DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 were rejected in Office action mailed 3/19/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1 and canceled claim 2, on 6/19/2026
Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending, of claims 3-7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 is rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrovska, M., et. al., Ni–Al layered double hydroxides as catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation. (Gabrovska), taken in view of evidence by Study.com, Hydrates & Anhydrates | Definition, Formula & Examples (Study.com).
6. Regarding claim 1, Gabrovska teaches catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation (i.e. methane synthesis) (Gabrovska, Abstract)
wherein the catalyst precursors are Ni–Al layered double hydroxides (LDHs) (Gabrovska, Abstract).
Gabrovska further teaches the general formula for the LDH class of materials is [M(1-x)2+ Mx3+ (OH)2]x+ [Ax/nn−] · m H2O;
wherein M2+ is a bivalent cation such as Ni2+ and An− is CO32− located in the interlayer gallery;
wherein M3+ is a trivalent metal cation with examples such as Al3+ or Cr3+ metal cations and the preferred example is Al3+ (Gabrovska, Abstract; p. 81 – last paragraph).
Given that Gabrovska discloses the catalyst precursor that overlaps the presently claimed catalyst, including An− is intercalated anion such as CO32− it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the catalyst precursor, which is both disclosed by Gabrovska and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Gabrovska further teaches that the most reliable composition range corresponds approximately to 0.2 ≤ x ≤ 0.4 (Gabrovska, p. 81 – last paragraph), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Gabrovska further teaches that m (i.e. y) corresponds to the number of water molecules (Gabrovska, p. 81, last paragraph)
wherein given that the number of water molecules in the general formula (i.e. hydrate formula) would be a whole number (Study.com, p. 3, paragraph 9)
wherein it is clear that m (i.e. y) in the general formula in Gabrovska would necessarily be 0 or positive integer, as presently claimed.
Gabrovski further teaches the LDH’s are in a brucite layer network wherein M2+ ions are partially replaced by cations of higher charge, M3+ (i.e. includes a plurality of layers containing M2+, M3+, and OH-) (Gabrovska, p. 82, first paragraph)
wherein An- is located in the interlayer gallery (i.e. An- is interposed between two adjacent layers among the plurality of layers) (Gabrovska, p. 82, first paragraph).
Gabrovska teaches catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation (i.e. a catalyst for methane synthesis) comprising the general formula for the LDH class of materials is [M(1-x)2+ Mx3+ (OH)2]x+ [Ax/nn−] · m H2O, wherein, M2+ and An− are Ni2+ and An−, respectively, and M3+ is Al3+ or Cr3+, where m (i.e. y) is 1. Given that the catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation is substantially identical to the catalyst for methane synthesis of the present invention, it is clear that the catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation in Gabrovska would be capable to function as a catalyst for methane synthesis that promotes a synthesis reaction for obtaining methane from carbon monoxide and hydrogen, as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicants primarily argue:
“However, Gabrovska discloses the catalyst precursor, not a catalyst.”
Remarks p. 9
“That is, in Gabrovska, the reduced product of NiAl-LDH (metallic nickel nanoparticles distributed on AlOx) is used as a catalyst for methanation, not the NiA1-LDH. That is, Gabrovska does not teach or suggest a catalyst for methane synthesis that is made up from the NiAl-LDH. Gabrovska does not disclose any example showing that the NiA1-LDH is used as a catalyst for methane synthesis. Gabrovska does not suggest using the NiA1-LDH as a catalyst for methane synthesis. Accordingly, Gabrovska is completely different from the present invention.”
Remarks p. 9 and 10
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
While there is no disclosure that the catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation is a catalyst for methane synthesis that promotes a synthesis reaction for obtaining methane from carbon monoxide and hydrogen as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. a catalyst for methane synthesis that promotes a synthesis reaction for obtaining methane from carbon monoxide and hydrogen, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Therefore, as set forth on page 5 in Office action above, it is the examiner’s position, Given that the catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation is substantially identical to the catalyst for methane synthesis of the present invention, it is clear that the catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation in Gabrovska would be capable to function as a catalyst for methane synthesis that promotes a synthesis reaction for obtaining methane from carbon monoxide and hydrogen, absent evidence to the contrary.
8. Applicants further argue:
“Study.com (Hydrates & Anhydrates I Definition, Formula & Examples) also does not teach or suggest a catalyst for methane synthesis that is made up from the NiA1-LDH. Accordingly, claim 1 is not obvious from Gabrovska in view of Study.com.”
Remarks p. 9 and 10
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
As set forth above, Gabrovska does meet the claimed limitation as set forth above on page 5. Study.com is not used as a teaching reference, rather it is used as an evidence reference to disclose that m (i.e. y) in the general formula in Gabrovska would necessarily be 0 or positive integer. See page 4.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights