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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
*See interview summary record dated 12/12/2025.
2. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Status of Application
3. This application was filed on 05/22/2023, which has Provisional of 63350735, which was filed on 06/09/2022.
Claims 1-15 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2 & 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 2, line 2, “or” (first occurrence) should be deleted.
B. In claim 4, line 3, “or” (first occurrence) should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
6. 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 3 & 5-11 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 claims recite multiple ranges for the amount and average crystallite size of Zn, Al, Cu, ZnAl2O4, Mg, and K. 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 3 recites the broad recitation “in the range of 1-50 nm”, and the claim also recites “2.5-40 nm, or 5-30 nm”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “in an amount of 0.5-15 wt.%”, and the claim also recites “1-10 wt.%”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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 § 103
7. 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodwell et al. (US 6,864,215 B2), hereinafter “Dodwell et al. ‘215”.
Dodwell et al. ‘215 discloses a sorbent composition comprising:
(a) zinc oxide; and
(b) a promoter metal-zinc aluminate, substitutional solid solution characterized by the formula MzZn(1-z)Al2O4, wherein M is a promoter metal selected from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, molybdenum, tungsten, silver, antimony and vanadium and Z is a numerical value in the range of from 0.01 to 0.99 (see col. 23, claim 1).
The zinc oxide is present in an amount in the range of about 10 to about 90 weight percent, and the promoter metal-zinc aluminate substitutional solid solution is percent in an amount in the range of about 2 to about 50 weight percent (see col. 24, claim 17).
Regarding claim 1, the claimed ZnO phase, which is present in the composition in an amount of 20-75 wt.% appears falling within the disclosed range of about 10-90 wt.% (see col. 24, claim 17).
The claimed zinc-aluminum spinel phase, which is present in the composition in an amount of 20-60 wt.% appears overlapping with the disclosed range of about 2-50 wt.% (see col. 24, claim 17).
The claimed Cu dopant, which is present in the composition in an amount of 0.1-20 wt.% is overlapping with the disclosed range of 10-60 wt.% (see col. 7, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 2, the instant claim further limits the ZnO phase is present in the composition in an amount of 30-70 wt.%. The claimed range is falling within the disclosed range of about 10-90 wt.% (see col. 24, claim 17).
Regarding claim 4, the instant claim further limits the zinc-aluminum spinel phase is present in the composition in an amount of 30-60 wt.%. The claimed range appears overlapping with the disclosed range of about 2-50 wt.% (see col. 24, claim 17).
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim further limits the Cu dopant is present in the composition in an amount of 0.5-15 wt.%. The claimed range is overlapping with the disclosed range of 10-60 wt.% (see col. 7, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 10, the claim further defines that the catalyst composition does not include more than 15 wt.% of copper, calculated as CuO, and does not include more than 1 wt.% of chromium, calculated as Cr2O3. The reference teaches the promoter (e.g. Cu) is present in the composition in an amount of 10-60 wt.% so any amount of promoter within this range can be used and an amount of no more than 15 wt.% of the instant claim is within the disclosed range. With respect to the claimed chromium content, the composition of the reference does not appear to contain chromium, thus the disclosed composition contains “0 wt.%” chromium, which meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, it is obvious and expected that the total amount of oxides of Cu (CuO), Al (Al2O3), and Zn (ZnO) in the disclosed composition to be the same or at least 90 wt.% or at least 95 wt.% as recited in the instant claim because the disclosed composition contains the same amounts of Cu, Al, and Zn.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3, 5, 7, & 9 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.
Dodwell et al. (US 6,864,215 B2) is identified as the closest prior art, which teaches a sorbent composition comprising comprising:
(a) zinc oxide; and
(b) a promoter metal-zinc aluminate, substitutional solid solution characterized by the formula MzZn(1-z)Al2O4, wherein M is a promoter metal selected from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, molybdenum, tungsten, silver, antimony and vanadium and Z is a numerical value in the range of from 0.01 to 0.99 (see col. 23, claim 1).
Dodwell et al. (US 6,864,215 B2) however does not disclose the claim features recited in claims 3, 5, & 7, the ZnO phase has an average crystallite size in the range of 1-50 nm, the zinc-aluminum spinel phase has an average crystallite size in the range of 1-100 nm, and an amount of crystalline Al2O3 that is no more than 5 wt.%.
As concerned with claim 9, the composition taught by Dodwell et al. (US 6,864,215 B2) does not contain Mg or K.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
9. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in the Office action.
Dodwell et al. (US 6,864,215 B2) does not disclose a calcined methanol reforming catalyst composition comprising oxides of Zn, Al, and Cu, and wherein Zn, Al, Cu, and zinc-aluminum spinel are in the weight percentages as recited in the instant claim.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, & 10-11 are rejected. Claims 3, 5, 7, & 9 are objected. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
December 13, 2025
Prosecution Insights