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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2023, 03/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5, 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/24/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6-15 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Hasnain et al ("Partial oxidation of methane over CeO2 loaded hydrotalcite (MgNiAl) catalyst for the production of hydrogen rich syngas (H2, CO)", cited in IDS 03/12/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Hasnain discloses Mg-Ni-Al (MNA) hydrotalcite was synthesized using the co-precipitation process, while CeO2 was incorporated via the wetness impregnation technique (abstract). CeO2@MNA catalyst was synthesized in two steps process (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3). Initially, MNA was prepared via co-precipitation technique (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3 meeting limitation “A method for manufacturing a ternary catalyst coated with a metal oxide, the method comprising: preparing a ternary catalyst core including a hydrotalcite support and metal particles dispersed on the support”). For the preparation of CeO2@MNA, 0-15 wt% loadings of CeO2 in MNA were prepared via wetness impregnation technique (Pg. 36665 right column par. 1). Incorporation of CeO2@MNA as in Fig. 6 maintained the coral-like structure but with CeO2 particles of uniformly distributed irregular rod and spherical shapes (Pg. 36668 right column par. 1). It was observed that sample containing CeO2 appears to be coated over coral surfaces of MNA (Pg. 36668 right column par. 1 meeting limitation “and forming a metal oxide shell on the ternary catalyst core”).
Regarding claim 7, Hasnain discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses nitrate solutions consisting of Al⁺³, Mg⁻², and Ni +2 and ions of molarity 0.75, 0.75 and 0.25 were prepared respectively (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3). Afterwards, the mixture was titrated dropwise into a certain amount of 0.5 M vigorously stirred solution of precipitating agent Na₂CO₃ at 70 °C in a three- necked flask (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3). During the mixing process, the slurry was kept at pH = 10 by dropwise addition of 1 M NaOH solution (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3 meeting limitation “preparing a mixed solution by dropping a metal precursor aqueous solution onto a basic aqueous solution”). After filtration, to remove entrapped H₂O the precipitates were kept in the oven for overnight at 110 °C (Pg. 36665 left column par. 4). Afterwards, to synthesize the double- layered hydroxide, the dry out solid was finely crushed to powder form and calcined for 5 h at 850 °C (Pg. 36665 left column par. 4 meeting limitation “preparing powder by drying the mixed solution; and firing the powder”).
Regarding claim 8, Hasnain discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including During the mixing process, the slurry was kept at pH = 10 by dropwise addition of 1 M NaOH solution (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3 meeting limitation “wherein the dropping is performed under a basic condition”).
Regarding claim 9, Hasnain discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including nitrate solutions consisting of Al⁺³, Mg⁻², and Ni +2 and ions of molarity 0.75, 0.75 and 0.25 were prepared respectively (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hasnain discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including the mixture was titrated dropwise into a certain amount of 0.5 M vigorously stirred solution of precipitating agent Na₂CO₃ at 70 °C in a three- necked flask (Pg. 36665 left column par. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Hasnain discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including to synthesize the double- layered hydroxide, the dry out solid was finely crushed to powder form and calcined for 5 h at 850 °C (Pg. 36665 left column par. 4). 5 hours is within the claimed range of 1 hour to 6 hours. 850 °C is within the range of 600 °C to 1000 °C.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasnain et al ("Partial oxidation of methane over CeO2 loaded hydrotalcite (MgNiAl) catalyst for the production of hydrogen rich syngas (H2, CO)", cited in IDS 03/12/2024) in view of Jeong et al (US 20220032281 A1, cited in IDS 04/26/2023).
Regarding claim 12, Hasnain discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the forming of the metal oxide shell includes: attaching a surfactant onto a surface of the ternary catalyst core; stirring the ternary catalyst core to which the surfactant is attached with a metal oxide precursor; and removing the surfactant”.
