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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Ge” is listed twice in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4-6, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hajkowski et al. (WO2023196378A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hajkowski et al. discloses a method for reforming hydrocarbons including a catalyst system (paragraph 0006). The metal oxide support layer is a pyrochlore with the general formula of AxA’2-xByB’2-yO7-n (paragraph 0050). A or A’ is an element selected from La, Sr, Ba, Ca, Gd, Bi. Dy, Tl, Cd, and Y (paragraph 0050). B or B’ is an element selected from Zr, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Ru, Mo, and Re (paragraph 0050). Both x and y are numbers independently selected in the range of 0.0 to 2.0; and n is a number in the range of 0.0 to 0.5 (paragraph 0050). A table below is an example of a pyrochlore Hajkowski et al. discloses that anticipates the claim.
Element
Subscript
A = Dy (Dysprosium)
x = 2
A’ does not matter
x -2 = 2-2 = 0
B = Ru (Ruthenium)
y = 1
B’ = Zr (Zirconium)
2-y = 2-1 = 1
O (Oxygen)
n = 0, 7 – n = 7 – 0 = 7
Final compound = Dy2RuZrO7. This anticipates claim 1 when RE is Dy, M is Zr, and x is 0.5.
Regarding claim 5, Hajkowski et al. discloses a RE that is dysprosium and M that is manganese (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 9, Hajkowski et al. discloses a RE that is yttrium and M that is iron or manganese (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 11, Hajkowski et al. discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.95 and greater than or equal to 0.10 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 12, Hajkowski et al. discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.85 and greater than or equal to 0.10 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 13, Hajkowski et al. discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.6 and greater than or equal to 0.2 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 14, Hajkowski et al. discloses a compound that has an x value that is less than or equal to 0.95 and greater than or equal to 0.0 as seen in the table above. The combinations of dysprosium and manganese, iron, zirconium, cobalt, nickel, or rhenium are disclosed (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 16, Hajkowski et al. discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.80 and greater than or equal to 0.2 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 17, Hajkowski et al. discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.60 and greater than or equal to 0.2 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 18, Hajkowski et al. discloses a compound that has an x value that is less than or equal to 0.9 and greater than or equal to 0.0 as seen in the table above. The combinations of yttrium and manganese, iron, zirconium, or rhenium are disclosed (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 20, Hajkowski et al. discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.6 and greater than or equal to 0.2 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 10, 15, and 19, Hajkowski et al. does not calculate an oxygen 2p-band center. However, the reference discloses a synthesized pyrochlore compound containing the same elements in the same amounts. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the oxygen 2p-band center would inherently be the same. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hormadaly (US5491118).
Regarding claim 1, Hormadaly discloses a thick film paste composition suitable for forming resistor or thermistor patterns on a substrate (col 3, lines 1-4). The resistor compositions have a conductive phase which is ruthenium oxide based and can have be a pyrochlore (col 5, lines 42-44). The formula is (McBi2-c)(M’dRu2-d)O7-e wherein M is at least one of yttrium, indium, and the rare earth metals of atomic number 57-71; M’ is at least one of platinum, titanium, chromium, rhodium, and antimony; c is a number in the range of 0 to 2; d is a number in the range of 0 to 0.5; and e is a number in the range 0 to 1 (col 5, lines 47-61). A table below is an example of a pyrochlore Hormadaly discloses that anticipates the claim.
Element
Subscript
M = Y (Yttrium)
c = 2
Bi (Bismuth)
2-c = 2-2 = 0
M’ = Sn (Antimony)
d = 0.5
Ru (Ruthenium)
2-d = 2-0.5 = 1.5
O (Oxygen)
e = 0, 7-e = 7-0 = 7
Final compound: Y2Sn0.5Ru1.5O7. This anticipates claim 1 when RE is Y, M is Sn, and x is 0.75.
Regarding claim 5, Hormadaly discloses a RE that is yttrium and M that is antimony (col 5, lines 47-61).
Regarding claim 7, Hormadaly discloses a RE that is yttrium and M that is antimony (col 5, lines 47-61).
Regarding claim 9, Hormadaly discloses a RE that is any rare earth metal of atomic number 57-71 which includes Sm (samarium) and M that is antimony (col 5, lines 47-61).
Regarding claim 11, Hormadaly discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.95 and greater than or equal to 0.10 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 12, Hormadaly discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.85 and greater than or equal to 0.10 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 14, Hormadaly discloses a compound that has an x value that is less than or equal to 0.95 and greater than or equal to 0.0 as seen in the table above. The combinations of any rare earth element with an atomic number 57-71 and Sn (antimony) are disclosed (col 5, lines 47-61).
Regarding claim 16, Hormadaly discloses the compound with an x value less than or equal to 0.80 and greater than or equal to 0.2 as seen in the table above.
Regarding claim 18, Hormadaly discloses a compound that has an x value that is less than or equal to 0.9 and greater than or equal to 0.0 as seen in the table above. The combination of yttrium and antimony is disclosed (col 5, lines 47-61).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 19, Hormadaly does not calculate an oxygen 2p-band center. However, the reference discloses a synthesized pyrochlore compound containing the same elements in the same amounts. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the oxygen 2p-band center would inherently be the same. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (D’Souza et al.) and 1-8 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (Hoffman et al.) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hajkowski et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Hormadaly under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) to anticipate the amended Markush groups of the pyrochlore compound.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights