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 .
(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.
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.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1)/ (2), since the composition of Pierantozz since the product as being anticipated by Pierantozzi (US 4,508,846).
Pierantozzi discloses a 0.01 to 15 wt.% ruthenium on cerium oxide catalyst at col. 2, lines 42-49. The cerium is present as Ce(IV). The catalyst of Pierantozzi would be expected to be capable of interacting with electromagnetic energy having a frequency of 13.5 MHz to 50 GHz to no less extent than the catalyst recited in applicant’s claims, since the product of Pierantozzi is compositionally the same as that recited in claims 16-19, and applicant’s specification discloses no special processing steps which would be necessary to achieve the recited limitation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierantozzi. Pierantozzi is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore. It would be obvious to include another Group VIII metal such as Pd as the catalyst of Pierantozzi. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Pierantozzi teaches at col. 1, lines 15-19 that the Group VIII metals are active in the carbon monoxide/hydrogen synthesis reaction.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al ‘656 (US 2020/0079656) in view of AU-B-47104/89.
Regarding claim 1, Hu et al ‘656 discloses a method for microwave catalytic ammonia synthesis in the presence of ruthenium metal as catalyst, wherein the ruthenium is present in amount corresponding to about 0.05 wt% to about 20 wt % based on the total weight of the catalyst. (See the Abstract and Paragraph [0013].) Hu et al ‘656 discloses a heterogeneous reaction temperature of about 50 C to about 1000 C in Paragraph [0014] and teaches in Paragraph [0013] that the mixture is reacted at a temperature of about 5 C to about 95 C . The reaction occurring at 5 C to 95 C disclosed in Paragraph [0013] of Hu et al ‘656 is considered to constitute a “pre-heat” step as recited in claim 1. Hu et al ‘656 also discloses microwave energy having a frequency of 2.45 GHz in Paragraph [0024] and 6650 MHz in Paragraph [0025], as well as reaction pressures of 1 atm and 300 atm in TABLE 1 and pressures of 2 torr to 20 atm in Paragraph [0085]. The difference between the process disclosed by Hu et al ‘656, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that Hu et al ‘656 does not disclose that the Ru metal catalyst should be present on cerium oxide as a support. AU-B-47104/89 discloses a cerium oxide, and teaches on page 9, lines 22-24 that the ceric oxide has a large specific surface area and is perfectly well-suited as a catalyst or catalyst support. It would be obvious from AU-B-47104/89 to provide the Ru catalyst of Hu et al ‘656 on ceric oxide as the catalyst support. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since AU-B-47104/89 teaches on page 1a, lines 6 and 7 that the effectiveness of a catalyst usually increases as the surface area of contact between the catalyst and the reactants becomes larger, and Hu et al ‘656 discloses in in Paragraph [0061] that the catalyst is present on a metal oxide support.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Hu et al ‘656 discloses reaction pressures of 2 torr to 20 atm in Paragraph [0085].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the vol. % of hydrogen and nitrogen recited therein are conventional in ammonia synthesis technology, since they embrace the stoichiometric quantities of the reactants.
Regarding claim 7, the temperature of “about 95C” disclosed in Paragraph [0073] of Hu et al ‘656 would overlap with the temperature of “about 100 C recited therein.
Regarding claim 8, Hu et al ‘656 discloses a heterogenous reaction temperature of 50C to 1,000C in Paragraph [0084].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Hu et al ‘656 discloses a concentration of product gas mixture of 10 ppm to 30vol. % in claim 14.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Hu et al ‘656 discloses microwave energy having a frequency of 1 MHz to 50 GHz in claim 13.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al ‘656 in view of AU-B-47104/89, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shekhawat et al (US 2019/0282992). It would be further obvious from Shekhawat et al to include silicon carbide as an electromagnetic energy susceptor in the process of Hu et al ‘656. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Shekhawat et al disclose in Paragraph [0035] that silicon carbide is a microwave active material, and the process of Hu et al ‘656 is directed to microwave catalytic ammonia synthesis.
The Drawings are objected to in that FIG. 24A, FIG. 24B, FIG.24C, FIG. 24D, FIG. 24E and FIG. 24F include photographs which are black and illegible.
THEVASAHAYAM (US 2017/0210632) is made of record for disclosing an ammonia synthesis process using a supermagnetic catalyst.
Stephens (US 3,925,253), DAI (US 2016/0136635), and KR0130153B1 are made of record for disclosing various ruthenium catalysts.
Blanchard et al (US 6,506,705) is made of record for disclosing cerium oxide for use in catalysts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736