DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 have been amended. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 1, and 4-12 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Yingxin Deng on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant canceled the rejected claim 3. The rejection is moot.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 overcomes the reaction. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 by incorporating the limitation of claim 3 does not overcome the rejection because claim 3 was rejected. Specifically, Shan et al. (Abstract) discloses a role of steam on the structure and activities of platinum-based catalyst, a tin modified Pt/γ-Al2O3 catalyst for propane dehydrogenation in the presence of steam; and the propane conversion could be prominently elevated by twofold with only 1.0% loss of selectivity to propane when an optimum amount of H2O was added. Applicant’s specification [0007] describes that claimed platinum nanoparticles comprises platinum with an open-ended transition phrase “comprising”, which indicates the platinum nanoparticles are platinum-based catalyst, and allow to contain additional components such as a tin modified Pt/γ-Al2O3 catalyst disclosed by Shan et al. In addition, the limitation “the applied steam forms at least one twin boundary on the at least one nanoparticle” of claim 3 is considered to be an inherited property of the steam treated platinum-based catalyst disclosed by Shan et al. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-12 is maintained.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered, but not sufficient to overcome the rejection. The 103(a) rejection is revised and cited below.
The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment filed 12/17/2025:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (revised)
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shan et al., Chem. Engine. Journal, (2015), v.278, p.240-248.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method to improve catalytic activity comprising: applying a steam from at least one steam source to at least one nanoparticle at a temperature of at least 300 °C for at least 30 minutes; wherein the at least one nanoparticle is a palladium nanoparticle or a platinum nanoparticle; wherein the palladium nanoparticle is selected from the group consisting of a colloidal palladium nanoparticle, a palladium nanoparticle supported on alumina, and a palladium nanoparticle supported on silica; wherein the applied steam forms at least one twin boundary on the at least one nanoparticle, and the formation of the at least one twin boundary improves catalytic activity of the at least one nanoparticle.
Shan et al. (Abstract) discloses a role of steam on the structure and activities of platinum-based catalyst, a tin modified Pt/γ-Al2O3 catalyst for propane dehydrogenation in the presence of steam; and the propane conversion could be prominently elevated by twofold with only 1.0% loss of selectivity to propane when an optimum amount of H2O was added. Shan et al. discloses varying amount of steam was introduced during experiment; and argon (inert gas) was used as balance to get a total flow of 76.15 ml/min (see “2.3 Catalytic performances and kinetic studies”). Shan et al. further discloses the fresh reduced samples (catalysts) were pretreated in steam at 773K (500 °C) for 0, 15, 60 and 180 min, and denoted as PtSn-0, PtSn-15, PtSn-60 and PtSn-180, respectively; the steam partial pressure was kept at 17.3 kPa for all samples; and before exposure to ambient air, the fresh reduced and steam pretreated samples were passivated in flowing of 0.5% O2/Ar (5 cm3g-1s-1) for 1.5 h at 293K (see “2.4 Steam pretreatment”). Shan et al. discloses “As can be seen from Fig. 1(a), the catalytic activities are greatly enhanced when steam is introduced” (see “3.1 Propane dehydrogenation in presence of steam”, and Fig. 8 at p.246). In addition, Shan et al. discloses the catalyst is a nanoparticle catalyst, see Table 2 at p.243, Fig. 5 at p.244, and binding energy, see Fig. 5 at p.245.
Applicant’s specification [0007] describes that claimed platinum nanoparticles comprises platinum with an open-ended transition phrase “comprising”, which indicates the platinum nanoparticles are platinum-based catalyst, and allow to contain additional components such as a tin modified Pt/γ-Al2O3 catalyst disclosed by Shan et al. In addition, the limitation “the applied steam forms at least one twin boundary on the at least one nanoparticle” of claim 3 is considered to be an inherited property of the steam treated platinum-based catalyst disclosed by Shan et al. Therefore, Shan et al. anticipates claim 1.
In terms of claim 4, wherein the at least one nanoparticle has a diameter from about 4 nm to about 15 nm, Shan et al. (Fig. 5 at p.244) discloses the particle size distribution of the catalysts having particle size of 4.0 nm or more.
In terms of claim 5, wherein the steam has a water concentration of at least 0.8% by volume, Shan et al. (see “2.4 Steam pretreatment”) discloses the steam partial pressure was kept at 17.3 kPa which reads on the claimed limitation.
In terms of claim 7, wherein the steam is mixed with an inert gas, Shan et al. teaches the fresh reduced and steam pretreated samples were passivated in flowing of 0.5% O2/Ar (5 cm3g-1s-1) for 1.5 h at 293K, wherein Ar is an inert gas (see “2.4 Steam pretreatment”).
In terms of claim 9, wherein the steam is mixed with an inert gas, Shan et al. teaches the fresh reduced and steam pretreated samples were passivated in flowing of 0.5% O2/Ar (5 cm3g-1s-1) for 1.5 h at 293K.
In terms of claim 10, wherein the steam treated at least one nanoparticle is a catalyst in a redox reaction, Shan et al. teaches the catalyst is used for Propane dehydrogenation, which is a redox reaction.
In terms of claim 11, wherein the steam treated at least one nanoparticle is a catalyst in a hydrocarbon combustion reaction, Shan et al. teaches the catalyst is used for propane dehydrogenation, but not for a hydrocarbon combustion reaction. However, the catalyst disclosed by Shan et al. can inheritably be used as a catalyst in a hydrocarbon combustion reaction, because Shan et al. teaches the same catalyst, and a product is inseparable from its property.
In terms of claim 12, wherein the catalyst improves mass-specific reaction rate for C-H activation in a methane combustion reaction by at least 12 times, Shan et al. does not teach said catalytic property. However, the catalyst disclosed by Shan et al. inheritably has said property of the improving mass-specific reaction rate, because Shan et al. teaches the same catalyst, and a product is inseparable from its property.
Therefore, Shan et al. anticipates instant claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (revised)
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. in view of US20200290021 (“the `021 publication”) to Roberto Carlos PONTES BITTENCOURT.
Shan et al. (Abstract) discloses a role of steam on the structure and activities of platinum-based catalyst, a tin modified Pt/γ-Al2O3 catalyst for propane dehydrogenation in the presence of steam; and the propane conversion could be prominently elevated by twofold with only 1.0% loss of selectivity to propane when an optimum amount of H2O was added. Shan et al. discloses varying amount of steam was introduced during experiment; and argon (inert gas) was used as balance to get a total flow of 76.15 ml/min (see “2.3 Catalytic performances and kinetic studies”). Shan et al. further discloses the fresh reduced samples (catalysts) were pretreated in steam at 773K (500 °C) for 0, 15, 60 and 180 min, and denoted as PtSn-0, PtSn-15, PtSn-60 and PtSn-180, respectively; the steam partial pressure was kept at 17.3 kPa for all samples; and before exposure to ambient air, the fresh reduced and steam pretreated samples were passivated in flowing of 0.5% O2/Ar (5 cm3g-1s-1) for 1.5 h at 293K (see “2.4 Steam pretreatment”). Shan et al. discloses “As can be seen from Fig. 1(a), the catalytic activities are greatly enhanced when steam is introduced” (see “3.1 Propane dehydrogenation in presence of steam”, and Fig. 8 at p.246). In addition, Shan et al. discloses the catalyst is a nanoparticle catalyst, see Table 2 at p.243, Fig. 5 at p.244, and binding energy, see Fig. 5 at p.245.
Applicant’s specification [0007] describes that claimed platinum nanoparticles comprises platinum with an open-ended transition phrase “comprising”, which indicates the platinum nanoparticles are platinum-based catalyst, and allow to contain additional components such as a tin modified Pt/γ-Al2O3 catalyst disclosed by Shan et al.
In terms of the limitation “the applied steam forms at least one twin boundary on the at least one nanoparticle”, it is considered to be an inherited property of the steam treated platinum-based catalyst disclosed by Shan et al.
In terms of the limitation “wherein the steam has a water concentration of one of 0.8% by volume, 4% by volume, or of 10% by volume”, Shan et al. does not specifically teach a water concentration of about 0.8% by volume, of about 4% by volume, or of about 10% by volume. Instead, Shan et al. teaches as can be seen from Fig. 1(a), the catalytic activities are greatly enhanced when steam is introduced (see “3.1 Propane dehydrogenation in presence of steam”, and Fig. 8 at p.246). In addition, Shan et al. teaches the steam partial pressure was kept at 17.3 kPa for all samples; before exposure to ambient air, the fresh reduced and steam pretreated samples were passivated in flowing of 0.5% O2/Ar (5 cm3g-1s-1) for 1.5 h at 293K (see “2.4 Steam pretreatment”). The steam partial pressure was kept at 17.3 kPa suggests a water concentration of around 10% by volume in order to enhance catalytic activity of the catalyst.
It is well known that the adjustment of particular conventional working condition (e.g. determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited reference), as well as adjustment of steam concentration, is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. See In re Mostovych, Weber, Mitchell and Aulbach, 144 USPQ 38. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to try different reaction temperatures, concentrations and duration with a predictable result. It is "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, in looking at the instant claimed reaction as a whole, the claimed process would have been suggested to one skilled in the art and therefore, is obvious, absent evidence to the contrary.
In terms of claim 8 wherein the steam is applied at 600 °C for 30 minutes, Shan et al. does not teach the steam is applied at 600 °C for 30 minutes. Instead, Shan et al. teaches the fresh reduced samples (catalysts) were pretreated in steam at 773K (500 °C) for 0, 15, 60 and 180 min. However, the difference would have been obvious because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `021 publication. Specifically, the `021 publication [0054-0064] teaches a process for preparing a pre-reforming catalyst having the excellent resistance to deactivation by passage of steam in the absence of a reducing agent comprising ruthenium and an alumina support. Example 5 of the `021 publication [0063-0064] teaches a specific process by treating the catalyst with steam together with 40 ml/min of nitrogen (shielding gas) with programming of temperature varying from 100 °C to 650 °C at a rate of 10° C/min, maintained for 1 h. Therefore, steam treating a catalyst at about 600 °C for about 30 minutes would have been an obvious-to-try in view of the `021 publication.
Furthermore, it is well known that the adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g. determining reaction temperature and/or duration beneficially taught by the cited reference), are deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. See In re Mostovych, Weber, Mitchell and Aulbach, 144 USPQ 38. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to try different reaction temperatures, concentrations and duration with a predictable result. It is "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, in looking at the instant claimed reaction as a whole, the claimed process would have been suggested to one skilled in the art and therefore, is obvious, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusions
Claims 1, and 4-12 are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status 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).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731