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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 10-12 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 10, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (Exploring beyond palladium: Catalytic reduction of aqueous oxyanion pollutants…, Chemical Engineering Journal, 2017) in view of Wu et al (Recent progress in the structure control of Pd-Ru bimetallic nanomaterials, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 2016).
Chen teaches various methods of treating aqueous contaminant oxyanions using platinum-group catalysts including Ru-based catalysts; such catalysts may be in situ reduced on a suitable support such as a carbon or alumina support [pgs. 746-747, Sec. 2.2.4; Abs]. The species treated including ClO3- (which is reduced to Cl-) [pg. 748, sec. 3.2] and nitrate (which is reduced at least in part of NH4+) [pg. 748, sec. 3.3]. Experiments are carried out both at low pH and at pH at least about 7.0 (i.e. around 7.2) [Table 2]. Chen thus teaches e.g. Ru/C catalysts and treatment of the species as claimed under conditions as claimed. Chen essentially differs from the instant claims in that Chen is silent to the use of bimetallic catalysts i.e. employing Ru0 in combination with another metal such as Pd0.
However, it is known in the art of catalyst chemistry that platinum group metal catalysts such as Ru and Pd may be beneficially used together to at times improve performance of the catalysts. Wu examines the state of the art for such combinations [Abs] and identifies from literature known benefits such as the ability of the combined catalysts to demonstrate lower surface deactivation, or enhanced durability and the like [pg. 4, Sec. 3, both columns].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Chen to employ a bimetallic catalyst combining Ru with Pd because, as in Wu and as known broadly in the art, Pd and Ru in combination may have improved properties as catalysts and synergistic benefits e.g. lower surface deactivation, durability, and the like.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of Wu et al, further in view of Santen et al (US 6,270,682 B2).
Chen and Wu teach as above but are silent to treatment of streams which also contain sulfates.
However, Santen teaches methods of treating chlorate-containing streams using supported noble metal catalysts [Abs] and teaches that it is effective to remove the chlorates even in the presence of anionic co-adsorbates, which may include sulfates [Col. 1 lines 64-67; Col. 2 line 61-Col. 3 line 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the catalytic treatment process of Chen on aqueous systems which include co-adsorbates such as sulfates because, as in Santen, supported noble metal catalysts (of which the modified catalysts of Chen and Wu would be analogous) are capable of effectively reducing chlorate species even when sulfates or similar co-adsorbates are present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights