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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/10/2026.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Numoto (JPH05-237398A) (See Translated Doc).
Claim 1 requires “A method for producing a functional material molded article.” Numoto teaches a method that produces a shaped catalyst member by loading catalyst material into shaped ceramic paper and drying and heat treating the loaded paper (Numoto, [0001], [0006], and claim 1).
Claim 1 further requires “dispersing a functional material in a water-alcohol mixed solution to obtain a liquid dispersion.” Numoto teaches a catalyst slurry containing catalyst metal, inorganic oxide carrier powder, water, and alcohol. Its example combines Al2O3-CeO2 powder and a platinum solution with 400 g water and 40 g isopropyl alcohol to form a washcoat slurry (Numoto, [0006] and [0011]). The catalyst metal and inorganic oxide powder are functional catalyst material dispersed in the water-isopropyl-alcohol liquid phase.
Claim 1 further requires “impregnating a porous molding base material with the liquid dispersion to obtain an impregnated product.” Numoto teaches immersing and impregnating fibrous ceramic paper with the catalyst slurry. The ceramic paper is a porous, shape-retaining molding base because the slurry penetrates and loads the fibrous paper while it is held in a shaped jig (Numoto, [0006] and [0011]; claim 1).
Claim 1 further requires “drying the impregnated product.” Numoto teaches drying the impregnated ceramic paper at 80°C for 20 minutes before heat treatment (Numoto, [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Numoto teaches a functional catalyst material comprising platinum supported on Al2O3-CeO2 powder (Numoto, [0011]) which is considered a hydrogen reduction catalyst as platinum is identified in the instant application as a hydrogen reduction catalyst. See [0018] of the instant spec.
Regarding claim 4, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 4 further requires “wherein a material of the porous molding base material is ceramic or metal.” Numoto expressly uses ceramic paper made of alumina-silica fibers as the impregnated molding base material (Numoto, [0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 8 further requires “wherein the ratio of water to alcohol in the water-alcohol mixed solution is from 5:95 to 95:5 by volume ratio.” Numoto uses 400 g water and 40 g isopropyl alcohol (Numoto, [0011]). Using the ordinary densities of water (approximately 1.00 g/mL) and isopropyl alcohol (approximately 0.785 g/mL), the disclosed amounts correspond to approximately 400 mL water and 51 mL isopropyl alcohol, or about 88.7:11.3 by volume, which lies within 5:95 to 95:5.
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.
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.
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Numoto (JPH05-237398A) (See Translated Doc) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shima (US 2020/0147589 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Numoto teaches the subject matter of claim 2 as discussed above.
Claim 3 further requires “wherein the hydrogen reduction catalyst for carbon dioxide has a structure in which catalytic metal nanoparticles and a metal oxide for suppressing grain growth of the catalytic metal nanoparticles are dispersed and supported on a carrier.” Numoto does not require a further modification for this added limitation. However, Shima teaches a carrier on which catalytic metal nanoparticles and a metal oxide that suppresses nanoparticle grain growth are dispersed and supported.
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 Numoto, catalytic metal nanoparticles and a metal oxide for suppressing grain growth of the catalytic metal nanoparticles are dispersed and supported on a carrier as Shima that this structure preserves hydrogen-reduction efficiency (Shima, Abstract, Fig. 1, and claim 1).
Claims 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Numoto (JPH05-237398A) (See Translated Doc) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Del-Gallo (EP 2123618 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 5 further requires “wherein the porous molding base material has a porosity of 10% to 90%.” Numoto does not quantify the porosity of its ceramic paper and therefore does not teach “wherein the porous molding base material has a porosity of 10% to 90%.” However, Del-Gallo teaches ceramic or metallic foam used as a catalyst support, having a porosity gradient ranging from 10% to 90% (Del-Gallo, claim 1, ll. 1-6). Del-Gallo explains that open porosity provides high permeability and exchange area and that foam catalyst supports improve transfer and reduce pressure drop (Del-Gallo, description of heterogeneous catalytic reactors). It would have been obvious to use Del-Gallo's 10%-90% porous ceramic catalyst support as the porous ceramic molding base in Numoto because both references concern shaped ceramic catalyst supports, thereby providing accessible pore volume for slurry impregnation and gas flow with predictably improved mass transfer and reduced pressure drop. A reasonable expectation of success existed because Del-Gallo expressly identifies the foam as a support on which an active catalytic layer may be deposited and teaches its use in heterogeneous catalysis (Del-Gallo, claims 2 and 16).
Regarding claim 6, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 6 further requires “wherein the porous molding base material has a specific surface area of 0.5 to 10 m2/g.” Numoto does not quantify the specific surface area of the ceramic paper and therefore does not teach “wherein the porous molding base material has a specific surface area of 0.5 to 10 m2/g.” However, Del-Gallo teaches a ceramic or metallic foam catalyst support having a specific area from 0.1 to 30 m2/g (Del-Gallo, claim 1, ll. 1-6). That range encompasses and overlaps the claimed 0.5-10 m2/g range. It would have been obvious to select a value within the overlap when using Del-Gallo's foam in Numoto because Del-Gallo identifies specific area, permeability, and heat/mass transfer as properties of the catalyst architecture, and the overlapping range would predictably retain those disclosed support functions (Del-Gallo, description of heterogeneous catalytic reactors). The applicant may rebut the prima facie case with evidence of criticality or unexpected results attributable to the claimed subrange; no such evidence is presently of record. A reasonable expectation of success existed because the selected value falls within Del-Gallo's express catalyst-support range.
Regarding claim 9, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 9 further requires “wherein the porous molding base material has a plate shape, a disc shape, a rectangular parallelepiped shape, a cubic shape, a spherical shape, a hemispherical shape, a pyramidal shape, a conical shape, a cylindrical shape, or a combination thereof.” Numoto teaches shaped ceramic paper, including a U-shaped member, but Numoto does not teach “wherein the porous molding base material has a plate shape, a disc shape, a rectangular parallelepiped shape, a cubic shape, a spherical shape, a hemispherical shape, a pyramidal shape, a conical shape, a cylindrical shape, or a combination thereof.” However, Del-Gallo teaches catalyst-support material with planar geometry or tubular geometry (Del-Gallo, description of ceramic forming methods, p. 6, ll. 12-18).
It would have been obvious to form Numoto's shaped porous ceramic base in Del-Gallo's planar or tubular geometry because Del-Gallo teaches selecting these geometries for catalytic architectures to obtain desired heat and mass transfer, thereby predictably adapting the catalyst member to the reactor geometry and flow path (Del-Gallo, description of heterogeneous catalytic reactors).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Numoto (JPH05-237398A) (See Translated Doc) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Guo (US 2010/0304958 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Numoto teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 7 further requires “wherein the ratio of the water-alcohol mixed solution to the functional material of the liquid dispersion is from 20:80 to 80:20 by weight.” Numoto's example does not teach “wherein the ratio of the water-alcohol mixed solution to the functional material of the liquid dispersion is from 20:80 to 80:20 by weight.” However, Li teaches preparing catalyst-coating slurry for application to porous monolithic ceramic or metal carriers with 10-60 wt% solid coating material (Li, claim 3, ll. 1-5). At 20-60 wt% functional solid, Li's liquid-to-functional-material ratio is 80:20 to 40:60 by weight, which overlaps the claimed 20:80 to 80:20 range. Li teaches that slurry formulation and viscosity affect coating uniformity and stability and reports uniform coating with good adhesion and repeatability (Li, pages 3-4 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to adjust Numoto's slurry loading to the overlapping Li range because Li recognizes solids content as a slurry-formulation variable governing viscosity, loading, uniformity, and adhesion, thereby predictably producing a coatable dispersion retained on the porous base.
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
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights