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 .
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, 5-7, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (KR20180136701A) in view of Tonkovich (US2003007904A1) and Kolaczkowski (“Potential for metal foams to act as structure catalyst supports in fixed-bed reactors”, Catalysis Today, Volume 273, Pages 221-233, 2016).
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”).
Ham and Tonkovich do not teach that the porous metal support is a metal foam comprising NiFeCrAl or NiCrAl. Kolaczkowski teaches the use of NiFeCrAl and NiCrAl as the metal foam support in structured catalysts with an inorganic oxide, such as SiO2 (Introduction, “Over the last two decades there has been much interest in the use of metal foams as structured catalyst supports, though it is relatively recently that such structures have attracted the interest of commercial organisations willing to invest in the manufacturing techniques that are necessary to make large quantities of such a structured catalyst support for the market” ; “The metal foam structures can be made with a pore size ranging from 450 to 6000 μm and various alloy compositions, e.g. NiFeCrAl, NiCrAl, FeCrAl or as pure metals, e.g. Ni, Cu, Ag” ; 1.1, “First, an oxidic high surface material, e.g. SiO2, Al2O3 or zeolite (Seiger et al. [6]) is deposited on the foam by washcoating or sol-gel techniques”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the NiFeCrAl or NiCrAl of Kolaczkowski with the metal support taught by Ham or Tonkovich as Ham, Tonkovich, and Kolaczkowski teach the use of a metal support in forming a reforming catalyst, where Kolaczkowski teaches the benefit that the reactants can more easily access the internal cavities of the metal foam pellet and catalyst layer (1.2, “However, in an application such as the steam reforming of methane, which occurs for example in long tubes, the reactions are highly endothermic, and heat needs to be transferred from the walls of the tube to the reactants as they flow through catalyst pellets inside the tube”; 4.1, “When using metal foam pellets, which have ‘mm-scale-pores’, the flow through the metal foam is significant, providing easy access to the internal cavities of the metal foam pellet. Hence the distance for diffusion into the very thin layer of catalyst is much shorter, which makes diffusion easier than in a conventional ceramic pellet”).
In regards to claim 3, Ham teaches that the chemical formula of the perovskite-based compound 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 5, Tonkovich teaches that the inorganic oxide comprises TiO2, SiO2, and ZrO2 (Para. 0028, “More preferably, the buffer layer is Al2O3, TiO2, SiO2, and ZrO2 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 and Koloczkowski do 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 taught by Ham and Kolaczkowski to act as a metal support as Ham, Tonkovich, and Kolaczkowski teach forming 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. Kolaczkowski teaches that the porous metal support has an average pore size ranging from 450 to 6000 µm (Introduction, “The metal foam structures can be made with a pore size ranging from 450 to 6000 μm and various alloy compositions, e.g. NiFeCrAl, NiCrAl, FeCrAl or as pure metals, e.g. Ni, Cu, Ag”) while 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pore size of Kolaczkowski in the porous metal support of Ham and Tonkovich as having the pore size as claimed provides easier access to the catalyst in the metal foam pellets (2.3, “This is a significant finding, as this flow is not only greater than the flow through the 1-hole in the ceramic pellets (which was 11%), but the flow occurs through the “mm-scale-pores” in the metal foam structure, providing an easier access to the catalyst in the metal foam pellets”) while Tonkovich teaches that the porosity 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 catalyst loading amounts in terms of the buffer layer thickness. However, Ham and Kolaczkowski are 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 and Koloczkowski do 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), Ham (KR20180136701A), and Kolaczkowski (“Potential for metal foams to act as structure catalyst supports in fixed-bed reactors”, Catalysis Today, Volume 273, Pages 221-233, 2016) are considered to be the closest prior arts to the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 2, Tonkovich, Ham, and Kolaczkowski do not teach or suggest of a first coating layer that further comprises a perovskite-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: SrTiO3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 09/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-7. And 13-17 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ham, Tonkovich, and Kolaczkowski as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights