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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner conducted an interview on 6/16/2026 with Rep. Jongwon Kim to clarify the possibly typographical error in claim 2 regarding the term “nitride”. Applicant confirmed the term “nitride” was intended to be “nitrate.” Accordingly, the objections to the specification and claims below are made for formal reasons. Additionally the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 addressing the claimed term “nitride” was included for formal reasons.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Pg. 3, lines 3-5, Applicant refers to “iron nitride” and “aluminum nitride” when Applicant likely intended “iron nitrate” and “aluminum nitrate”.
On Pg. 12, lines 4-11, Applicant refers to “iron nitride” and “aluminum nitride” when Applicant likely intended “iron nitrate” and “aluminum nitrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the terms “iron nitride” and “aluminum nitride” are likely intended to read “iron nitrate” and “aluminum nitrate”. The determination of this being a typographical error is supported by the Embodiments taught on Pg. 19 that describe using iron nitrate and aluminum nitrate as molecular precursor. Additionally, iron and aluminum nitride are known to be insoluble in water, further supporting the conclusion that Applicant intended the term to be “nitrate”.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and thus is also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 1, the phrase “A method of preparing a sodium-catalyzed iron-aluminum inorganic catalyst in a method of preparing a catalyst for catalyzing a hydrogenation reaction of carbon dioxide” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how the first method (i.e. preparing a sodium-catalyzed iron-aluminum inorganic catalyst) occurs “in” the second method (i.e. preparing a catalyst for catalyzing a hydrogenation reaction of carbon dioxide), when the claims are directed to preparing a sodium-catalyzed iron-aluminum inorganic catalyst. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant disclosure, the phrase was interpreted as containing a preamble directed towards a method of preparing a sodium-catalyzed iron-aluminum inorganic catalyst, where the further phrase of “in a method of preparing a catalyst for catalyzing a hydrogenation reaction of carbon dioxide” is considered an intended use of the catalyst (i.e. catalyzing a hydrogenation reaction of carbon dioxide) and is not further limiting the method of preparing the catalyst. This interpretation is supported in view of the remaining claims as well as the instant specification embodiments that teach preparing a catalyst for further use (see Pg. 19-20, Embodiment).
Claims 2-8 all depend from claim 1 and thus, are also rendered indefinite.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20210082923A English; cited in IDS dated 08/30/2023) in view of Cheng et al. (App. Cat. A. General 2015, 502, 204-214). Note, the copy of Kim et al. (KR20210082923A English) provided by Applicant on 08/30/2023 only has an English abstract. A fully translation provided by Examiner was cited below.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method of preparing a catalyst for converting carbon dioxide to C5+ liquid hydrocarbons (i.e. hydrocarbons with 5 or more carbons), where the catalyst comprises Fe, Al, and Na (Abstract; Pg. 5, par. 2-5). Kim describes this catalytic reaction as carbon dioxide hydrogenation (Pg. 2, Description, Par. 3). Examiner notes the term “sodium-catalyzed iron aluminum inorganic catalyst” is not provided an explicit definition by Applicant and is not explicitly stated in Kim, however the instant specification describes that “The sodium-catalyzed iron-aluminum inorganic catalyst according to the present invention can form long-chain hydrocarbons of C5+ with high selectivity under various conditions” ( see at least Pg.6, lines 17-20). Accordingly, Kim teaching the catalyst converts carbon dioxide to C5+ liquid hydrocarbons while comprising iron, aluminum, and sodium, meets the limitation “A method of preparing “sodium-catalyzed iron aluminum inorganic catalyst”.
Kim teaches the method includes dissolving an iron and aluminum precursor in solution to which a solution of sodium carbonate is added, where sodium carbonate acts as a precipitant (Pg. 4, Example 1). Kim teaches after sodium carbonate addition a suspension is obtained (i.e. a solution with brown precipitate), prior to continuously stirring the reaction, aging, and filtering the reaction precipitate (Pg. 4, Example 1). Kim teaches the obtained precipitate is dried prior to calcining, where the calcining is conducted at 600 °C for 6 hours under static air or air flow (Pg. 4, Example 1, 2). The calcination described by Kim is equivalent to the heat treatment described in at least Pg. 5, lines 15-20 and Pg. 20, lines 1-5 of the instant specification.
The claim further requires “a fifth step of adding and stirring the first catalyst powder and a sodium precursor material to water and evaporating the water and then performing a second heat treatment, thereby preparing a sodium-introduced iron-aluminum inorganic catalyst,” to which Kim is silent.
Cheng teaches a method of preparing a sodium-promoted iron and aluminum catalyst for Fischer-Tropsch catalysis, where after a catalyst containing Fe and Al is prepared and calcined, a sodium impregnation step is performed where catalyst powder in aqueous solution is treated with an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) prior to performing another calcining step at 400 °C for 6 hours under N2 flow (Abstract; Pg. 205, right col.). The calcining treatment of Cheng is similar to the heat treatment described on Pg. 5, lines 23-25, with the difference being nitrogen flow taught in Cheng. However, the instant specification states the heat treatment “may” be performed under these conditions and accordingly the treatment of Cheng is considered to meet the limitation required by the claim.
Advantageously, the incorporation of sodium into the catalyst prepared by Cheng provides higher selectivity of olefin-to-paraffin ratios for both light and heavy chain hydrocarbons (Abstract; Pg. 213-214, Conclusion). Cheng further teaches the preparation method is advantageous due to the low cost of iron (Pg. 204, right col.)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the calcined powder with sodium prior to further calcination in the method of Kim in order to provide higher selectivity of olefin-to-paraffin ratios for both light and heavy chain hydrocarbons with a low cost catalyst, as taught by Cheng.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and Kim further teaches the precipitant is sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) (Pg. 4, Example 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and 4 and Kim further teaches the pH of the reaction solution is 8 (Pg. 4, Example 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Kim (pH 8) overlaps with the claimed range (pH about 6.5 to 9.0). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and Kim further teaches Kim teaches the obtained precipitate is dried prior to calcining, where the calcining is conducted at 600 °C for 6 hours under static air or air flow (Pg. 4, Example 1, 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Kim (600 °C; 6 hours) overlaps with the claimed ranges (400 to 650 °C; 5 to 7 hours). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range.
Kim further teaches the prepared catalyst (i.e. after calcining) contains iron oxide (Fe2O3), aluminum oxide and iron-aluminum oxide (FeAlOx) (Pg. 3, par. 1, par. 4-7; Pg. 4 par. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the sodium precursor includes sodium carbonate,” to which Kim is silent.
Cheng teaches a method of preparing a sodium-promoted iron and aluminum catalyst for Fischer-Tropsch catalysis, where after a catalyst containing Fe and Al is prepared and calcined, a sodium impregnation step is performed where catalyst powder in aqueous solution art treated with aqueous solution of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) prior to performing another calcining step at 400 °C for 6 hours under N2 flow (Abstract; Pg. 205, right col.).
Advantageously, the incorporation of sodium into the catalyst prepared by Cheng provides higher selectivity of olefin-to-paraffin ratios for both light and heavy chain hydrocarbons (Abstract; Pg. 213-214, Conclusion). Cheng further teaches the preparation method is advantageous due to the low cost of iron (Pg. 204, right col.)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the calcined powder with sodium carbonate prior to further calcination in the method of Kim in order to provide higher selectivity of olefin-to-paraffin ratios for both light and heavy chain hydrocarbons with a low cost catalyst, as taught by Cheng.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20210082923A English; cited in IDS dated 08/30/2023) in view of Cheng et al. (App. Cat. A. General 2015, 502, 204-214) and further in view of Monden et al. (US9099749B2). .
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the iron (Fe) precursor material includes iron nitride, and the aluminum (Al) precursor material includes aluminum (Al) nitride,” to which Kim and Cheng are silent.
Monden teaches a method of preparing catalyst where metal containing precursor compounds are mixed prior to heat treatment, where the metal precursors include iron nitride and aluminum nitride (Abstract; col. 8, lines 21-67).
Advantageously, providing the reagents described by Monden provides a catalyst that is not corroded in acidic environments and that displays excellent durability and oxygen reducing ability (Abstract).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide nitride precursors, such as iron and aluminum nitride, in the method of Kim in order to provide a catalyst with resistant to acidic corrosion, high durability, and excellent oxygen reducing ability, as taught by Morden.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and Kim in view of Cheng and Morden teach the catalyst of claim 2. Kim further teaches the iron and aluminum precursors are provided with 10 g of iron(III) nitrate nonahydrate (Fe(NO3)3•9 H2O and 10 g of aluminum(III) nitrate nonahydrate (Al(NO3)3• 9 H2O (Pg. 4, Example 1). Converting the grams of each precursor to moles provides a taught range in Kim of 1:1.08 for the iron to aluminum molar ratios (see calculations below). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Kim (1:1.08 for the iron to aluminum molar ratios) overlaps with the claimed range (iron to aluminum precursor 1:0.5 to 1:1.15). Therefore, the range in Kim renders obvious the claimed range.
Calculations:
Fe(NO3)3•9 H2O molar mass = 404 g/mol
Al(NO3)3• 9 H2O molar mass = 375.13 g/mol
10 g Al(NO3)3• 9 H2O / 375.13 g/mol = 0.027 mol
10 g Fe(NO3)3•9 H2O / 404 g/mol = 0.025 mol
0.025/0.027 = 1:1.08 molar ratio (Fe to Al)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20210082923A English; cited in IDS dated 08/30/2023) in view of Cheng et al. (App. Cat. A. General 2015, 502, 204-214) and further in view of Arsalanfar et al. (J. Nat. Gas Sci. and Eng. 2012, 6, 1-13).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Cheng teach the method of claim 1 and 7 and the claim further requires “the second heat treatment is performed for 5 hours to 7 hours at a temperature of 400 °C to 650 °C and under an air flow condition,” to which Kim is silent.
Cheng teaches a method of preparing a sodium-promoted iron and aluminum catalyst for Fischer-Tropsch catalysis, where after a catalyst containing Fe and Al is prepared and calcined, a sodium impregnation step is performed where catalyst powder in aqueous solution is treated with an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) prior to performing another calcining step at 400 °C for 6 hours under N2 flow (Abstract; Pg. 205, right col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Cheng (400 °C; 6 hours) overlaps with the claimed ranges (400 to 650 °C; 5 to 7 hours). Therefore, the range in Cheng renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the incorporation of sodium into the catalyst prepared by Cheng provides higher selectivity of olefin-to-paraffin ratios for both light and heavy chain hydrocarbons (Abstract; Pg. 213-214, Conclusion). Cheng further teaches the preparation method is advantageous due to the low cost of iron (Pg. 204, right col.)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the calcined powder with sodium carbonate prior to further calcination in the method of Kim in order to provide higher selectivity of olefin-to-paraffin ratios for both light and heavy chain hydrocarbons with a low cost catalyst, as taught by Cheng.
The claim further requires the calcination is performed “under air flow condition,” while Cheng teaches calcination under nitrogen.
However, calcination under different atmospheres is well-established in the art, where Arsalanfar teaches a method of preparing iron-based catalysts for hydrogenation where calcination at 600 °C for 6 hours occurs under air flow atmosphere (Pg. 10-12, 3.1.3 Effect of Calcination Atmosphere; Pg. 13, Conclusion).
Advantageously, performing calcination under air flow conditions provides a catalyst with the best catalytic performance and increases the length of the carbon chain produced, increasing production of C5+ hydrocarbons by decreasing formation of C2-C4 light olefins (Fig. 13; Pg. 13, Conclusion).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform calcination under air flow in the method of Kim in order to provide a catalyst with the best performance that displays increased production of longer chain hydrocarbons, as taught by Arsalanfar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Espinoza et al. (US20040122115A1); Espinoza teaches a method of preparing an iron-based catalyst that includes a sodium promoter (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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 A. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights