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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-20 and 29 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, further in view of Jiang et al (US 11,110,434) (newly cited), even further in view of McGrady et al (US 2008/0213157) (newly cited). Hu et al ‘856 discloses a method for microwave catalytic ammonia synthesis in the presence of ruthenium metal as catalyst, wherein the ruthenium is present in an 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 Hui 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], and also teaches in claim 7 that the catalyst should include potassium as a promoter in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%. 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. It would have been obvious from AU-B-47104/89 in view of Jiang et al, further in view of McGrady et al, to provide the Ru metal catalyst of Hu et al ‘656 on cerium oxide as a support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since 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; Jiang et al disclose a ruthenium-based catalyst on for decomposing ammonia on a metal oxide support which includes cerium oxide (see claims 1 and 3); and McGrady et al disclose in Paragraph [0004] and [0005] and Equation 1 that the reaction between nitrogen and hydrogen to produce ammonia is reversible, meaning that the reaction can proceed in either the forward or reverse directions, depending on conditions.
Regarding claim 29, Jiang et al disclose cesium being present in the catalyst in Example 1. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that Hu et al ‘656 does not disclose a catalyst promoter comprising at least one metal selected from K, Cs, or a combination thereof, is not convincing, since Hu et al ‘656 discloses potassium oxide as a promoter in claims 7 and 8. Applicant’s argument, that given the high variability of the specific technical requirements for a particular catalyst in a particular context, there can be no reasonable expectation of success for substituting the support of AU-B-47104/89 for the supports of Hu et al ‘656, is not convincing. Although the field of catalysis is unpredictable, it is not totally unpredictable. One would have expected that the cerium oxide support would be a suitable support for the catalyst of Hu et al ‘656, since Hu et al ‘656 discloses in claim 7 that cerium oxide can be present as a promoter, and Jiang et al discloses cerium oxide as a carrier for a ruthenium catalyst in the reverse reaction between hydrogen and nitrogen to produce ammonia. McGrady et al suggest that catalysts useful for the reaction between hydrogen and nitrogen to product ammonia would be equally effective for the reverse reaction. Applicant’s argument, that applicant’s specification demonstrates unexpected and superior results over the specific combination of cerium oxide or lanthanum oxide supports with K or Cs promoters in microwave-assisted ammonia syntheses in Paragraph [0589], is not convincing, since Hu et al ‘656 discloses cerium oxide as a promoter in claims 7 and 8. There is no evidence on record showing that the results would be superior when employing a ruthenium catalyst with cerium oxide as a support, as opposed to a ruthenium catalyst including cerium oxide as a promoter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. Jiang et al disclose a ruthenium-based catalyst on for decomposing ammonia on a metal oxide support which includes cerium oxide and cesium carbonate (see Example 1 and claims 1 and 3). The difference between the catalyst disclosed by Jiang et al, and that recited in claims 16-19, is that Jiang et al do not disclose the specific amounts of Ru and Cs. It would have been obvious to modify the catalyst of Jiang et al by providing the recited amounts of Ru and Cs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Jiang et al disclose the broad range of ruthenium to promoter at col. 3, lines 3-7, which would embrace a promoter amount of 0.1 wt% to 15wt%.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al in view of AU-B-47104/89. Jiang et al disclose a ruthenium-based catalyst on for decomposing ammonia on a metal oxide support which includes cerium oxide and cesium carbonate (see Example 1 and claims 1 and 3). 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 have been obvious to provide the cerium oxide support as the carrier for the Ru catalyst o Jiang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since AU-B-47104/89 teaches that the ceric oxide has a large specific surface area and is perfectly well-suited as a catalyst or catalyst support. One would have appreciated that such large specific surface area would result in greater access to the Ru metal in the catalyst of Jiang et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that applicant’s specification demonstrates unexpected and superior results over the specific combination of cerium oxide or lanthanum oxide supports with K or Cs promoters in microwave-assisted ammonia syntheses in Paragraph [0589], is not convincing, since claims 16-20 do not require that the catalyst be used in microwave-assisted ammonia synthesis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as based on a rejected parent claim, and would be allowed if written in independent form.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hu et al ‘856 discloses a method for microwave catalytic ammonia synthesis in the presence of ruthenium metal as catalyst, wherein the ruthenium is present in an 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 Hui 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], and also teaches in claim 7 that the catalyst should include potassium as a promoter in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in Hu et al ‘856 to employ lanthanum oxide as the catalyst support. Nor would there have been any motivation from the prior art to do so. Accordingly claim 30 is not rejected over Hu et al ‘856.
Murchison et al (US 4,199,522) is made of record for disclosing a supported ruthenium catalyst which includes potassium and cesium, (See claim 1.)
Nielsen et al (US 3,243,386) is made of record for disclosing an ammonia synthesis catalyst which includes potassium oxide as a promoter.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights