DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending
Claims 1-7 are subject to a restriction and/or election of species
Claims 3-7 are withdrawn
Claims 1-2 are 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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-2, drawn to a catalyst for methane synthesis, classified in B01J 23/00.
II. Claims 3-7, drawn to a method of manufacturing a catalyst for methane synthesis, classified in B01J37/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In this case, the product of group I as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, e.g. a method of manufacturing a catalyst for methane synthesis, comprising dissolving nickel sulfate, chromium chloride or aluminum sulfate, and urea in water and thereby obtaining a mixed solution or a method where firing the generated product happens before cleaning to obtain the layered double hydroxides.
3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
4. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
5. During a telephone conversation with Fulchand Shende on February 25, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-2. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3-7 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
6. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
7. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2 are 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).
12. Regarding claim 1, Gabrovska teaches catalyst precursors for CO2 removal by methanation (i.e. a catalyst for methane synthesis) (Gabrovska, Title);
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.
Gabrovska further teaches takovite-like (TKL) structure is obtainable from Ni and Al salts of Ni2+/A13+ molar ratios between 1.0 (i.e. x = 0.50) and 5.6 (i.e. x = 0.15) (Gabrovska, p. 82 – first 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 TKL structures are obtainable for a narrow range of molar ratios, namely Ni2+/A13+ of 2.0 (i.e. x = 0.33) – 3.0 (i.e. x = 0.25) (Gabrovska, p. 86 – last paragraph), which falls within the claimed range.
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.
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 to promote a synthesis reaction for obtaining methane, as presently claimed.
13. Regarding claim 2, Gabrovska further 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 0 or a positive integer. 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 to promote a synthesis reaction for obtaining methane from carbon monoxide and hydrogen, as presently claimed.
Conclusion
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