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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, Claims 12-19 in the reply filed on 3/19/26is acknowledged.
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(s) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. “Variation in the In2O3 Crystal Phase alters Catalytic Performance Towards the Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction” and in view of Rossi et al. “Functionalization of Indium Oxide for Empowered Detection of CO2 over an Extra-Wide Range of concentrations”.
Wang describes a In2O3 catalyst (title) for use in CO2 hydrogenation (page 3265, right col, “Catalytic Testing”, line 1-2), which forms CO (page 3267, left col., para. 2). In tests, Wang teaches performing the CO2 hydrogenation in a fixed-bed reactor (see page 3265, right col., “Catalytic Testing”, line 1-3).
As to the catalyst being alkali doped, Wang does not teach this feature.
Rossi explains that when In2O3 is functionalized by Na, it enhances the surface reactivity of the oxide and promotes chemisorption of CO2 (abstract). Sodium increases the concentration of active sites and strengthens CO2 adsorption and reaction at the surface of the indium oxide (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indium oxide catalyst of Wang with sodium, as taught by Rossi because Rossi explains that sodium enhances the surface reactivity of the oxide and promotes chemisorption of CO2 and increases the concentration of active sites and strengthens CO2 adsorption and reaction at the surface.
As to Claims 13, 14 and 15, the specification explains that the way to produce a selectivity of the catalyst towards CO by at least 97.9% and away from methanol by less than 1.2% is by modifying the catalyst with alkali (see published specification, para. 89).
Therefore, since the composition contains alkali-modified In2O3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition modified in the same way would have the same selectivity features.
As to Claim 16, Wang teaches that the process is performed at about 450 degrees C (see Fig. 4 and page 3267, left col, para. 2, 3).
As to Claim 17, Wang teaches that the pressure of the process is operated at under 0.1 MPa (page 3265, right col., “Catalytic Testing”, lines 1-3).
As to Claim 18, Wang teaches that the feed gas into the catalyst is composed of CO2 and H2 (page 3265, right col, “Catalytic Testing”, lines 11-12).
As to Claim 19, Wang teaches that the ratio of gas is from 56:28 (see page 3265, right col. ““Catalytic Testing”, lines 11-12). Although Wang does not state that the ratio is in terms of moles, given that other compositions do describe the weight (for example, see “Synthesis of In2O3”section and the section under “catalytic testing” describing the weight of the catalyst), since the ratio is not in terms of weight, does not describe weights or grams, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ratio between CO2 and H2 describes a molar ratio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights