DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/231,842 application filed 9 August 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 9-14 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.
Claim 9 recites “[a] method for producing a complex oxide catalyst, the method comprising steps of: (a) dissolving a metal oxide precursor and copper oxide in water…” Neither cupric oxide nor cuprous oxide (the two forms of copper oxide) are soluble in water. In other words, it is not possible to dissolve copper oxide in water. See, e.g., Phillips (US 11,661,520), which discloses “[i]n general, the Cu+1 cuprous salts such as…cuprous oxide…tend to be water insoluble…cupric oxide, cupric thiocyanate, and cupric (copper) pyrithione (CPT) are also insoluble in water…any of the other water insoluble cupro-metallic salts can be used, including any one from a group comprising of cuprous oxide,…, and cupric oxide which are all water insoluble like the cuprous oxide salt” [column 16, line 59 to column 17, line 3]. Consequently, since the first step of the method of claim 9 is not possible, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the metal oxide" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which 10 depends, recites a metal oxide precursor.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wyman et al (US 2019/0374929 A1).
With respect to claims 1-3, Wyman et al discloses “the primary role of TiO2 in promoting the catalytic properties of the Cu-Ni catalyst is indirect, with Ni driven to the TiO2 interface and Cu preferentially exposed at the surface. Thus, TiO2 controls the bimetallic Cu-Ni catalyst surface composition but does not directly participate in the catalytic process…Because minimal Ni reduction peaks were observed for the Cu-Ni/TiO2 catalysts despite Ni reduction peaks being clearly observable in the Ni-TiO2 catalyst, Ni is likely buried subsurface in the bimetallic particles…This mechanism is further supported by the XPS analysis of surface composition in the pre-reduced and pre-oxidized Cu-Ni/TiO2 catalysts that show identical Cu/Ni surface concentration ratios in Table 1 (FIG. 13). Thus, preferential interactions between Ni and TiO2 are believed to drive formation of core-shell like particles where Cu is primarily exposed at the catalyst surface, see proposed structures in FIG. 10. In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, support induced bimetallic particle segregation may be quite general for reducible oxide supported bimetallic catalysts, given known metal specific interactions with reducible supports” [paragraph 0121] and “[t]he proposed structure based on DP-XPS analysis are further supported by XRD analyses of Cu(5%) and Cu(5%)-Ni(3%) catalysts on TiO2 and Al2O3, as shown in FIG. 41, XRD spectra of Cu(5%)/TiO2 and Cu(5%)/Al2O3 show sharp peaks at 43.7° and 43.9°, respectively, which corresponds to the metallic Cu(111) reflection. The XRD spectrum in the same region for Cu(5%)-Ni(3%)/TiO2 shows two diffraction peaks at 43.9° and 44.6°. The 43.9° peak is assigned to the surface alloy phase where the low Ni concentration existing as dispersed species only slightly expands the Cu lattice, while the 44.6° reflection is assigned to the Cu-Ni alloy phase existing in the bulk of the bimetallic particles. The results agree well with the DP-XPS data that suggest 2 different phases on Cu-Ni alloys. Conversely, for Cu(5%)-Ni(3%)/Al2O3, the Cu(111) peak position shifted to a >0.2° higher 2θ value compared with Cu/Al2O3, suggesting that Cu exists in predominantly Cu domains within the bimetallic Cu-Ni particles. In both the bimetallic catalysts, it was difficult to identify peaks associated with metallic Ni due to the lower loadings compared with Cu metal. The agreement of the XRD data with the DP-XPS analysis suggests that bimetallic Cu-Ni particles form a surface segregated domain with low Ni content on TiO2, while bimetallic Cu-Ni particles have significantly increased Ni content at the catalyst surface and segregated Ni and Cu domains within the particles on Al2O3” [paragraph 0178]. In the preceding, either TiO2 or Al2O3 corresponds to the metal oxide support.
With respect to claim 4, Wyman et al discloses “[t]he increased fraction of oxidized Cu2+ and the shift in energy of the Cu0 peak on the TiO2 support were likely caused by Cu0 catalyzed reduction of TiO2, with subsequent formation of CuOx species and charge transfer from Cu0 to CuOx or TiO2” [paragraph 0098].
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US 2021/0355073 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2, Sun et al discloses a “Cu nanoparticle catalyst [that] is selected from Cu/WOx, Cu/SiO2, Cu/Al2O3, Cu/Ti2O3, Cu/CeO2” [claim 21].
With respect to claim 8, Sun et al discloses “20 mg of KetjenBlack EC-300-J carbon (C) was mixed with 20 mL of hexane, which was then sonicated for 0.5 h to form a uniform suspension. Then each of Cu/WO2.72 and Cu NPs in hexane was added into the suspension dropwise under sonication. After 1 h sonication, the C-supported powder was separated by centrifugation (8000 rpm, 8 min), washed with ethanol (three times), and dried at room temperature. Catalyst ink for electrochemical study was prepared by mixing the C-supported catalysts with 800 μL of ultrapure water, 200 μL of 2-propanol, and 10 μL of Nafion solution (5 wt %) for 1 h. 20 μL of catalyst ink was then deposited onto the glassy carbon rotating disk electrode (5 mm in diameter) for electrochemical measurements” [paragraph 0042].
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN 107774269).
Note: the discussion that follows will reference the WIPO machine translation attached with this Office correspondence.
Dong et al discloses “a method for preparing a copper-ceria catalyst by co-precipitation method, the method comprising the following steps:
(1) Hydrothermal Synthesis of Ceria:
A) weighing 0.5-1.0 g of cerium nitrate in ultrapure water, and configuring a sodium hydroxide solution
B) adding a cerium nitrate aqueous solution dropwise to a constantly stirring sodium hydroxide solution;
C) the reaction kettle is moved into the reaction kettle, 100-200° C. and the reaction time is 12-24 hours;
D) taking out the reaction product, centrifuging, and washing with deionized water for more than three times;
E) freeze-drying…;
(2) Co-Precipitation of Copper Salt on Ceria:
A) weighing 0.3-1.0 g of the above reaction product in ultrapure water, and ultrasonically stirring to obtain a uniform suspension;
weighing copper nitrate with different content in 10-30 mL of ultrapure water;
B) adjusting the pH of the cerium dioxide suspension to 8-11 with 0.5 mol/L sodium carbonate solution, adding 10-30 mL of copper nitrate aqueous solution dropwise, adding sodium carbonate solution dropwise, and adjusting pH = 8-11;
C) after the remaining copper nitrate solution is completely added, continuously stirring for 1-3 h;
D) moving into a centrifuge tube, and centrifuging and washing for more than three times;
E) freeze-drying…;
(3) calcining the catalyst attached with the copper salt: roasting in a muffle furnace for 300-800 degrees [C] for 3-7 hours, wherein the heating rate is 5-20 degrees/second;
(4) Annealing for reducing atmosphere: hydrogen argon gas mixture (H2:Ar = 3-19, V:V), annealing for 400-600 degrees [C—Examiner’s insertion], and 3-6 hours, wherein the heating rate is 5-20 degrees/second.” See, also, the method in Example 2. Note the similarities of the aforementioned methods to the method of paragraphs 0036-0041 and instant claim 9 in the published application and, particularly, paragraphs 0093-0095 of the same. The moving into a centrifuge tube renders obvious obtaining a precipitate that is, after drying, the catalyst that is calcined in (3). Since the method of preparation of Dong et al is similar to that of the instant application, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the catalyst obtained from the method is similar as well having the characteristics/properties recited in instant claims 1-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moon et al (US 2005/0238574 A1) discloses “[t]he preparing method of the present invention comprises the steps of:
1) preparing each active metal salt solution by dissolving precursors of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) and platinum (Pt);
2) preparing the ceria slurry after treatment of the ceria in air;
3) impregnating the active metal salt solution on the ceria slurry;
4) drying the catalyst precursors; and
5) calcining the dried catalyst precursor in air…
In the first step, each metal salt solution containing each active metal is prepared. That is, each metal salt solution is prepared by dissolving each precursor compound of copper, nickel and platinum in ultrapure water at 20 to 60o C. For the metal precursor compound, oxide, chloride or nitrate is used as in preparation of the conventional catalyst. More preferably, copper and nickel are used in the form of nitrate or chloride and platinum is used in the form of chloride. In the second step, ceria is pre-treated in air and made to a slurry…it is preferable to pre-treat ceria to remove impurities and offer a larger surface area. Therefore, ceria is calcined in air of 500 to 900o C. for 2 to 4 hours and made to a slurry. In the third step, the active metal salt solution is impregnated on the ceria slurry to prepare a catalyst precursor. Each metal salt solution is added to the support slurry dropwise at 50 to 70o C. while stirring. Then, the mixture is stirred at 70 to 90o C. for 3 to 6 hours to impregnate the active metal on the support. In the fourth step, the impregnated catalyst precursor is completely dried in a drying oven of 100 to 120o C. for 12 to 24 hours. In the last step, the dried catalyst precursor is heated from room temperature to 450 to 650o C. in air at a rate of 5 to 10o C./min, and calcined in air for 2 to 4 hours to prepare the water gas shift catalyst of the present invention” [paragraphs 0024 & 0026-0030].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
21 January 2026