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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recited “catalyst consists of a metal aluminate spinel and one of a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum dopant” is obtained via impregnated a metal aluminate spinel support, then going through calcining under high temperature (up to 2100 °F) (see instantly published application US2024/0083755 para. [0037], [0052], [0053]). For reasonable and broadest interpretation, any catalyst containing a metal aluminate spinel and one of a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum which is obtained via impregnated or depositing nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum onto such metal aluminate spinel support and going through calcining under similar high temperature would be considered as meet the instantly claimed “catalyst consisting of a metal aluminate spinel and one of a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum dopant”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over O’Neal et al. (US 20210061656) in view of Ranjbar et al. (Effect of MgAl2O4 Catalyst Support Synthesis Method on the Catalytic Activity of Nickel Nano Catalyst in Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction, Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Summer 2019), IAChE) as evidenced by Ranjbar’2018 (Reverse water gas shift reaction and CO2 mitigation: nanocrystalline MgO as a support for nickel based catalysts, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 6 (2018) 4945–4952).
O’Neal et al. teaches a method comprising: reacting carbon dioxide and hydrogen to convert carbon dioxide to produce a gas stream including both carbon monoxide and hydrogen (i.e. synthesis gas, syngas) under presence a suitable catalyst in a reverse flow reactor (para. [0008], [0018], [0022], [0029]-[0032], [0034]) . O’Neal et al. further teaches such reaction performed under temperature from 400 °C to 1200 °C (or 1500 °C) (para. [0042]-[0043]) and pressure range from 0 psig to 1500 psig (para. [0044]), wherein such temperature range and pressure respectively overlapping with that of instantly claimed temperature and pressure range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). O’Neal et al. already teaches catalyst being loaded into reactor for converting carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Since O’Neal et al. a same or substantially the same chemical reaction of converting carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce same or substantially the same product of carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a same or substantially the same catalytic reactor, therefore, same or substantially the same pressure drop from the inlet to the outlet of the catalytic reactor is between 0 and 50 psi as that of instantly claimed would be expected. O’Neal et al. also teaches the conversion rate of carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide can be 90% (para. [0073], Fig. 1).
O’Neal et al. teaches rhodium and/or nickel catalyst can be used for such reaction (para. [0032]). It is noted that O’Neal et al. disclosed nickel catalyst not including any precious metal chosen from the group Rh, Pt, Au, Ag, Pd or Ir. O’Neal et al. also expressly teach coke formation need be minimized or reduced (para. [0080]).
Regarding claim 16, O’Neal et al. does not expressly teach the catalyst consists of a metal aluminate spinel and a nickel, copper, cerium, zirconium, titanium or lanthanum dopant, or the catalyst being chemically and physically stable at temperature of 2100 ºF such that after a thermal treatment at 2100 ºF, the BET surface area of the catalyst is between 0 and 5% of the pre-treatment surface area etc.
Ranjbar et al. teaches a catalyst composition consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) supported with nickel (page 2 last para. -page 3 left col. last para.), wherein the catalyst composition contains no precious metal chosen from Rh, Pt, Au, Ag, Pd or Ir. Ranjbar et al. discloses the wet impregnation method is employed as the method shown in evidence document Ranjbar 2018 (see page 4947 section 2.3.) wherein nickel being impregnated onto support, then gone through high temperature (i.e. 600 °C) calcining. Therefore, Ranjbar et al. teaches a catalyst consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) and a nickel dopant as that of instantly claimed. Ranjbar et al. further teaches such catalyst having high long-term stability when used in reverse water gas shift reaction (converting carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide) (Fig. 7) and such non-noble metals (nickel) are more attractive economically (page 2 left col.2nd para.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such catalyst consisting of MgAl2O4 ( i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) and a nickel dopant as shown by Ranjbar et al to modify the catalyst of O’Neal et al. because by doing so can help provide a catalyst more attractive and having long-term stability for converting carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide as suggested by Ranjbar et al (page 2 left col. 2nd para., page 2 last para. -page 3 left col. last para.)
As for the claimed “catalyst being chemically and physically stable at temperature of 2100 ºF such that after a thermal treatment at 2100 ºF, the BET surface area of the catalyst is between 0 and 20% of the pre-treatment surface area, or the catalyst can convert CO2 to CO where the CO2 conversion is between 70% and 100% at temperature between 1300 ºF and 1800 ºF and pressure above 50 psi, wherein the catalyst does not coke during the conversion and wherein the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 1% per 1000 hours of operation”, Ranjbar et al. teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instant application (see filed specification page 15 line 9-page 17 line 8, example 1-3), a catalyst consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) and a nickel dopant, therefore, same or substantially the same properties and function, i.e. “catalyst being chemically and physically stable at temperature of 2100 ºF such that after a thermal treatment at 2100 ºF, the BET surface area of the catalyst is between 0 and 20% of the pre-treatment surface area, or the catalyst can convert CO2 to CO where the CO2 conversion is between 70% and 100% at temperature between 1300 ºF and 1800 ºF and pressure above 50 psi, wherein the catalyst does not coke during the conversion and wherein the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 1% per 1000 hours of operation” as those of instantly claimed would be expected.
Furthermore, as for the claimed “wherein the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 1% per 1000 hours of operation”, Ranjbar et al. expressly teaches 1.5 wt% of Ni onto MgAl2O4 has stable CO2 conversion, wherein CO2 conversion declining is minimal (Fig. 7, page 8 two last para., page 10 conclusion section). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a catalyst with same CO2 conversion declining as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP 2144. 05 II) because a stable CO2 conversion and high CO selectivity is desired for long term stability in reverse water gas shift reaction as suggested by Ranjbar et al. (Fig. 7, page 8 two last para., page 10 conclusion section).
Regarding claim 17, as for the claimed catalyst composition “having a hardness between 4 Mohs and 10 Mohs”, Ranjbar et al. teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instant application (see filed specification page 15 line 9-page 17 line 8, example 1-3), i.e., a catalyst composition consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) and a nickel dopant, therefore, same or substantially the same property, i.e. hardness between 4 Mohs to 10 Mohs would be expected.
Regarding claim 18, as for the claimed the CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 0.5% per 1000 hours of operation, Ranjbar et al. teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst composition as that of instant application (see filed specification page 15 line 9-page 17 line 8, example 1-3), i.e., a catalyst composition consisting of MgAl2O4 (i.e. a magnesium aluminate spinel) and a nickel dopant, therefore, same or substantially the same property or function, i.e. CO2 conversion declines by between 0 and 0.5% per 1000 hours of operation would be expected. Furthermore, see similar remarks as discussed in claim 16, such conversion decline is just a routine optimization.
Regarding claim 19, such limitation has been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, O’Neal et al. further teaches the product stream being further reactor to produce methanol (para. [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Ranjbar’2018 being directed to MgO support, Ranjbar et al. disclosed catalyst preparation section expressly states “Nickel catalysts were prepared by the wet impregnation technique, as reported by Ranjbar et al.[25]” wherein the cited “Ranjbar et al.[25]” Ranjbar’2018 reference. In summary, Ranjbar’2018 is used as evidence to show the wet impregnation technique, but not comparing support as applicant alleged.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Ranjbar et al.’s catalyst declines about 2% after 15 hours of operation at 600 °C, the examiner would like to point out that Ranjbar disclosed catalyst showing stable CO2 conversion as shown by Fig. 7, wherein less than 1% of decline existed. Furthermore, Ranjbar et al. expressly teaches 1.5 wt.% of Ni onto MgAl2O4 has stable CO2 conversion, wherein CO2 conversion declining is minimal (Fig. 7, page 8 two last para., page 10 conclusion section). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a catalyst with same CO2 conversion declining as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP 2144. 05 II) because a stable CO2 conversion and high CO selectivity is desired for long term stability in reverse water gas shift reaction as suggested by Ranjbar et al. (Fig. 7, page 8 two last para., page 10 conclusion section).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights