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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 13-17 depend on claim 1 are should be included in Group I. The examiner agrees, and claims 13-17 will also be examined under Group I of the restriction.
In regards to Groups I and II having a special technical feature, Ham (KR20180136701A) teaches a catalyst with a layer that comprises Sr1-xAxTiαByO3-δ [45-49]. Tonkovich teaches of a multi-layer catalyst with a first layer of an inorganic oxide and a second catalyst layer (Abstract, “The present invention includes a catalyst having a layered structure with, (1) a porous support, (2) a buffer layer, (3) an interfacial layer, and optionally (4) a catalyst layer”; Para. 0028, “Preferably, the buffer layer is a metal oxide or metal carbide”; Para. 0031, “The catalytically active layer may include: catalyst metals, including but not limited to, noble metal, transition metal and combinations thereof; metal oxides …”). Together, the prior arts teach a catalyst for reforming including a porous metal support, a first layer with inorganic oxide, and a second layer comprising Sr1-xAxTiαByO3-δ.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1, 3-7, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (KR20180136701A) in view of Tonkovich (US2003007904A1).
In regards to claim 1, Ham teaches a catalyst comprising a porous metal support (Para. 0007, “In one embodiment of the present invention, a catalyst for biogas reforming is provided, comprising a monolithic support having a hierarchically porous structure; and a compound supported on the support and represented by the following [chemical formula 1]”; Para. 0041, “Although not limited, the monolithic support may include ceramics, metals, alumina, silica, alumina titanate, …”)
That has a coating layer of a perovskite compound that fulfills the chemical formula of Sr1-xAxTiαByO3-δ [0045-0049].
Ham does not teach that there is a first coating layer that comprises an inorganic oxide. Tonkovich teaches a catalyst comprising a porous metal support (Para. 0028, “The rst sublayer (in contact with the porous support 100) is preferably TiO2 because it exhibits good adhesion to the porous metal support 100”)
With a first coating layer on the porous metal support comprising an inorganic oxide (Para. 0028, “Preferably, the buffer layer is a metal oxide or metal carbide”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layers taught by Tonkovich in the catalyst taught by Ham as having a buffer layer incorporated in the reforming catalyst as the buffer layer helps reduce thermal expansion stress during catalyst use, reduce corrosion and oxidation, and minimize side reactions (Para. 0016, “The buffer layer typically provides a transition of thermal expansion coefficient from the porous support to the interfacial layer thereby reducing thermal expansion stress as the catalyst is heated to and cooled from high operating temperatures. The buffer layer also reduces corrosion and oxidation of the porous support, and minimizes side reactions catalyzed by the surface of the porous support”).
In regards to claim 3, Ham teaches that the chemical formula of the catalyst on the second layer fulfills Sr1-xAxTiαByO3-δ with A being Y, B being Ru, x more than 0 and less than 1, y more than 0 and less than 0.3, δ more than 0 and less than 1, and α more than 0.7 and 1 or less [0045-0049].
In regards to claim 4, Ham does not teach that the porous metal support is a metal foam.
Tonkovich teaches that the porous metal support is a metal foam and comprises α-Al-2O3 (Para. 0028, “More specifically, the Al2O3 is α-Al2O3, ϒ-Al2O3 and combinations thereof. α-Al2O3 is more preferred because of its excellent resistance to oxygen diffusion. Therefore, it is expected that resistance against high temperature oxidation can be improved with alumina coated on the porous Support 100”). The porous metal foam support of Tonkovich can be substituted into the metal support of Ham to act as a support in a reforming catalyst in both Ham and Tonkovich to form a reforming catalyst. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one precursor for another, both known for acting as a porous metal support for a reforming catalyst. See MPEP § 2143.I.B.
In regards to claim 5, Tonkovich teaches that the inorganic oxide comprises TiO2, SiO2, and ZrO2 (Para. 0028, “More preferably, the buffer layer is Al-O, TiO, SiO, and ZrO or combinations thereof”).
In regards to claim 6, Ham teaches that the perovskite-based compound of chemical formula 2 is 3 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the catalyst (Para. 0060, “Meanwhile, the compound represented by [Chemical Formula 1] may be supported in an amount of 10 to 50 parts by weight, and specifically, in an amount of 20 to 45 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the monolithic support”). This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 7, Ham teaches use of the catalyst in CO2 reforming [0052].
In regards to claim 13, Ham does not teach that the metal support has a porosity of 10% to 99%.
Tonkovich teaches of at least 5% and preferably 30% to about 99% porosity (Para. 0027, “Prior to depositing the layers, the porous support has a porosity of at least 5% as measured by mercury porosimetry and an average pore size (sum of pore diameters/number of pores) of from 1 μm to 1000 μm as measured by optical and scanning electron microscopy. Preferably, the porous support has a porosity of about 30% to about 99%, more preferably 70% to 98%”).
The multiple layers and porosity of the support taught by Tonkovich can be substituted into the catalyst of Ham to act as a metal support in both Ham and Tonkovich to form a reforming catalyst. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one precursor for another, both known for acting as a metal support in a reforming catalyst. See MPEP § 2143.I.B. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 14, Ham does not teach that the porous metal support has an average pore size of 400 µm to 2,000 µm. Tonkovich teaches that the porous metal support has average pore size of 1 μm to 1000 μm, which is between the claimed range (Para. 0027, “Prior to depositing the layers, the porous support has a porosity of at least 5% as measured by mercury porosimetry and an average pore size (sum of pore diameters/number of pores) of from 1 μm to 1000 μm as measured by optical and scanning electron microscopy”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the porosity of Tonkovich in the porous metal support of Ham as having a porous support allows for enhanced thermal conductivity, low pressure drop, and easy loading/unloading (Para. 0027, “It has been discovered that a porous support provides several advantages in the present invention including low pressure drop, enhanced thermal conductivity over conventional ceramic pellet supports, and ease of loading/unloading in chemical reactors”).
In regards to claim 15, Ham teaches catalayst loading amounts in terms of the buffer layer thickness. However, Ham is silent regarding the weight percentage as defined in the claim.
Tonkovich teaches that the buffer layer thickness in a reforming catalyst is about 0.05µm to about 10 µm thick [0029]. The thickness of the layers correlates with the loading amount or weight percentage of the buffer layer versus the porous metal support.
The catalytic stability can be modified by adjusting the thickness of buffer layer that comprises a perovskite compound and an inorganic oxide in relation to the total weight of the porous metal support [0029]. As the buffer layer thickness can increase/decrease, the precise weight percentage of the perovskite compound and inorganic oxide layer compared to the porous metal support would also increase/decrease. The precise weight percentages of the perovskite based compound and inorganic oxide layer compared to the porous metal support would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed weight ratio between the perovskite-based compound and inorganic oxide to the porous metal support cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the buffer layer comprising the perovskite compound and inorganic oxide and therefore the weight percentage of the buffer layer comprising an perovskite based compound and an inorganic oxide versus the porous metal support (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the buffer layer and accordingly, the weight percentages of the perovskite-based compound and inorganic oxide in the buffer layer based on the total weight of the porous metal support in order to produce a reforming catalyst that has thermal and chemical stability at elevated temperatures as well as resistance to oxygen diffusion [0028-0029].
In regards to claim 16, as the catalytic performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the second coating layer compared to the first, with the weight ratios between the first and second coating layer both increasing/decreasing as the amount of the second coating is increased/decreased, the precise weight ratios for the first and second coating layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed weight ratio between the first and second catalyst layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the weight ratio of the first and second coating layer in the primary reference to obtain the desired balance between the performance of the catalyst as taught by Ham [0060] (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regards to claim 17, Ham does not teach that the second coating layer is present in a form of protrusions on the first coating layer.
Tonkovich teaches that the second coating layer is present in a form of protrusions on the first coating layer. Fig. 3 shows a non-uniform layer on the catalyst, which would be protruding from the surface of the catalyst. Tonkovich also teaches that the layers may be continuous or discontinuous in the form of spots or dots, which would be protrusions (Para. 0026, “The catalyst of the present invention is depicted in FIG. 1 having a porous support 100, a buffer layer 102, an interfacial layer 104, and, optionally, a catalyst layer 106. Any layer may be continuous or discontinuous as in the form of spots or dots, or in the form of a layer with gaps or holes”). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a buffer layer in the catalyst as the buffer layer helps reduce thermal expansion stress during catalyst use, reduce corrosion and oxidation, and minimize side reactions. As there would be multiple layers that are deposited, the catalyst would have a protruded second catalyst support layer as seen in Fig. 3 (Para. 0026, “The catalyst of the present invention is depicted in FIG. 1 having a porous support 100, a buffer layer 102, an interfacial layer 104, and, optionally, a catalyst layer 106. Any layer may be continuous or discontinuous as in the form of spots or dots, or in the form of a layer with gaps or holes”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Tonkovich (US2003007904A1) and Ham (KR20180136701A) are considered to be the closest prior arts to the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 2, Tonkovich and Ham do not teach or suggest of a first coating layer that further comprises a perovskite-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: SrTiO3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights