Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
This office action is regarding application number 18/439,722 filed on 02/12/2024. This
application claims benefit of an earlier filing date as a continuation of prior application 17/053,340. However, while this application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/053,340, this current application adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Specifically, claim 28 presents disclosure not presented in the prior application and as such claim 28 is not given the benefit of the earlier filing date of the prior application. As a result, this application would constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application not a continuation. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
The examiner notes that the range of 5 – 60 mm appears to match the range of the polymer foam layer thickness described in the specification, page 3.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the limitation "the polymer foam". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination and compact prosecution, it is interpreted as intending to mean either the metal foam density and polymer foam used to initially form the metal foam body (described in the specification).
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 12 – 17, 19 – 24, 26 – 27, and 29 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss (EP2883632A1) in view Radivojevic (US2014/0221700, cited in IDS 02/18/24)
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Poss teaches forming a metallic foam body comprising forming a metal substrate comprised of Metal A and then forming a layer comprised of Metal B on the surface of the metallic foam substrate [0007]. Poss teaches that the metal foam bodies are used for catalysts [0002, 0029] including hydrogenation catalysts [0029]. Poss further teaches that Metal A can be Ni or Fe [0007, 0015], meeting the limitation of the inside being nickel or iron, and the outside can be cobalt, copper, or nickel [0007, 0015], meeting the limitation of the outside being cobalt, copper, or nickel. Meeting the limitations of claimed step(a) of claim 12 and claim 21. Poss does not teach the metal foam body requires additional elements besides Metal A and Metal [0007], meeting the claimed limitation of “consists of” of claim 21.
Poss does not teach treating the metal foam body with a powder to ultimately achieve alloy formation.
Radivojevic teaches a method of forming a surface modified metal foam body [Title]. Radivojevic teaches that the foam body can be a metallic material containing one or more of Ni, Fe, Co, and Cu, as well as others [0021]. The foam body is used for catalysis in a variety of reactions [0014] including Raney type catalysts/hydrogenation [0002] and that the foam bodies can be formed by electrolytic deposition [0030].
The foam body surface is coated with an organic binder and metal powder of a second metallic material [0018]. The second metallic material is a powder mixture or powdered alloy including aluminum [0022, 0024] and a promoter element [0027] of chromium or molybdenum [0027], meeting the claimed limitation of step (b). The coated metallic foam body is then heat treated at a temperature range of 650 – 730°C [0068], which overlaps with the claimed range and for up to 15 min (900 seconds), which overlaps with the claimed time range [0070]. Meeting the limitations of step (c). Radivojevic teaches that the heat treatment (i.e. step (c)) forms a surface modified metallic foam body comprising an unmodified core and an alloy skin (meeting the claimed limitation of alloy formation between the metallic components of the foam body and metal-containing powder) [0016]
Radivojevic teaches that the produced metal foam body has a high mechanical stability, a very defined surface structure of the activated outer layer, and a high level of porosity. Radivojevic also states that the metal foam body production method creates a relatively high percentage of activated material and a high amount of active surface area in relation to the catalyst's total volume [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Poss and Radivojevic to use the metal foam body of Poss in the surface modification method of Radivojevic. Poss and Radivojevic are both directed to metal foam bodies comprising transition metals which are used for catalysis, in particular hydrogenation. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Radivojevic to be pertinent to the disclosure of Poss and would have had a reasonably expectation of success in combining the teachings. Moreover, Radivojevic teaches that the surface modification process has several benefits including high mechanical stability, a very defined surface structure of the activated outer layer, a high level of porosity, a relatively high percentage of activated material and a high amount of active surface area in relation to the catalyst's total volume. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to the applying the teachings of Radivojevic to Poss.
Regarding claims 13 – 15, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied above in claim 12. Poss teaches that the inside/first material (i.e. metal A) can be Ni or Fe [0007, 0015], meeting the limitation of the inside being nickel of claims 13 – 14 or iron of claim 15, and the outside can be cobalt [0007, 0015], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 13, copper [0007, 0015], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 14, or nickel [0007, 0015], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 15.
Regarding claims 16 – 17 and 30, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied above in claims 12 and 21. Radivojevic teaches coating the surface of the metallic foam body with an organic binder and metal powder of a second metallic material [0018]. The second metallic material is a powder mixture or powdered alloy including aluminum [0022, 0024] and a promoter element [0027] of chromium or molybdenum [0027]. This meets the limitation of claim 16 – 17 and 30.
Regarding claims 19 – 20, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied above in claim 13. Radivojevic teaches that following the thermal treatment, the alloyed metallic foam body is treated with a leaching agent in which the leaching agent is preferably NaOH aqueous solution [0056 – 0057], meeting the claimed limitation of “basic solution” of claim 19. Radivojevic teaches that the basic solution treatment is performed between 20 – 98°C, which falls within the claimed range, for 1 – 15 minutes, which overlaps with the claimed range, and the NaOH is at a concentration of 1 M – 10 M ( wt% range of approximately 3.85 – 28.6%) [0058], which falls with the claimed range.
1
M
=
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
s
o
l
u
t
e
N
a
O
H
l
i
t
e
r
o
f
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
=
1
m
o
l
e
N
a
O
H
1
l
i
t
e
r
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
=
39.997
g
1000
g
→
39.997
1039.997
*
100
=
3.85
%
Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claims 22 – 24, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied above in claim 21. Poss teaches that the inside/first material (i.e. metal A) can be Ni or Fe [0007, 0015], meeting the limitation of the inside being nickel of claims 13 – 14 or iron of claim 15, and the outside can be cobalt [0007, 0015], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 13, copper [0007, 0015], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 14, or nickel [0007, 0015], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 15.
Poss does not teach the metal foam body requires additional elements besides Metal A and Metal [0007], meeting the claimed limitation of “consists of”.
Regarding claims 26 – 27, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied above in claim 21. Radivojevic teaches that following the thermal treatment, the alloyed metallic foam body is treated with a leaching agent in which the leaching agent is preferably NaOH aqueous solution [0056, 0057], meeting the claimed limitation of “basic solution” of claim 26. Radivojevic teaches that the basic solution treatment is performed between 20 – 98°C, which falls within the claimed range, for 1 – 15 minutes, which overlaps with the claimed range, and the NaOH is at a concentration of 1 M – 10 M ( wt% range of approximately 3.85 – 28.6%) [0058], which falls with the claimed range.
1
M
=
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
o
l
e
s
o
f
s
o
l
u
t
e
N
a
O
H
l
i
t
e
r
o
f
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
=
1
m
o
l
e
N
a
O
H
1
l
i
t
e
r
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
=
39.997
g
1000
g
→
39.997
1039.997
*
100
=
3.85
%
Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 29, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied in claim 21. Poss discloses that the density of the foam is 300 – 1200 kg/m3 [0017].
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss (EP2883632A1) in view Radivojevic (US2014/0221700, cited in IDS 02/18/24), as applied to claims 12 and 21, in view of Suda (JP2002241102, using espacenet translation provided herewith, cited in IDS 02/18/24)
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied above in claims 12 and 21. Radivojevic teaches the promoter element of chromium or molybdenum is preferably of 2 – 3 wt% of the surface material (i.e. second metallic material) [0027], which is a 32.3:1 - 49:1 ratio with aluminum, which falls within the claimed ratio range.
Radivojevic does not explicitly teach the change in mass of the metallic foam body after alloying the surface, however, the ratio change would depend upon the composition of the second metallic material being used as well as the thickness of alloying surface layer, and Radivojevic teaches that the thickness is an optimum balance of mechanical stability and the desired surface properties [0047]. Furthermore, Radivojevic teaches that the weight ratio of aluminum powder to metallic foam body is 1:1 (meaning the final metallic foam body would be from 1:1 (no powder is alloyed) – 2:1 (all powder is alloyed) in weight ratio, depending upon how much aluminum powder alloyed to the surface) [008, Example 1]. This encompasses the claimed range of 1.1:1 to 1.5:1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have optimized the amount of second metallic material that was alloyed to the surface (and thereby optimize the weight ratio of the metallic foam body before and after the process) in order to balance the mechanical stability and desired surface properties. Optimization of a result-effective variable is a prima facie case of obviousness, absent evidence of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 II)
Poss in view of Radivojevic does not expressly teach the weight ratio of the two metallic components of the metal foam body.
Suda teaches a Raney-type catalyst for the production of hydrogen [Title, 0017]. Suda teaches that a Raney type nickel-cobalt alloy is used in which the amount of cobalt is 5 – 50 wt% (1:1 - 19:1 weight ratio), which falls within the claimed range [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Poss in view of Radivojevic (which suggests using a nickel-cobalt foam body for catalysis) and controlled the weight ratio of the nickel-to-cobalt in the metal foam body to a range of 1:1 – 19:1, as taught by Suda. Poss and Radivojevic are directed to metal foam bodies for catalysis including the use of nickel and cobalt as well as the catalysis application being hydrogenation and Suda provides a composition for Raney type catalyst (hydrogenation catalyst). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Suda to be pertinent to Poss in view of Radivojevic and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Suda to the prior art combination to achieve predictable results.
In regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claims 28 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss (EP2883632A1) in view Radivojevic (US2014/0221700, cited in IDS 02/18/24), as applied to claims 21, in further view of Pinkos (US2019/0344248, cited in IDS 02/18/24)
Regarding claim 28, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied in claim 21. Poss does not explicitly teach the superimposed layers/metal foam body thickness.
Pinkos teaches a shaped catalyst body in the form of a metal foam [0118]. Pinkos teaches that the metal foam body can be covered and alloyed with a powder [0119]. Moreover, Pinkos teaches that the metal foam body is formed by coating a polymer foam with a metal and then pyrolyzing the foam [0118]. Pinkos teaches that the metal foam can be made of transition metals [0118] and have a thickness ranging from millimeters to centimeters (from 1 mm to at least 10 mm), which reasonably suggests a thickness that overlaps with the claimed range of 5 – 60 mm [0101].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Poss in view of Radivojevic and controlled the metal foam body thickness to be millimeters to centimeters in thickness (1 mm up to at least 10 mm), as disclosed by Pinkos. Poss, Radivojevic, and Pinkos are directed to the same field of endeavor of metal foam bodies comprised of transition metals for catalysts. Moreover, the prior art all teach forming the bodies via coating a polymer foam and removing the foam. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in controlling the thickness of the metal foam body in Ross in view of Radivojevic, to the thickness disclosed by Pinkos.
Lastly, changes to size, shape, and/or proportion is a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B).
Regarding claim 29, Poss in view of Radivojevic teaches the invention as applied in claim 21. Poss does not explicitly teach the polymer foam density used for forming the metal foam body.
Pinkos teaches a shaped catalyst body in the form of a metal foam [0118]. Pinkos teaches that the metal foam body can be covered and alloyed with a powder [0119]. Moreover, Pinkos teaches that the metal foam body is formed by coating a polymer foam with a metal and then pyrolyzing the foam [0118]. It is disclosed that the polymer foam should have a density of 300 – 1200 kg/m3, which falls within the claimed range [0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Poss in view of Radivojevic and controlled the polymer foam when forming the metal foam body to have a density of 300 – 1200 kg/m3, as disclosed by Pinkos. Poss, Radivojevic, and Pinkos are directed to the same field of endeavor of metal foam bodies comprised of transition metals for catalysts. Moreover, the prior art all teach forming the bodies via coating a polymer foam and removing the foam. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the polymer foam density range disclosed by Pinkos, in the method of Ross in view of Radivojevic.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2020/0269227 – Producing a shaped metal foam catalyst body by coating with binder and aluminum powder and alloying with thermal treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights