DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending and under consideration in this 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered.
On page 5 of the response, Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 10 overcome the pending rejections under § 101 and 112. Examiner agrees and the rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicants arguments with respect to the patentability of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant argues that the catalyst of Chuande operates differently than the catalyst of claim 1. Applicant further argues that the catalyst of claim 1 has iron active centers dispersed in pores of the silicate and doped with different metal co-catalysts, resulting in a catalyst that is easily adjustable, green, and efficient. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Each of the structural limitations recited in claim 1 is taught by the cited prior art, and Applicant does not point to any recited structural feature of the catalyst that is allegedly not taught by the prior art.
On page 7, Applicant argues that the catalyst of Chuande is not used for ammonia synthesis so it cannot provide any technical hints or teaching. However, claim 1 is drawn to a catalyst itself, not a method of using the catalyst. As the catalyst of Chuande teaches all recited limitations of the claim, the fact that Chuande teaches a different purpose does not make the claim patentable.
On page 7, Applicant broadly states that Qikun also fails to teach the catalyst of claim 1, but does not provide any facts or reasoning for this assertion. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. For this reason the arguments over Qikun are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN113275016A (“Chuande”, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Chuande teaches a porous catalyst prepared by a sol-gel method (see e.g. paragraph [n0004]). The catalyst is formed by using a silicon source as a raw material and a metal complex as a templating agent (Id.). The metal complex is formed through a coordination bond between a ligand and a metal ion, such as iron (Id.). In a specific example, Chuande teaches using iron and sodium as co-catalysts, which would necessarily be added in a ratio (see e.g. paragraph [n0034]). The organic ligands of Chuande contain nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or oxygen (Id.). Claim 1 recites that the catalyst is an ammonia synthesis catalyst. However, this statement is merely an intended use of the catalyst, and does not impart any structural limitations. Per MPEP 2111.02.II, If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of 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. As Chuande teaches each limitation of the actual catalyst it is immaterial whether Chuande describes the catalyst as being used in ammonia synthesis.
Regarding claim 2, Chuande teaches that the organic ligand is preferably a carboxylic acid ligand (see e.g. paragraph [n0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Chuande specific states that the metal complex can be a transition metal benzoate, which has a benzoic acid ligand (see e.g. paragraph [n0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Chuande teaches that the silicon source is preferably tetraethyl orthosilicate (see e.g. paragraph [n0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Chuande teaches that the catalyst is a silicate catalytic material containing a metal active center (see e.g. paragraph [n0012]). The ratio of silicon to the active metal center is from 10-1000: 1, which overlaps with the claimed range (Id.). In a specific example provided by Chuande, the molar ratio is 14:1, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [n0023]).
Regarding claim 6, in a specific example, Chuande teaches that the surface area of the catalyst is 326 m2/g and the pore size is 2 nm, both of which are within the claimed ranges (see e.g. paragraph [n0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Chuande teaches a method of preparing a porous catalyst (see e.g. paragraph [n0004]). The method of Chuande includes adding a silicon source into a metal carboxylate solution where it is dissolved (see e.g. paragraph [n0022]). Chuande teaches that the gel is formed in a hydrothermal reactor, and the solution is thus within a hydrothermal reaction vessel (Id.). Chuande teaches drying the gel in a muffle furnace at 400-800°C for 1-4 hours, both of which are within the claimed ranges (see e.g. paragraph [n0009]). The drying can be performed in an air atmosphere at constant temperature (Id.).
Regarding claim 9, in a specific example, Chuande teaches using both sodium and iron as the metals (see e.g. paragraph [n0034]). Chuande teaches adding the carboxylic acid ligand and transition metal in a 2.5 : 1 ratio, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [n0022]). The solvent used in the example is methanol (see e.g. paragraph [n0034]).
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108435179 (“Qikun”, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Qikun teaches an ammonia synthesis catalyst (see e.g. paragraph [0006]). The catalyst is prepared by a sol-gel method (see e.g. paragraph [0008]). The method includes adding a metal salt and urea, which would therefore act as an organic ligand containing nitrogen and oxygen forming a metal complex (see e.g. paragraph [0051]). Qikun teaches that the active metal ion is iron and a divalent transition metal (see e.g. paragraph [0008]). The divalent transition metal can be cobalt, nickel, copper, or zinc, each of which are recited in the claim, and would necessarily be added in a ratio with respect to the iron (see e.g. paragraph [0024]). The method also includes adding a silicon source, such as TEOS (Id.).
Regarding claim 4, Qikun teaches that the silicon source is tetraethyl orthosilicate or TEOS (see e.g. paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Qikun teaches that the active metal includes iron and an additional metal, each in about equal amounts (see e.g. paragraph [0035]). The iron : silica ratio is 1 : 5-8, meaning that the total silica to active metal ratio is 2.5 – 4 : 1, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0036]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qikun in view of US 20230347320A1 (“Nagaoka”).
Regarding claim 10, Qikun teaches using the catalyst for ammonia synthesis, but does not provide the specific conditions used (see e.g. paragraph [0006]). However, Nagaoka teaches a similar reaction for the synthesis of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen using an iron based catalyst (see e.g. paragraphs [0002] and [0062]). Nagaoka teaches that the catalyst is placed into a quartz packed reactor (see e.g. paragraph [0250]). The reaction gas of nitrogen and hydrogen is introduced at a ratio of 1 : 1, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0239]). The pressure is between 1.0 and 3.0 MPa, which is within the claimed range (Id.). The temperature is 350-450 °C, which is within the claimed range (Id.). The reaction space velocity is 72 L.g-1.h-1, which is within the claimed range (Id.). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the synthesis conditions of Nagaoka to produce ammonia as taught by Qikun because Nagaoka teaches that these conditions are effective for ammonia synthesis using similar iron based catalysts.
Conclusion
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 ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights