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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/27/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 11/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation promoter is chosen from gadolinium, yttrium and mixtures thereof, and the claim also recites preferably from gadolinium and yttrium which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation the mass concentration of promoter in the catalytic system ranges from 0.1% to 20% by weight relative to the weight of the support, and the claim also recites preferably from 0.5% to 15% by weight, preferably ranges from 1% to 10% by weight which is the narrower statement of the range.
In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation the cerium/zirconium molar ratio is within a range from 90/10 to 40/60, and the claim also recites preferably from 80/20 to 50/50 which is the narrower statement of the range.
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation the mass concentration of nickel in the catalytic system ranges from 3% to 30% by weight relative to the weight of the support, and the claim also recites preferably from 7% to 17% which is the narrower statement of the range.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao et al (“Synthesis Gas Production via Dry Reforming of Methane over Manganese Promoted Nickel/Cerium-Zirconium Oxide Catalyst”).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses Nickel/cerium-zirconium oxide (Ni/Ce50-Zr50) and manganese promoted Ni/Ce50-Zr50 (Ni-Mn/Ce50-Zr50) catalysts were prepared using an impregnation method and used in the dry reforming of methane (abstract meeting limitation “catalytic system comprising a support comprising cerium and/or zirconium, nickel and a promoter chosen from… manganese”).
Regarding claim 4, Yao discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses commercial Ce50-Zr50 (Rhodia) was used as a support (Pg. 16646 left column paragraph 2.1 meeting limitation “characterized in that the support is a mixed oxide of cerium and of zirconium”).
Regarding claim 5, Yao discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including commercial Ce50-Zr50 (Rhodia) was used as a support (Pg. 16646 left column paragraph 2.1 meeting limitation “characterized in that the cerium/zirconium molar ratio is within a range from... 80/20 to 50/50”).
Regarding claim 7, Yao discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses the catalysts were prepared via a classical impregnation method (Pg. 16646 left column paragraph 2.1). This meets the claim limitation since the instant specification defines “the support, the nickel and the promoter form a homogenous mixture” as “the nickel and the promoter are uniformly distributed in the totality of the volume of the catalyst” (Pg. 9 lines 17-20). The instant specification further discloses the catalytic systems with nickel doped by the promoter metal M were prepared by the process of wet co-impregnation (Pg. 25 lines 1-3). Therefore, absent further evidence Yao discloses the support, the nickel and the promoter form a homogenous mixture since classical impregnation was used by Yao to dope.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milanov et al (CA 2877956).
Regarding claim 1, Milanov discloses a catalyst for the CO2 reforming of hydrocarbons (Pg. 3 line 11 meeting limitation “catalytic system”) having an active composition which comprises at least… zirconium dioxide-comprising support material (Pg. 3 lines 12-13 meeting limitation “a support comprising zirconium”). In a preferred embodiment of the catalyst of the invention, the Ir is present on the zirconium dioxide-comprising support and the latter is doped with further elements (Pg. 4 lines 5-7). For doping the zirconium dioxide support, preference is given to selecting elements form the group of the rare earths (i.e. from the group consisting of… Y…Gd)… and oxides thereof (Pg. 4 lines 7-13 meeting limitation “a promoter chosen from gadolinium, yttrium”).
In a further preferred embodiment, the catalyst comprises at least one base metal-comprising promoter from the group consisting of Ni (Pg. 6 lines 11-12 meeting limitation “nickel”).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any of the promoters disclosed by Milanov, including Ni, and arrive at the composition according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Milanov discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including for doping the zirconium dioxide support, preference is given to selecting elements form the group of the rare earths (i.e. from the group consisting of… Y…Gd)… and oxides thereof (Pg. 4 lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 3, Milanov discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses the yttrium oxide content based on ZrO2 is preferably in the range from 0.01-80% by weight… even more preferably 1.0-30% by weight (Pg. 5 lines 3-5). In an example disclosed by Milanov, the yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide had an yttrium oxide content (Y2O3) of 8% by weight (Pg. 13 lines 30-31). 8% by weight is within the claimed range of from 1% to 10% by weight.
Regarding claim 6, Milanov discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses in a further preferred embodiment, the catalyst comprises at least one base metal-comprising promoter from the group consisting of Ni… where the proportion of base metal-comprising promoters based on the weight of the catalyst is in the range 0.1-50% by weight… more preferably in the range 1-20% by weight (Pg. 6 lines 11-15).
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). In the instant case, the range taught by Milanov (1-20% by weight) overlaps with the claimed range (7-17%). Therefore, the range in Milanov renders obvious the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738