Jeong discloses a method preparing the catalyst… the catalyst may include: a support including regularly distributed mesopores; metal nanoparticles supported on the support; and a metal oxide coating layer coated on a surface of the support (abstract). A following method was used to coat a mesoporous silica material on the catalyst NP(10)/SBA-15 prepared above ([0090]). 0.35 g of the prepared NP(10)/SBA-15 catalyst was ultrasonic-treated and dispersed in 9 mL of ethanol ([0091]). A solution of 8 mL of ethanol and 0.6 mL of ammonia water in which 0.3 g of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) was dissolved is added and then ultrasonic-treated for an additional 10 minutes to attach CTAB to the surface of the prepared catalyst ([0091] meeting limitation “wherein the forming of the metal oxide shell includes: attaching a surfactant onto a surface of the ternary catalyst core”). While the mixture was strongly stirred at room temperature, 1.5 mL of TEOS (tetraethyl orthosilicate) was injected… and stirred for 5 hours to continue the coating reaction ([0091] meeting limitation “stirring the ternary catalyst core to which the surfactant is attached with a metal oxide precursor”). It was filtered and washed with ethanol, then dried overnight… and calcined ([0091] meeting limitation “removing the surfactant”). The claimed limitation “removing the surfactant” is met, since the instant specification discloses “the surfactant may be removed through firing” [0101] which is equivalent to calcination.
Jeong further discloses by the metal oxide coating layer, the metal nanoparticles may be prevented from agglomerating during particle growth ([0060]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the metal oxide shell including: attaching a surfactant onto a surface of the ternary catalyst core; stirring the ternary catalyst core to which the surfactant is attached with a metal oxide precursor; and removing the surfactant in the method of Hasnain in order to prevent agglomeration during particle growth as taught by Jeong.
Regarding claim 13, Hasnain in view of Jeong discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including a solution of 8 mL of ethanol and 0.6 mL of ammonia water in which 0.3 g of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) was dissolved is added and then ultrasonic-treated for an additional 10 minutes to attach CTAB to the surface of the prepared catalyst ([0091]).
Regarding claim 14, Hasnain in view of Jeong discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including while the mixture was strongly stirred at room temperature, 1.5 mL of TEOS (tetraethyl orthosilicate) was injected… and stirred for 5 hours to continue the coating reaction ([0091]). The chemical formula for tetraethyl orthosilicate is Si(OC2H5)4 . The claim limitation “wherein the metal oxide precursor includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: M-(ORx)y” is met, since M is Si, x is 1, y is 4 determined by an oxidation number of Si, and R is C2H5 a linear C1-C12 alkyl.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasnain et al ("Partial oxidation of methane over CeO2 loaded hydrotalcite (MgNiAl) catalyst for the production of hydrogen rich syngas (H2, CO)", cited in IDS 03/12/2024) in view of Jeong et al (US 20220032281 A1, cited in IDS 04/26/2023) and in further view of Astorg (US 20190338423 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hasnain in view of Jeong discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “when the M is the Ce, the ternary catalyst core is stirred with more than 1.54 g and less than 4.61 g of the metal oxide precursor”.
Astorg discloses a sol-gel method for producing an anti-corrosion coating consisting of at least one layer of an oxide on a metal substrate (abstract). The method successively comprising ([0016]): a) Preparing a non-aqueous solution of a precursor of the oxide ([0017]). In particular, the precursor of the oxide can be chosen from... cerium methoxyethoxide ([0036] meeting limitation “when the M is the Ce”). D) carrying out a treatment for stabilizing the film on the surface of the substrate ([0020]). The non - aqueous solution typically comprises a mixture in which for one mole of metal oxide precursor 10 to 50 moles of ethanol are added([0075]). One mole of cerium methoxyethoxide is equivalent to 440.46 g.
While 440.46g is not within the claimed range of 1.54 g and 4.61 g, Astorg discloses a parameter that influences the thickness of the film obtained is the molar proportion in ethanol in the non-aqueous solution 1 ([0091]). Indeed, the more ethanol there is in the solution, the less precursor of the oxide there is per volume unit in the solution and the thinner the deposited film is ([0091]). As the thickness of the film is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of metal oxide precursor deposited on the metal substrate, with said thickness decreasing with amount of metal oxide precursor, the precise amount of metal oxide precursor would have been considered a result effective variable by on having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed coating thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of metal oxide precursor of Astorg to obtain the desired film thickness (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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738