CTNF 18/142,771 CTNF 100236 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/16/2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (“Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane over Ni Catalysts Supported on Al 2 O 3 Modified with La 2 O 3 , MgO, and CaO,” 2008) and further in view of Littlewood (“Ni-alumina dry reforming catalysts: Atomic layer deposition and the issue of Ni aluminate,” 2018) . With respect to claim 1 , the claim requires “A catalyst system comprising an aluminum oxide support comprising nickel, a layer of a lanthanide oxide on a surface of the aluminum oxide support, and a layer of aluminum oxide on a surface of the layer of the lanthanide oxide.” Roh teaches a catalyst comprising La 2 O 3 on Ni/h-Al 2 O 3 (Roh, pg. 246). Roh does not explicitly teach a layer of aluminum oxide on a surface of the layer of the lanthanide oxide. However, Littlewood teaches alumina overcoating of a catalyst consisting of nickel and alumina (Littlewood, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Roh, teach a layer of aluminum oxide on a surface of the layer of the lanthanide oxide as Littlewood teaches the motivation would be to significantly lower the rate of Ni sintering (Littlewood, abstract). Regarding claims 2 and 11 , Roh teaches a catalyst comprising La 2 O 3 on Ni/h-Al 2 O 3 (Roh, pg. 246). Regarding claim 3 , the claim requires “wherein the layer of the lanthanide oxide is in the form of a plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains.” The term “layer of lanthanide oxide” is interpreted broadly in view of the specification. The specification explains that the lanthanum oxide layer does not need to be a continuous layer, but may be composed of “microdomains,” i.e., discrete and separated regions of lanthanum oxide. The specification further states that such microdomains may be formed by individual lanthanum oxide or a plurality of lanthanum oxide molecules, and may have lateral dimensions below 1 nm. Thus under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed lanthanide oxide layer encompasses all types of surface-distributed lanthanide oxide species clusters on the nickel-containing alumina support (Marks 4, [0019]). Roh teaches a catalyst comprising La 2 O 3 promoted on Ni/h-Al 2 O 3 , which falls under the types of surface-distributed lanthanide oxide species clusters on the nickel-containing alumina support discussed in the specification (Roh, abstract, pg. 241). Regarding claims 4 and 10 , Roh teaches the promotion of La 2 O 3 to the nickel-alumina catalyst to enhance the catalytic activity as well as stability (Roh, abstract). Roh does not explicitly teach that more of the lanthanide oxide is position on the nickel of the aluminum oxide support than on the aluminum oxide of the support. However, because the La 2 O 3 promoter is taught for enhanced catalytic activity and stability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the lanthanide oxide preferentially on or adjacent to nickel surface sites rather than merely on the alumina support surface. With respect to claim 6 , the catalyst system of claim 3 has been discussed above. Claim 6 further requires “wherein the layer of aluminum oxide is in the form of a plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains, the plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains positioned on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains.“ Roh teaches the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains as discussed above. However, Roh does not explicitly teach the layer of aluminum oxide is in the form of a plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains, the plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains positioned on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains. However, Littlewood teaches applying an alumina ALD overcoat to Ni/Al 2 O 3 to improve stability and because ALD is a surface deposition method (Littlewood, abstract), the alumina would have predictably deposit in a similar way as the microdomains claimed above. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Roh, the layer of aluminum oxide is in the form of a plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains, the plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains positioned on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains as Littlewood teaches once again this significantly lowers the rate of Ni sintering and improves stability (Littlewood, abstract). With respect to claim 7 , the catalyst system of claim 1 has been discussed above. Roh teaches a catalyst comprising La 2 O 3 on Ni/h-Al 2 O 3 (Roh, pg. 246). Roh further teaches Ni wt% content of 6.8-7.3 and a La wt% content of 4.3-16.7% (Roh 231, Table 1) With respect to claim 9 , the claim requires “A catalyst system comprising an aluminum oxide support comprising nickel, a plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains on surfaces of the nickel of the aluminum oxide support, and aluminum oxide on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains.” The specification explains that the “microdomains,” i.e., discrete and separated regions of lanthanum oxide, may be formed by individual lanthanum oxide or a plurality of lanthanum oxide molecules, and may have lateral dimensions below 1 nm. Thus under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed lanthanide oxide layer encompasses all types of surface-distributed lanthanide oxide species clusters on the nickel-containing alumina support (Marks 4, [0019 Roh teaches a catalyst comprising La 2 O 3 promoted on Ni/h-Al 2 O 3 , which falls under the types of surface-distributed lanthanide oxide species clusters on the nickel-containing alumina support discussed in the specification (Roh, abstract, pg. 241). With respect to claim 13 , the catalyst system of claim 9 has been discussed above. Claim 13 further requires “wherein the aluminum oxide on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains is in the form of a plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains.” Roh does not explicitly teach wherein the aluminum oxide on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains is in the form of a plurality of aluminum oxide microdomains. However, Littlewood teaches a catalyst consisting of 2 wt% Ni supported on a commercially available transition alumina is modified using TMA-H 2 O ALD cycles to deposit thin alumina overcoats on the catalyst (Littlewood, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Roh, as Littlewood teaches that this significantly lowers the rate of sintering (Littlewood, abstract). With respect to claim 14 , Roh teaches a catalyst comprising La 2 O 3 promoted on Ni/h-Al 2 O 3 (Roh, abstract). Claim 14 further requires “the lanthanide oxide of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains, and the aluminum oxide on surfaces of the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains.” Once again, the specification explains that the “microdomains,” i.e., discrete and separated regions of lanthanum oxide, may be formed by individual lanthanum oxide or a plurality of lanthanum oxide molecules, and may have lateral dimensions below 1 nm. Thus under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed lanthanide oxide layer encompasses all types of surface-distributed lanthanide oxide species clusters on the nickel-containing alumina support (Marks 4, [0019])., which falls under the types of surface-distributed lanthanide oxide species clusters on the nickel-containing alumina support discussed in the specification (Roh, abstract, pg. 241). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Roh (“Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane over Ni Catalysts Supported on Al 2 O 3 Modified with La 2 O 3 , MgO, and CaO,” 2008) and Littlewood (“Ni-alumina dry reforming catalysts: Atomic layer deposition and the issue of Ni aluminate,” 2018) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above further in view of Lim (“Atomic layer deposition of lanthanum aluminum oxide nanolaminates for electrical applications,” 2004). Regarding claim 8 , the claim requires “wherein the layer of aluminum oxide has a thickness of from 0.2 nm to 10 nm.” Roh does not explicitly teach layer of aluminum oxide has a thickness of from 0.2 nm to 10 nm. However, Lim teaches an oxide thickness of 2.9 nm (Lim 3957, La 2 O 3 and Al 2 O 3 ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Roh, a layer of aluminum oxide has a thickness of from 0.2 nm to 10 nm as Lim teaches this overcomes the water adsorption/desorption problem (Lim 3957, La 2 O 3 and Al 2 O 3 ) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lim (“Atomic layer deposition of lanthanum aluminum oxide nanolaminates for electrical applications,” 2004), Roh (“Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane over Ni Catalysts Supported on Al2O3 Modified with La2O3, MgO, and CaO,” 2008) and Littlewood (“Ni-alumina dry reforming catalysts: Atomic layer deposition and the issue of Ni aluminate,” 2018) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims . Regarding claim 5 , the catalyst system of claim 3 has been discussed above. However, neither Roh nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest wherein the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains are positioned on under-coordinated sites of the nickel of the aluminum oxide support. Regarding claim 12 , the catalyst system of claim 9 has been discussed above. However, neither Roh nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest wherein the plurality of lanthanide oxide microdomains are positioned on under-coordinated sites of the nickel of the aluminum oxide support. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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. /STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/142,771 Page 2 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/142,771 Page 3 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/142,771 Page 4 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/142,771 Page 5 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/142,771 Page 6 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/142,771 Page 7 Art Unit: 1736
Prosecution Insights