DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a “use” of a catalyst. Per MPEP 2173.05(q), "use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 10 merely recites a use of a catalyst, without any actual method, and as such, is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites a “use” of a catalyst, which is an attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. Such claims are considered indefinite per MPEP 2173.05(q).
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 1-9 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.). 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 7, in a specific example, Chuande teaches using both sodium and iron as the metals (see e.g. paragraph [n0034]).
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 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 metal used in the example is nickel (Id.). The solvent used in the example is methanol (Id.).
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]). The metal can be an iron ion, which is one of the recited metals (Id.). 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]).
Regarding claim 7, 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 (see e.g. paragraph [0024]). The iron and other element ions are necessarily mixed in a ratio (see e.g. paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Qikun teaches using the catalyst for ammonia synthesis (see e.g. paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
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