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
It is noted there is no power of attorney in the application. The patent practitioner that signed the Application Data Sheet appears to be acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the applicant parties. See MPEP 402.04 and 37 CFR 1.34.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 29 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are amended; claims 4-5 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 6-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, "SrFeQ3" should read "SrFeO3".
Claim 3, lines 11-12, "Sr1-xCaxFe1-yNiyO3" should read "Sr1-xCaxFe1-yNiyO3".
Claim 6, line 3, "673 OK" should read "673 °K".
Claim 10, line 2, "673 °Kand" should read "673 °K and".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-10 are 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This limitation is.
The term “about” in claims 6-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This limitation is.
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 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popczun ("Nickel B-site substitution in bulk Sr1−xCaxFeO3 perovskite oxygen carriers: Benefits and limitations").
Regarding Claim 1, Popczun discloses the use of nickel as a B-site dopant in Sr1-xCaxFeO3 (Sr1-xCaxFeO3 meets the limitation of a SrFeO3 perovskite; Title) O2 carriers (pg. 1, Col. 2, par. 2). Popczun further discloses Ca A-site doping (pg. 2, Col. 2, par. 3), such that the oxygen carrier of Popczun comprises an A-site and a B-site. Popczun further illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs approximately 2.2-2.6 wt% of oxygen (2.2-2.6 wt% meets the limitation of at least 2.00 wt%; pg. 4, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Popczun discloses Sr1-xCaxFe1-yNiyO3 (perovskite oxygen carrier) where x = 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, and y = 0.06 and 0.12 (Title; pg. 3, Col. 1, par. 3). Popczun further illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs approximately 2.2-2.6 wt% of oxygen (2.2-2.6 wt% meets the limitation of at least 2.00 wt%; pg. 4, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Popczun illustrates carrying oxygen using a perovskite oxygen carrier by providing a reduced oxygen carrier to a TGA (TGA meets the limitation of a reaction environment); contacting the reduced oxygen carrier with air at 400°C, 450°C, or 500°C for 30 min to 1 h (air at 400°C, 450°C, or 500°C for 30 min to 1 h meets the limitation of a predetermined time at a first temperature and a first oxygen partial pressure), wherein the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs oxygen from the gaseous stream, giving an oxygen carrier; and heating to 400°C, 450°C, or 500°C with N2 (400°C, 450°C, or 500°C with N2 meets the limitation of a second temperature at a second oxygen partial pressure), causing oxygen adsorbed onto the oxygen carrier to be released from the oxygen carrier, reforming the reduced oxygen carrier (pg. 2, Col. 2, par. 2; pg. 4, Fig. 4-7). Popczun further discloses air is 21% O2 (pg. 4, Col. 1, par. 2), such that air meets the limitation of an oxygen containing gaseous stream. Popczun further discloses Sr1-xCaxFe1-yNiyO3 (perovskite oxygen carrier) where x = 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, and y = 0.06 and 0.12 (Title; pg. 3, Col. 1, par. 3). Popczun further illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs approximately 2.2-2.6 wt% of oxygen (2.2-2.6 wt% meets the limitation of at least 2.00 wt%; pg. 4, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Popczun illustrate the reduced oxygen carrier has a maximum adsorption temperature between approximately 300°C and 400°C (pg. 4, Fig. 4), which is equivalent to between 573°K and 673°K.
Regarding Claim 7, Popczun discloses full oxidation is rapid (< 1 min) (pg. 4, Col. 1, par. 2), reversible O2 release of 2.00 wt% (pg. 7, Col. 2, par. 1), and Popczun illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs approximately 2.2-2.6 wt% of oxygen (pg. 4, Fig. 4), such that the reduced oxygen carrier is oxidized at a rate of 2 wt%/min or more, and therefore meets the limitation of oxidizing at a rate between approximately 2.00 wt%/min and approximately 10.00 wt%/min during the contacting step.
Regarding Claim 8, Popczun illustrates the oxygen carrier is reduced by approximately 2 wt% in 2-60 minutes (pg. 5, Fig. 5), which is equivalent to 0.03 wt%/min to 1 wt%/min.
Regarding Claim 9, Popczun illustrates the oxygen carrier has a desorption onset temperature between approximately 200°C and 250°C (pg. 4, Fig. 3), which is equivalent to between 473°K and 523°K.
Regarding Claim 10, Popczun illustrates the oxygen carrier has a maximum desorption temperature between approximately 400°C and 500°C (pg. 4, Fig. 3), which is equivalent to between 673°K and 773°K.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2023/0256422; appears to have a filing date of 15 February 2022 based on PRO Application No. 63/268013) in view of Dabrowski (US 2012/0118149).
An alternative rejection is provided in case Popczun does not qualify as prior art.
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses an oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite comprising the formula Srx(A/A′)1-xFey(B/B′)1-yO3-δ (Srx(A/A′)1-xFey(B/B′)1-yO3-δ meets the limitation of a perovskite comprising the formula SrFeO3), wherein A/A′ comprises Ca, etc., B/B′ comprises Ni (B/B′ comprises Ni meets the limitation wherein the B-site is doped with Ni), etc.; wherein x is from 0 to 1, y is from 0 to 1, and δ is from 0 to 0.7 (claim 1). Li further discloses a method for chemical looping air separation (CLAS), the method comprising: (i) contacting a gas mixture comprising oxygen with the oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite of claim 1, wherein the contacting creates a reduced level of oxygen deficiency in the perovskite (claim 13), wherein “chemical looping” refers to the decoupling of an overall reaction into multiple reduction and oxidization sub-reactions, whereby an intermediate, also known as an oxygen carrier, facilitates such sub-reactions by releasing or replenishing oxygen under temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure swings [0068], such that Li meets the limitation of a perovskite oxygen carrier comprising the formula SrFeO3. Li further discloses the perovskite (oxygen carrier) comprises an A-site and a B-site [0024].
Li is silent to the wt% of oxygen adsorbed by the reduced oxygen carrier.
Dabrowski discloses a ceramic material system represented by the formula AjBkCmDnO2+δ [0046], where A and B can be chosen from Ca, Sr, etc. [0051], and C and D can be chosen from Fe, Ni, etc., where j>0, k≥0, m≥0, n≥0, j+k=1, m+n=1, and 0<δ≤0.5, wherein the ceramic is used for oxygen storage [0050], such that Dabrowski meets the limitation of a perovskite oxygen carrier. Dabrowski further illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs between 1.2 wt% and 3 wt% oxygen (Fig. 2b-e).
Regarding the adsorption wt% in claim 1, it appears that 1.2-3 wt% taught by Dabrowski overlaps the claimed range of at least 2.00 wt% such that the range taught by Dabrowski obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dabrowski wherein, during the contacting step, the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% of oxygen, because adsorbing at least 2.00 wt% oxygen is a process parameter well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers, as recognized by Dabrowski.
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses an oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite comprising the formula Srx(A/A′)1-xFey(B/B′)1-yO3-δ, wherein A/A′ comprises Ca, etc., B/B′ comprises Ni (B/B′ comprises Ni meets the limitation wherein the B-site is doped with Ni), etc.; wherein x is from 0 to 1, y is from 0 to 1, and δ is from 0 to 0.7 (claim 1). Li further discloses a method for chemical looping air separation (CLAS), the method comprising: (i) contacting a gas mixture comprising oxygen with the oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite of claim 1, wherein the contacting creates a reduced level of oxygen deficiency in the perovskite (claim 13), wherein “chemical looping” refers to the decoupling of an overall reaction into multiple reduction and oxidization sub-reactions, whereby an intermediate, also known as an oxygen carrier, facilitates such sub-reactions by releasing or replenishing oxygen under temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure swings [0068], such that Li meets the limitation of a perovskite oxygen carrier.
Regarding the value of x in claim 2, it appears that 0 to 1 taught by Li overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.30 such that the range taught by Li obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the value of y in claim 2, it appears that 0 to 1 taught by Li overlaps the claimed range of 0.001 to 0.125 such that the range taught by Li obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Li is silent to the wt% of oxygen adsorbed by the reduced oxygen carrier.
Dabrowski discloses a ceramic material system represented by the formula AjBkCmDnO2+δ [0046], where A and B can be chosen from Ca, Sr, etc. [0051], and C and D can be chosen from Fe, Ni, etc., where j>0, k≥0, m≥0, n≥0, j+k=1, m+n=1, and 0<δ≤0.5, wherein the ceramic is used for oxygen storage [0050], such that Dabrowski meets the limitation of a perovskite oxygen carrier. Dabrowski further illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs between 1.2 wt% and 3 wt% oxygen (Fig. 2b-e).
Regarding the adsorption wt% in claim 2, it appears that 1.2-3 wt% taught by Dabrowski overlaps the claimed range of at least 2.00 wt% such that the range taught by Dabrowski obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dabrowski wherein, during the contacting step, the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% of oxygen, because adsorbing at least 2.00 wt% oxygen is a process parameter well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers, as recognized by Dabrowski.
Claims 3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2023/0256422; appears to have a filing date of 15 February 2022 based on PRO Application No. 63/268013) in view of Dabrowski (US 2012/0118149) and Dou ("Sr1-xCaxFe1-yCoyO3-δ as facile and tunable oxygen sorbents for chemical looping air separation").
Regarding Claim 3, Li discloses a method for carrying oxygen using a perovskite oxygen carrier by chemical looping air separation (CLAS), the method comprising: (i) contacting a gas mixture comprising oxygen with an oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite (oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite meets the limitation of a reduced oxygen carrier, such that Li meets the limitation of providing a reduced oxygen carrier to a reaction environment), wherein the contacting creates a reduced level of oxygen deficiency in the perovskite (creating a reduced level of oxygen deficiency in the perovskite meets the limitation wherein the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs oxygen from the gaseous stream, giving an oxygen carrier); and (ii) exposing the perovskite having the reduced level of oxygen deficiency to a vacuum or steam purge to release concentrated oxygen while recreating the oxygen-deficient perovskite of (i) (releasing oxygen from the perovskite meets the limitation of causing oxygen adsorbed onto the oxygen carrier in the contacting step to be released from the oxygen carrier, reforming the reduced oxygen carrier; claim 13). Li further discloses CLAS at 700°C (700°C meets the limitation of a first temperature). Li further discloses “chemical looping” refers to the decoupling of an overall reaction into multiple reduction and oxidization sub-reactions, whereby an intermediate, also known as an oxygen carrier, facilitates such sub-reactions by releasing or replenishing oxygen under temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure swings (temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure swings meets the limitation of a first oxygen partial pressure, a first and second temperature, and a second oxygen partial pressure; [0068]). Li further discloses an oxygen-deficient mixed metal perovskite comprising the formula Srx(A/A′)1-xFey(B/B′)1-yO3-δ, wherein A/A′ comprises Ca, etc., B/B′ comprises Ni (B/B′ comprises Ni meets the limitation wherein the B-site is doped with Ni), etc.; wherein x is from 0 to 1, y is from 0 to 1, and δ is from 0 to 0.7 (claim 1).
Regarding the value of x in claim 3, it appears that 0 to 1 taught by Li overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.30 such that the range taught by Li obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the value of y in claim 3, it appears that 0 to 1 taught by Li overlaps the claimed range of 0.001 to 0.125 such that the range taught by Li obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Li is silent to a predetermined contacting time and heating the oxygen carrier to a second temperature.
Dou discloses a method for carrying oxygen using a SCFC oxygen sorbent (SCFC oxygen sorbent meets the limitation of a reduced perovskite oxygen carrier), the method comprising: providing an oxygen sorbent to a TGA instrument (TGA instrument meets the limitation of a reaction environment), contacting the oxygen sorbent with 20% O2/Ar at 700°C for 10 min (10 min meets the limitation of a predetermined time), cooling to 400°C, switching to an Ar flow, and testing the sample between 400-700°C at an interval of 50°C (testing the sample between 400-700°C meets the limitation of heating the oxygen carrier to a second temperature), wherein reduction in Ar (reduction in Ar meets the limitation of causing oxygen adsorbed onto the oxygen carrier in the contacting step to be released from the oxygen carrier, reforming the reduced oxygen carrier) lasted for 6 min and oxidation in 20% O2/Ar (oxidation in 20% O2/Ar meets the limitation wherein the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs oxygen from the gaseous stream during this step, giving an oxygen carrier) was 4 min, and at each temperature, the redox cycle was performed twice (pg. 3, par. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dou to contact the reduced oxygen carrier with an oxygen containing gaseous stream for a predetermined time at a first temperature and a first oxygen partial pressure followed by heating the oxygen carrier to a second temperature at a second oxygen partial pressure, as Li teaches chemical looping refers to releasing or replenishing oxygen under temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure [0068], and contacting for a predetermined time and heating after the contacting step in order to release oxygen from the oxygen carrier are process parameters well-known in the art of chemical looping air separation experiments for perovskite oxygen sorbents, as recognized by Dou.
Li is silent to the wt% of oxygen adsorbed by the reduced oxygen carrier.
Dabrowski discloses a ceramic material system represented by the formula AjBkCmDnO2+δ [0046], where A and B can be chosen from Ca, Sr, etc. [0051], and C and D can be chosen from Fe, Ni, etc., where j>0, k≥0, m≥0, n≥0, j+k=1, m+n=1, and 0<δ≤0.5, wherein the ceramic is used for oxygen storage [0050], such that Dabrowski meets the limitation of a perovskite oxygen carrier. Dabrowski further illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs between 1.2 wt% and 3 wt% oxygen (Fig. 2b-e).
Regarding the adsorption wt% in claim 3, it appears that 1.2-3 wt% taught by Dabrowski overlaps the claimed range of at least 2.00 wt% such that the range taught by Dabrowski obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dabrowski wherein, during the contacting step, the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% of oxygen, because adsorbing at least 2.00 wt% oxygen is a process parameter well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers, as recognized by Dabrowski.
Regarding Claim 6, Li is silent to a maximum adsorption temperature of the reduced oxygen carrier.
Dabrowski discloses a temperature of maximum oxygen absorption of at most 400°C [0016], which is equivalent to 673°K, and therefore, meets the limitation of between approximately 573°K and approximately 673°K.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dabrowski wherein the reduced oxygen carrier has a maximum adsorption temperature between approximately 573°K and approximately 673°K, because a maximum adsorption temperature in this range is a process parameter well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers, as recognized by Dabrowski.
Regarding Claim 7, Li is silent to the oxidation rate of the reduced oxygen carrier.
Dou discloses an oxidation time of 1 min for oxidation at 500°C, 550°C and 600°C (pg. 3, par. 3), wherein the oxygen capacities at 500°C, 550°C and 600°C are 0.5-1.14 wt% (pg. 4, Table 1). Dou further illustrates oxidation takes place in the first 30 sec (pg. 5, Fig. 3), such that the reduced oxygen carrier of Dou is oxidized at a rate of up to approximately 2.28 wt%/min.
Regarding the oxidation rate in claim 7, it appears that 0.5-2.28 wt%/min taught by Dou overlaps the claimed range of between approximately 2.00 wt%/min and approximately 10.00 wt%/min such that the range taught by Dou obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dou wherein the reduced oxygen carrier is oxidized at a rate between approximately 2.00 wt%/min and approximately 10.00 wt%/min during the contacting step, because an oxidation rate in this range is a process parameter well-known in the art of oxidizing a reduced oxygen carrier, as recognized by Dou.
Regarding Claim 8, Li is silent to a reduction rate of the oxygen carrier.
Dou discloses a reduction time of 2 min at 500°C, 550°C and 600°C (pg. 3, par. 3), wherein the oxygen capacities at 500°C, 550°C and 600°C are 0.5-1.14 wt% (pg. 4, Table 1), such that the reduction rate of Dou is approximately 0.25- 0.57 wt%/min, which meets the limitation of between approximately 0.033 wt%/min and approximately 1.5 wt%/min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dou wherein the oxygen carrier is reduced at a rate between approximately 0.033 wt%/min and approximately 1.5 wt%/min during the heating step, because a reduction rate in this range is a process parameter well-known in the art of reducing an oxygen carrier, as recognized by Dou.
Regarding Claim 9, Li is silent to a desorption onset temperature of the oxygen carrier.
Dabrowski illustrates a desorption onset temperature of approximately 200°C (Fig. 2A), which is equivalent to 473°K, and therefore, meets the limitation of between approximately 473°K and approximately 523°K.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dabrowski wherein the oxygen carrier has a desorption onset temperature between approximately 473°K and approximately 523°K, because a desorption onset temperature in this range is a process parameter well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers, as recognized by Dabrowski.
Regarding Claim 10, Li is silent to a maximum desorption temperature of the oxygen carrier.
Dabrowski discloses a temperature of maximum oxygen desorption of at most 400°C [0016], which is equivalent to 673°K, and therefore, meets the limitation of between approximately 673°K and approximately 773°K.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of Dabrowski wherein the oxygen carrier has a maximum desorption temperature between approximately 673°K and approximately 773°K, because a maximum desorption temperature in this range is a process parameter well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers, as recognized by Dabrowski.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Popczun does not teach the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen (“Remarks”, pg. 5, par. 4).
However, as stated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102, Popczun illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs approximately 2.2-2.6 wt% of oxygen (pg. 4, Fig. 4), such that Popczun meets the limitation wherein the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen. Clarification is requested on Applicant’s basis for asserting that Popczun does not teach the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen.
Applicant argues Li does not teach the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen (“Remarks”, pg. 6, par. 4; pg. 7, par. 1).
However, Li is not relied upon for teaching the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen. Dabrowski is relied upon for teaching the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen.
Applicant argues Li, alone or in combination with Dou, does not teach the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen (“Remarks”, pg. 7, par. 4).
However, Li and Dou are not relied upon for teaching the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen. Dabrowski is relied upon for teaching the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen.
Applicant argues as neither Li nor Dou recognizes any deficiencies in Li, the suggested combination of Li and Dou attempts to solve an issue that doesn’t exist and thus is not a proper combination (“Remarks”, pg. 8, par. 1).
However, a deficiency in the prior art is not required for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Dou teaches parameters of perovskite oxygen carriers which are well-known in the art. Li teaches chemical looping, which is the releasing and replenishing of oxygen under a temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure [0068], and Dou teaches a chemical looping process with a predetermined contacting time and heating after the contacting step in order to release oxygen from the oxygen carrier, such that a predetermined contacting time and a secondary heating step are process parameters well-known in the art of chemical looping air separation experiments for perovskite oxygen sorbents.
Applicant argues Li, alone or in combination with Dou and Dabrowski, does not teach the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen (“Remarks”, pg. 8, par. 5).
However, as stated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, Dabrowski illustrates the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs between 1.2 wt% and 3 wt% oxygen (Fig. 2b-e), such that Dabrowski meets the limitation wherein the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen. Clarification is requested on Applicant’s basis for asserting that Dabrowski does not teach the oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen.
Applicant argues the suggested combination of Li, Dou, and Dabrowski are attempting to solve an issue that doesn’t exist and thus is not a proper combination. recognizes any deficiencies in Li, the suggested combination of Li and Dou attempts to solve an issue that doesn’t exist and thus is not a proper combination (“Remarks”, pg. 9, par. 1).
However, a deficiency in the prior art is not required for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Dou and Dabrowski teach parameters of perovskite oxygen carriers which are well-known in the art. Li teaches chemical looping, which is the releasing and replenishing of oxygen under a temperature and/or oxygen partial pressure [0068], and Dou teaches a chemical looping process with a predetermined contacting time and heating after the contacting step in order to release oxygen from the oxygen carrier, such that a predetermined contacting time and a secondary heating step are process parameters well-known in the art of chemical looping air separation experiments for perovskite oxygen sorbents. Additionally, Li teaches a perovskite oxygen carrier, and Dabrowski teaches a perovskite oxygen carrier which adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen, such that a perovskite oxygen carrier which adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% is well-known in the art of perovskite oxygen carriers.
Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to optimize a parameter, specifically the reduced oxygen carrier adsorbs at least 2.00 wt% oxygen, as there is no evidence in the record that the prior art recognized that that particular parameter affected the result (“Remarks”, pg. 9, par. 2).
However, the prima facie case of obviousness was based on overlapping ranges (MPEP 2144.05 I), not optimization of a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05 II). The overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range is sufficient to support an obviousness rejection when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735