerium, in the form of an oxide);
cobalt preferably in the form of a metal or metal oxide as the “B component” (Okamura, [0031]) (i.e., cobalt (A), in the form of a metal or oxide);
an alkaline earth metal as the “D component” (Okamura, [0041]), wherein barium is specifically listed as an alkaline earth metal (Okamura, [0052]), and wherein strontium is an option as it is also an alkaline earth metal; additionally, wherein the D component may be added in a complex state which includes forming a composite oxide (Okamura, [0052]) (i.e., one or more alkaline-earth metal elements (C) selected from barium and strontium, wherein the alkaline-earth metal element is a metal or oxide); and
at least one refractory inorganic oxide as the “E component”, selected from zirconia and calcium oxide (Okamura, [0016]) (i.e., one or more calcium compounds (E) selected from calcium oxide; and zirconium (D); wherein the zirconium is an oxide).
Given that Okamura discloses the ammonia decomposition catalyst that overlaps the presently claimed ammonia decomposition catalyst, including cerium oxide, cobalt, alkaline earth metals including barium and strontium as oxides, and zirconia and calcium oxide, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the cerium oxide, cobalt, alkaline earth metals including barium and strontium as oxides, and zirconia and calcium oxide, which are both disclosed by Okamura and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Okamura teaches the ammonia decomposition catalyst of claim 1, wherein cobalt as the “B component” is included in the catalyst in an amount of 0.05 to 80% by mass (Okamura, [0033]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
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).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Okamura teaches the ammonia decomposition catalyst of claim 1, wherein the catalyst comprises 10 to 99.95% by mass of the manganese-cerium oxide as the A component (Okamura, [0033]), and wherein manganese dioxide is 1 to 60% by mass of the manganese-cerium oxide (Okamura, [0023]). Therefore, the cerium oxide is 40 to 99% by mass of the manganese-cerium oxide in the A component, and the cerium oxide is 4 to 39.98% by mass of the catalyst when the A component is 40% by mass of the catalyst (i.e., 0.4 x 10% = 4% and 0.4 x 99.95% = 39.98%), and 9.9 to 98.95% by mass of the catalyst when the A component is 99% by mass of the catalyst (i.e., 0.99 x 10% = 9.9% and 0.99 x 99.95% = 98.95%), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed content proportion of the rare earth element (B).
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).
Okamura further teaches the catalyst comprises the alkaline earth metal “D component” in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by mass (Okamura, [0041]), which falls within the claimed range.
Okamura further teaches wherein the “E component” may contain at least one kind of refractory oxide (i.e., may contain more than one), including zirconia and calcium oxide and wherein the “E component” is 0 to 50% by mass of the catalyst (Okamura, [0040]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed zirconium and calcium compound content proportions. For example, when the “E component” is 20% by mass of the catalyst and the mass ratio of zirconia to calcium oxide is 1:1, both zirconia and calcium oxide would be 10% by mass which falls within the claimed range (i.e., claim 4, a content proportion of the calcium compound (E) is 10 mass% or more).
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).
Further, when faced with a mixture, such as of two refractory oxides, i.e., zirconia and calcium oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
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
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights