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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of any combination thereof” appears to be a typographical error for “or any combination thereof”. 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 9-10 and 12 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 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation perovskites or other materials containing Dy, Pb, Bi, Pr, Ferrites or any combination thereof, and the claim also recites Dy2O3, PrOx, BiOx, or any combination thereof which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In Claim 9, the limitation “perovskites or other material containing Dy, Pb, Bi, Pr, Ferrites, or any combination thereof” also lacks clarity since it leads to confusion over whether perovskite is a limitation. Also it is unclear whether “containing Dy, Pb, Bi, Pr, Ferrites, or any combination thereof” refers to the “perovskite” or only refers to the “other materials”.
Claim 9 also contains the limitation PrOx and BiOx which render the claim indefinite because “x” and “x” are undefined. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 lacks clarity since it appears to include exemplary or preferred embodiments for claimed the mixed manganese silica oxides. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language, “optionally wherein the mixed manganese silica oxides are synthesized in such a way that a substantial portion of the Mn and Si exist in a mixed MnxSiyOz phase, optionally wherein the mixed phase comprises Mn7SiO12, and wherein the mixed manganese silica oxide provide improved redox kinetics , oxygen capacity or both over a SiO2 supported MnOx phase; and wherein the manganese silica oxides comprise Mn loading of >30% so that the mixed manganese silica oxides are formed in an oxygenated environment and resulting in improved usable oxygen capacity” is limiting on the mixed manganese silica oxides or not. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “wherein the oxygen carrier comprises mixed manganese silica oxides.”
Claim 10 also contains the limitation MnxSiyOz which render the claim indefinite because “x”, “y” and “z” are undefined. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 contains the limitation Mn2-xSiO4 which render the claim indefinite because “x” is undefined. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Mazurek teaches a composition for the dehydrogenation of C2-C5 alkanes (see Col 11, Ln 44-64), the composition comprising Mn
Claims 1-4, 7, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al (“Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Ethane: A Chemical Looping Approach, Energy Tech, (2016), pp 1200-1208, which was first published June 14, 2016 submitted in the IDS filed 9/8/2023) and in further view of Gartner et al (EP 2,606,964 cited on 12/16/2021 during prosecution of the Parent Application 16/622,627) and in further view of Kristofferson et al (“Molten LiCl Layer supported on MgO: It’s Possible Role in Enhancing the Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Ethane”, J Phys Chem C (2015), 119, 8681-8691 cited on 12/16/2021 during prosecution of the Parent Application 16/622,627).
Regarding Claim 1, Neal discloses a chemical looping approach to ODH of ethane comprising redox catalyst system comprising MnOx/SiO2 and MnOx/MgO due to its known oxygen storage capacity and activity for ODH reactions (see Abstract and Results and Discussion, Support Selection Rationale). Neal’s redox catalyst systems in the chemical looping ODH reaction comprising MnOx/SiO2 and MnOx/MgO therefore read on a catalyst comprising an oxygen carrier. Neal discloses that the catalyst used in a chemical looping based ODH (CL-ODH) increases the ethane conversion and yield (see Abstract).
Neal does not disclose the catalyst further comprising an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core region, the outer shell comprising a metal salt.
Regarding the catalyst with a core and a shell, Gartner discloses a core-shell structure comprising a eutectic mixture of alkali and/or earth alkali chlorides as a shell on a support of a doped MgO (see [0020-0029]). Gartner further suggests that a catalyst comprising the aforementioned shell improves activity, selectivity and resilience against poisoning compared to catalysts of metal oxides alone or of metal oxides deposited with a shell of a eutectic mixture of chloride salts (See [0005-0011] and [0018-0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the catalyst for CL-ODH as disclosed by Neal where the catalyst further comprises the promoter as a shell on the oxide oxygen carrier as disclosed by Gartner to improve the activity, selectivity and resilience to poisoning during OHD of ethane as disclosed by Gartner.
Regarding the average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers, Kristoffersen discloses a thin layer of LiCl composed of 45 Li+ and 45 Cl-ions (i.e. 45 monolayers) supported on MgO (see Abstract and Page 8682, ¶3). Kristofferson discloses that molten lithium chloride supported on various oxides promotes the catalytic activity for ODH of ethane (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the catalyst for CL-ODH as disclosed by Neal where the catalyst further comprises the promoter as a shell on the oxide oxygen carrier where the shell comprises a thickness of 45 monolayers as disclosed by Kristoffersen since Kristoffersen suggests that the thin layer of 45 monolayers promotes catalytic activity for ODH of ethane.
Regarding claims 2-3, Neal discloses a redox catalyst comprising a sodium tungstate promoter (see Page 1203, ¶1).
Regarding claim 4, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose LiCl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an oxygen carrier core and promoter shell redox catalyst for ODH of ethane as suggested by Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen where the promoter comprises LiCl since LiCl promotes the ODH of ethane as suggested by Gartner and Kristoffersen.
Regarding Claim 7, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose metal chlorides (i.e., metal halides).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is directed to a property of a catalyst according to claim 1. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, a newly discovered property does not render a compound unobvious, if (1) the claimed compound is structurally obvious from a prior art compound, (2) the claimed compound possesses the same property for which the prior art compounds were useful, and (3) the prior art compound in fact possesses the newly discovered property of the claimed compound. Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (DC ED Pa 1970) 420 F2d 950, 164 U.S.P.Q 556.
Here the claimed and prior art compounds possess a close structural relationship and a specific significant property in common which renders the claimed compounds obvious to one skilled in the art, they are effectively placed in the public domain and unpatentable per se, even though the applicant has discovered that they possess an additional activity. In re Mod, et al. (CCPA 1969) 408 F2d 1055, 161 U. S. P. Q. 281. Specifically, as applied above Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen suggest the chemical looping catalyst comprising an oxygen carrier core comprising an oxide and a metal salt shell comprising LiCl with a thickness of 45 monolayers which is also explicitly disclosed as catalytically active for the ODH of ethane. Because the prior art discloses a compound structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, with respect to the core material, the shell material, and the thickness of the shell, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the composition suggested by the references to exhibit the property (activity for ODH at the temperatures claimed) in amounts comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 14, LiCl has a cation to anion ratio of 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is directed to a property of a catalyst according to claim 1. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, a newly discovered property does not render a compound unobvious, if (1) the claimed compound is structurally obvious from a prior art compound, (2) the claimed compound possesses the same property for which the prior art compounds were useful, and (3) the prior art compound in fact possesses the newly discovered property of the claimed compound. Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (DC ED Pa 1970) 420 F2d 950, 164 U.S.P.Q 556.
Here the claimed and prior art compounds possess a close structural relationship and a specific significant property in common which renders the claimed compounds obvious to one skilled in the art, they are effectively placed in the public domain and unpatentable per se, even though the applicant has discovered that they possess an additional activity. In re Mod, et al. (CCPA 1969) 408 F2d 1055, 161 U. S. P. Q. 281. Specifically, as applied above Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen suggest the chemical looping catalyst comprising an oxygen carrier core comprising an oxide and a metal salt shell comprising LiCl with a thickness of 45 monolayers which is also explicitly disclosed as catalytically active for the ODH of ethane. Because the prior art discloses a compound structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, with respect to the core material, the shell material, and the thickness of the shell, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the composition suggested by the references to exhibit the property (claimed enhanced oxygen release/decomposition properties to allow significantly reduced, near neutral or exothermic heat of reaction in ODH) in amounts comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is directed to a property of a catalyst according to claim 1. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, a newly discovered property does not render a compound unobvious, if (1) the claimed compound is structurally obvious from a prior art compound, (2) the claimed compound possesses the same property for which the prior art compounds were useful, and (3) the prior art compound in fact possesses the newly discovered property of the claimed compound. Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (DC ED Pa 1970) 420 F2d 950, 164 U.S.P.Q 556.
Here the claimed and prior art compounds possess a close structural relationship and a specific significant property in common which renders the claimed compounds obvious to one skilled in the art, they are effectively placed in the public domain and unpatentable per se, even though the applicant has discovered that they possess an additional activity. In re Mod, et al. (CCPA 1969) 408 F2d 1055, 161 U. S. P. Q. 281. Specifically, as applied above Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen suggest the chemical looping catalyst comprising an oxygen carrier core comprising an oxide and a metal salt shell comprising LiCl with a thickness of 45 monolayers which is also explicitly disclosed as catalytically active for the ODH of ethane. Because the prior art discloses a compound structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, with respect to the core material, the shell material, and the thickness of the shell, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the composition suggested by the references to exhibit the property (activity for ODH at the temperatures and via the two-step reduction-oxidation process as claimed) in amounts comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Mahmoodi et al (Effect of promoter in the oxidative coupling of methane over synthesized Mn/SiO2 nanocatalysts via incipient wetness impregnation, J Ind Eng Chem, 16 (2010) 923-928 cited on 4/28/2022 during prosecution of the parent application 16/622,672).
As applied to Claim 1, Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose a catalyst comprising a core region having an outer surface, the core region comprising an oxygen carrier due to its known oxygen storage capacity and activity for ODH reactions, and an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core region, the outer shell comprising a metal salt for promoting ODH catalytic activity.
Regarding Claim 5, Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen do not disclose an outer shell comprising a molybdate salt having a formula A2MoO4 where A is Li, Na, K, or Cs.
Mahmoodi discloses a redox reaction catalyst comprising sodium salts including Na2MoO4 and Na2WO4 as promoters on Mn/SiO2 based catalysts (see Abstract and Page 923, ¶2). Mahmoodi discloses that Na2WO4 and Na2MoO4 shows the best catalytic performance (see Page 927, Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare a catalyst as disclosed by Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen where the catalyst comprises a Na2MoO4 salt promoter as disclosed by Mahmoodi to improve promotion of redox reactions in transition metal oxides as suggested by Mahmoodi.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Cantrell et al (US 2002/0173420).
As applied to Claim 1, Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose a catalyst comprising a core region having an outer surface, the core region comprising an oxygen carrier due to its known oxygen storage capacity and activity for ODH reactions, and an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core region, the outer shell comprising a metal salt for promoting ODH catalytic activity.
Regarding Claim 6, Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen do not disclose an outer shell comprising a molybdate salt having a formula BMoO4 where A is Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, a transition metal or a rare earth oxide.
Cantrell teaches a catalyst for ODH of lower hydrocarbon, the catalyst including a co-catalyst comprising that improve selectivity including at least one metal selected form the group of V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Re, Fe, Sn, Pb, Sb, and Bi (i.e., transition metals) (see [0097]) including where suitable cocatalyst components include MnMO.4 among other MoO4 salts having the formula BMoO4 including other transition metals and Ba (See [0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the redox catalyst as taught by Neal, Gartner and Kristofferson where the catalyst further comprises transition metal molybdate salt including MnMoO4 since Cantrell teaches that MnMoO4 is a co-catalyst for oxidative dehydrogenation of lower hydrocarbon.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Dai et al (Comparison of LaFeO3, La0.8Sr0.2FeO3, and La0.8Sr0.2Fe0.9Co0.1O3 perovskite oxides as oxygen carrier for partial oxidation of methane, J Nat Gas Chem. 17 (2008) 415-418 cited on 4/28/2022 during prosecution of the parent application 16/622,627).
As applied to Claim 1, Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose a catalyst comprising a core region having an outer surface, the core region comprising MnOx/SiO2 and MnOx/MgO due to its known oxygen storage capacity and activity for ODH reactions, and an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core region, the outer shell comprising LiCl for promoting ODH catalytic activity.
Regarding Claim 8, Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen do not explicitly disclose an oxygen carrier comprising perovskites of the form MoO oxides, V oxides, mixed oxides, or any combination thereof.
Dai discloses La0.8Sr0.2FeO3 (i.e. a mixed oxide) perovskites as oxygen carrier in partial oxidation of methane (i.e. a redox reaction) (see Abstract and Page 416, ¶1). Dai further discloses the La0.8Sr0.2FeO3 perovskite oxygen carrier exhibits excellent structural stability and continuous oxygen supply (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the redox catalyst as disclosed by Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen which comprise a La0.8Sr0.2FeO3 perovskite (i.e., a mixed oxide perovskite) in the oxygen carrier to enhance the performance of the oxygen carrier because of its improved structural stability and continuous oxygen supply.
Regarding claim 9, Dai teaches a ferrite perovskite since the B site is occupied by Fe ions.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Jing et al (“Examination of oxygen uncoupling behaviour and reactivity towards methane for manganese silica oxygen carriers in chemical-looping combustion”, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 29 (2014) 70-81).
As applied to Claim 1, Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose a catalyst comprising a core region having an outer surface, the core region comprising MnOx/SiO2 and MnOx/MgO due to its known oxygen storage capacity and activity for ODH reactions, and an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core region, the outer shell comprising LiCl for promoting ODH catalytic activity.
Regarding Claim 10, Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen do not explicitly disclose an oxygen carrier comprising mixed manganese silica oxides.
Jing teaches manganese silica oxygen carriers including MnSiO3 and Mn7SiO12 braunite phase (mixed manganese silica oxide) for chemical looping with oxygen uncoupling (see Abstract). Jing teaches that oxygen carriers are very promising oxygen carriers because they improve mechanical integrity and attrition resistance (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the redox catalyst as disclosed by Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen where the oxygen carrier comprises mixed manganese silica oxide as taught by Jing to improve the mechanical integrity and attrition resistance while providing oxygen in chemical looping processes.
Regarding claim 12, Jing teaches that the oxygen carrier undergoes phase transition to tephronite Mn2SiO4 (which an artisan would recognize is an olivine) during oxygen release as an oxygen carrier (see Page 72, Col 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Sozinho et al (WO-2014/068205).
As applied to Claim 1, Neal, Gartner and Kristoffersen disclose a catalyst comprising a core region having an outer surface, the core region comprising an oxygen carrier due to its known oxygen storage capacity and activity for ODH reactions, and an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core region, the outer shell comprising a metal salt for promoting ODH catalytic activity.
Regarding Claim 11, Neal, Gartner, and Kristoffersen do not teach where the oxygen carrier comprises manganese ores comprising one or more minerals selected from pyrolusite, braunite, psilomelane, and Birnessite.
Sozinho teaches an oxidation/reduction active mass comprising pyrolusite natural manganese ore for chemical looping oxidation-reduction (redox) process (See Abstract and Objectives and summary of invention). Sozinho teaches that the use of manganese oxides from natural ores as oxygen carriers can be satisfactory solutions in terms of cost (see General Context). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the redox catalyst as taught by Neal, Gartner, and Kristofferson where the oxygen carrier comprises manganese ore comprising pyrolusite as taught by Sozinho to improve the cost of the redox catalyst.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 11,813,592 encompasses a redox catalyst comprising a core region having an outer surface, the core region comprising an oxygen carrier; and (b) an outer shell having an average thickness of about 1-100 monolayers surrounding the outer surface of the core regions, the outer region comprising a metal salt.
Regarding claim 2, claim 4 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, claim 5 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, claim 6 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, claim 7 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, claim 8 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, claim 9 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, claim 23 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, claim 21 of the ‘592 patent covers the same subject matter.
Claims 8-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,592 in view of Dai as cited above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to comprise a La0.8Sr0.2FeO3 perovskite (i.e., a mixed oxide perovskite) in the oxygen carrier to enhance the performance of the oxygen carrier because of its improved structural stability and continuous oxygen supply as taught by Dai.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,592 in view of Jing as cited above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to comprise mixed manganese silica oxide including the olivine tephronite Mn2SiO4 as taught by Jing to improve the mechanical integrity and attrition resistance while providing oxygen in chemical looping processes.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,592 in view of Sozinho as cited above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to comprise manganese ore comprising pyrolusite as taught by Sozinho to improve the cost of the redox catalyst.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights