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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Request for Information
The reference “Colloidal Nanoparticle Catalysts for Sustainable Energy Applications” to Aitbekova (hereinafter, “Aitbekova at __”) is Applicant’s own work and appears it may have been publicly available prior to 06/16/2021 (prior to the one-year grace period under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) as the provisional application from which the instant application claims priority, 63/352,987 was filed on 06/16/2022). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §1.105(1)(iii) & (2)(i), the Office is requesting information as to when the Aitbekova was publicly available (see MPEP §704.11(b)). At present it appears the reference was publicly available so the rejection over such is conditional pending definitive proof of the date of public availability.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 15, 6 “if” should read --of--. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 3, “separately prepared porous polymer (polymer organic framework, POF)” is being construed as “separately prepared polymer organic framework”.
In claim 14 “dissolving alumina” is being construed as “dissolving aluminum nitrate” as this is what is laid out in the Specification.
In general phrase in parenthesis are considered to be limiting (i.e., “polymer (polymer organic framework, POF)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 attempts to amend claim 6 which does not disclose calcination, it appears this should depend from claim 7 which is how it is being construed for purposes of compact prosecution. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
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.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “Synthesis of γ-Al2O3–supported Pt nanoparticles using Al-based metal-organic framework as medium and their catalytic performance for total propene oxidation and selective nitrobenzene hydrogenation” to Li et al. (hereinafter, “Li at __”).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses a platinum-alumina catalyst (Li at “Abstract”, the requirement for “stable and active . . . that maintains high activity under harsh conditions, suitable for combusting hydrocarbons” are considered intended use of the catalyst and are not considered to be impart patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.02) comprising:
Metal nanoparticles encapsulated inside an organic framework that is converted into alumina via calcining (Pt exists in the MOF pores->alumina, Li at 2 L col).
While the claim further requires “wherein a nanocasting technique is performed to convert the polymer into alumina”, this is considered to be a product-by-process limitation and as such it is examined on the merits of the product, not how it is made. While the product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, at minimal one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113, et seq. As shown supra the product is known. It is further noted that the organic framework is removed such that the Pt is within the alumina, this aspect of the process is considered to be required and thusly given patentable weight but the specific aspects of how it occurs. Stated differently, the claim is being construed as Pt on alumina.
As to claims 10 and 12, this claim further defines the nanocasting and is thusly also product-by-process in nature and claim 12 further defines the encapsulation step.
Turning to claim 11, the diameter of Pt NPs are 3.4 nm (Li at 4 L col).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of “Characterization of Surface Structure and Oxidation/Reduction Behavior of Pd–Pt/Al2O3 Model Catalysts” to Martin et al. (hereinafter, “Martin at __”).
Regarding claim 13, Li only discloses Pt as the catalytic metal.
Martin in a catalyst supported on alumina discloses that Pd can be alloyed with Pt (Martin at 28009 R col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to add the Pd of Martin to the Pt of Li. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being sinter resistance (Id.).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Characterization of Pt Nanoparticles Encapsulated in Al2O3 and Their Catalytic Efficiency in Propene Hydrogenation” to Yoo et al. (hereinafter, “Yoo at __”).
Regarding claim 9, Yoo discloses a catalyst comprising platinum embedded within alumina (Yoo at “Abstract”). While the claim requires “a stable and active . . . catalyst that maintains high activity under harsh conditions, suitable for combusting hydrocarbons”, this is intended use and is not being given patentable weight. It is further noted that the nanocasting is a product-by-process limitation and that the act of the overall processing of the Pt/alumina precursor results in Pt encapsulated within alumina which is all that is thusly required to meet the claim as noted supra.
As to claims 10 and 12, this claim further defines the nanocasting and is thusly also product-by-process in nature and claim 12 further defines the encapsulation step.
With respect to claim 11, the diameter is 3 nm (“Fig 1b”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Martin.
Regarding claim 13, Yoo only discloses Pt as the catalytic metal.
Martin in a catalyst supported on alumina discloses that Pd can be alloyed with Pt (Martin at 28009 R col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to add the Pd of Martin to the Pt of Yoo. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being sinter resistance (Id.).
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aitbekova.
Regarding claim 1, Aitkebova discloses a process to make a stable and active platinum-alumina catalyst that maintains high activity under harsh conditions, suitable for combustion hydrocarbons (Aitbekova at v) comprising:
Encapsulating metal nanoparticles inside a polymer organic framework (Id.); and
Using a nanocasting technique to convert the polymer into alumina (Id.).
As to claims 2 and 7, the nanocasting comprises infiltrating a starting material containing Pt nanoparticles with a metal oxide precursor of aluminum nitrate (“Fig. 5(a)-(e)”), and removing the starting material via calcination leaving behind nanoparticles embedded within the metal oxide matrix.
Concerning claim 3, colloidally-synthesized Pt is deposited onto a separately prepared POF through wet impregnation (17).
Turning to claim 4, the Pt particles are 3.2-4.4 nm (17).
With respect to claim 5, a polymer growth solution is utilized (DMSO, 43).
As to claim 6, Pt/Pd can be utilized (“Figure 18”).
Turning to claim 8, calcination is at 600 C (18).
Regarding claim 9, a stable and active platinum-alumian catalyst that maintains high activity under harsh conditions, suitable for combustion hydrocarbons comprising metal nanoparticles encapsulated inside a polymer organic framework wherein a nanocasting technique is performed to convert the polymer into alumina is performed (Aitbekova at v).
Claims 10-13 are equivalent process steps to claims 3-6.
Concerning claim 14, Aitbekova discloses a process to make a stable and active platinum-alumina catalyst that maintains high activity under harsh conditions, suitable for combusting hydrocarbons (Aitbekova at v) comprising:
Dissolving alumina in ethanol to obtain a solution (44);
Adding Pt@POF to the solution (Id.);
Removing ethanol by evaporation and drying to obtain a material (Id.); and
Calcining the material to obtain mesoprous alumina (Id.).
Regarding claim 15, Pt@POF is prepared by adding melamine and terephthalaldehyde to DMSO (43);
Processing that to obtain a solid product of POF (Id.);
Adding Pt nanoparticles in hexane to the POF dispersion in a mixture (Id.);
Drying to obtain a powder of Pt/POF material; and
Further processing the Pt@POF material to obtain Pt@POF material.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
. “One-pot synthesis and assembly of melamine-based nanoparticles for microporous polymer organic frameworks and their application as a support for a silver nanoparticle catalyst” to Zhao et al., discloses production of a polymer organic framework with Ag via melamine+terephthaladehyde in DMSO (Zhao at “2.3. Preparation of POF-M2T3 supported silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) catalyst”) but does not disclose Pt usage nor impregnation of such into alumina via nanocasting of a polymer+alumina precursor and nor is there any motivation to combine such with any of the other cited pieces of prior art. “Nanocasting: A Versatile Strategy for Creating Nanostructured Porous Materials” to Lu et al. (hereinafter, “Lu at __”) which is cited as disclosing the generic processes of nanocasting.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights