DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung et al. (WO 2018/025208 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Sung teaches a supported noble metal catalyst comprising a carrier, wherein the carrier comprises an inorganic oxide and a non-noble metal dopant, wherein the non-noble metal dopant is present in an amount of from 0.01 to 10 wt.% of catalyst, measured as oxide (Page 16, Example 2: Preparation of Catalyst Sample 3; A high surface area silica-alumina support from a commercial supplier having a BET surface area of about 160 to 200 M2/g and a pore volume of 0.8 to 0.9 cc/g… The silica-alumina support had 95% alumina and 5% silica, and no sulfur (i.e. < 0.1 wt.%); Page 17, The milled slurry was coated onto a 1"Dx3"L ceramic honeycomb core; Page 10, Ceramic materials used to construct the substrate may include any suitable refractory material, e.g., cordierite, mullite, cordierite-α alumina, silicon nitride, zircon mullite, spodumene, alumina-silica magnesia, zircon silicate, sillimanite, magnesium silicates, zircon, petalite, a alumina, aluminosilicates and the like). Such honeycomb monoliths meet the structural limitation requiring a shaped extrudate.
Sung teaches the catalyst wherein the carrier is a shaped extrudate (Page 17, The milled slurry was coated onto a 1"Dx3"L ceramic honeycomb core; Fig. 1; Page 11, Referring to FIG. 1, the exemplary substrate 2 has a cylindrical shape and a cylindrical outer surface 4; Page 10, Ceramic materials used to construct the substrate may include any suitable refractory material, e.g., cordierite, mullite, cordierite-α alumina, silicon nitride, zircon mullite, spodumene, alumina-silica magnesia, zircon silicate, sillimanite, magnesium silicates, zircon, petalite, a alumina, aluminosilicates and the like).
Sung teaches a noble metal component, wherein a content of the noble metal component is from 0.01 to 2 wt. %, measured as elemental metal, and a sulfur-containing component, wherein a content of the sulfur-containing component is from 0.01 to 2 wt. %, measured as elemental sulfur (Page 16-17, Example 2: Preparation of Catalyst Sample 3; A high surface area silica-alumina support from a commercial supplier having a BET surface area of about 160 to 200 M2/g and a pore volume of 0.8 to 0.9 cc/g, was impregnated with ammonium sulfate (NH4)2SO4 solution using standard incipient wetness procedure, with a targeted sulfur concentration of 1.4 wt.%... The above dried powder was next impregnated with Pt-amine solution using standard incipient wetness procedure, with a targeted Pt concentration at 1.1 wt.%).
With regard to Claims 3 and 4, Sung teaches the catalyst wherein the inorganic oxide is selected from the group consisting of alumina, silicon dioxide, silica-alumina, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, silicon carbide, and any combination thereof, and wherein the inorganic oxide is alumina (Page 9, Exemplary refractory metal oxides include alumina, silica, zirconia, titania, ceria, and physical mixtures or chemical combinations thereof, including atomically-doped combinations and including high surface area or activated compounds such as activated alumina; Page 16-17, Example 2: Preparation of Catalyst Sample 3; A high surface area silica-alumina support from a commercial supplier having a BET surface area of about 160 to 200 M2/g and a pore volume of 0.8 to 0.9 cc/g).
With regard to Claim 5, Sung teaches the catalyst wherein the alumina is selected from the group consisting of alpha-alumina, beta-alumina, gamma-alumina, delta-alumina, theta-alumina, and any combination thereof (Page 9, Exemplary aluminas include large pore boehmite, gamma-alumina, and delta/theta alumina. Useful commercial aluminas include activated aluminas, such as high bulk density gamma-alumina, low or medium bulk density large pore gamma-alumina, and low bulk density large pore boehmite and gamma-alumina).
With regard to Claim 7, Sung teaches the catalyst wherein the noble metal is selected from the group consisting of ruthenium, iridium, palladium, platinum, and any combination thereof (Page 8, Catalyst Composition, The DOC catalyst composition includes a platinum (Pt) component and a sulfur (S)-containing component impregnated on a refractory metal oxide support; Page 16-17, Example 2: Preparation of Catalyst Sample 3; The above dried powder was next impregnated with Pt-amine solution using standard incipient wetness procedure, with a targeted Pt concentration at 1.1 wt.%).
With regard to Claim 9, Sung teaches the catalyst wherein a source of the sulfur-containing component is selected from the group consisting of sulfuric acid, ammonium sulfate, and a combination thereof (Page 16-17, Example 2: Preparation of Catalyst Sample 3; A high surface area silica-alumina support from a commercial supplier having a BET surface area of about 160 to 200 M2/g and a pore volume of 0.8 to 0.9 cc/g, was impregnated with ammonium sulfate (NH4)2SO4 solution using standard incipient wetness procedure, with a targeted sulfur concentration of 1.4 wt.%).
With regard to Claims 17 and 18, Sung teaches the shaped extrudate having a cylindrical form or lobed form, wherein the shaped extrudate has an aspect ratio of 1:1 to 20:1 (Page 17, The milled slurry was coated onto a 1"Dx3"L ceramic honeycomb core; Fig. 1; Page 11, Referring to FIG. 1, the exemplary substrate 2 has a cylindrical shape and a cylindrical outer surface 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (WO 2018/025208 A1) in view of Alvarez-Galvan et al. (“Hydrogen production for fuel cell by oxidative reforming of diesel surrogate: Influence of ceria and/or lanthana over the activity of Pt/Al2O3 catalysts”).
With regard to Claim 6, Sung teaches the non-noble metal dopant comprising titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), samarium (Sm), gadolinium (Gd), ytterbium (Yb), or metal oxides thereof (Page 9, Exemplary combinations of metal oxides include alumina-zirconia, ceria-zirconia, alumina-ceria-zirconia, lanthana-alumina, lanthana-zirconia-alumina, baria-alumina, baria lanthana-alumina, baria lanthana-neodymia alumina, and alumina-ceria).
However, Sung is silent to the non-noble metal dopant comprising titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), samarium (Sm), gadolinium (Gd), ytterbium (Yb), or metal oxides thereof, wherein the non-noble metal dopant is present in an amount of from 0.01 to 10 wt.% of catalyst, measured as oxide.
Alvarez-Galvan discloses a catalyst wherein the non-noble metal dopant is present in an amount of from 0.01 to 10 wt.% of catalyst, measured as oxide (Table 1; Pt/A-L, 2.7 wt% La2O3). Alvarez-Galvan notes that lanthana improves the thermal stability of alumina (Page 2503, Lanthana appeared to be one of the best additives for inhibiting the sintering of high surface area Al2O3…The main role of La is to stabilize Al2O3, decreasing the rate of surface diffusion that hinders sintering and loss of surface area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Sung to teach the catalyst wherein the non-noble metal dopant comprises titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), samarium (Sm), gadolinium (Gd), ytterbium (Yb), or metal oxides thereof, wherein the non-noble metal dopant is present in an amount of from 0.01 to 10 wt.% of catalyst, measured as oxide, as taught in Alvarez-Galvan, as lanthana improves the thermal stability of alumina.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sung et al. (WO 2018/025208 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Sung teaches the catalyst wherein molar ratio of noble metal to sulfur is in a range of from 1:1 to 1:5, and wherein the sulfur-containing component is calculated as elemental sulfur (Claim 2, wherein the Pt component and the sulfur-containing component are present in a Pt:S molar ratio in a range of about 1:1 to about 1:5, and wherein the sulfur-containing component is calculated as sulfur dioxide (SO2)).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed March 2, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Sung et al. (WO 2018/025208 A1), claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sung in view of Alvarez-Galvan et al. (“Hydrogen production for fuel cell by oxidative reforming of diesel surrogate: Influence of ceria and/or lanthana over the activity of Pt/Al2O3 catalysts”), and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sung have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Sung, claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sung in view of Alvarez-Galvan, and claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sung.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 in view of Sung, on page 6 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that “Sung does not disclose a supported noble metal catalyst that includes a carrier in the form of a shaped extrudate. Sung is silent regarding extrudates or extrusion processes”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the catalyst composition is coated on a ceramic honeycomb carrier that is of a cylindrical shape and meets the aspect ratio limitation as claimed (see Claims 1 and 17-18 rejections).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lapinski et al. (WO 2013/012489 A2) teaches a reforming catalyst comprising a noble metal and a cylindrical extrudate support. The catalyst has application in hydrogenation-dehydrogenation reactions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights