DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-26 were subjected to restriction requirement mailed on 03/12/2026.
Applicants filed a response, and elected Group I, claims 1-11, and withdrew claims 12-26, with traverse on 06/10/2026.
Claims 1-26 are pending and claims 12-26 are withdrawn after consideration.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
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
It is noted that there is a typo in the Office Action mailed 03/12/2026, wherein page 2, paragraph 2, “Claims 12-24” should be corrected as “Claims 12-26”.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged. This is not found persuasive because the reason set forth below.
Applicants primarily argue:
“Applicant elects, with traverse, Group I, which includes claims 1-11 as set forth in the Restriction Requirement. Claims 12-24 have been withdrawn. Applicant respectfully submits that it would not be an undue burden for the Office to examine method claims 12-24.”
Remarks, p. 6
The examiner respectively traverses as follows:
While applicant argues that “that it would not be an undue burden for the Office to examine method claims 12-24”, applicants have provided no evidence to support this position. Therefore, the examiner’s position remains that Group I and Group II have a separate status in the art for the reasons set forth on pages 2-3 of the Office Action mailed on 06/10/2026. Further, as set forth on page 2 of the Office Action mailed on 06/10/2026, the examiner has established that the two groups have a different classification. Specifically, Group I, drawn to a catalyst, classified in B01J 23/58, and Group II, drawn to a method for catalyzing a reverse water gas shift reaction, classified in B01J 23/42.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/10/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-3, and 5-10, each recites a phrase “wt.%”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to wt.% based on a total weight of the catalyst for reforming a reverse water gas shift reaction, according to specification [0032].
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 appears to be identical to claim 6. It is suggested to amend or cancel claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson et al., Low temperature water-gas shift: Optimization of K loading on Pt/m-ZrO2 for enhancing CO conversion, Applied Catalysis A, General 598, 2020 (Watson) (provided in IDS received on 02/12/2024).
Regarding claims 1-11, Watson discloses potassium loading on Pt/ZrO2 catalyst (Watson, Title and Abstract);
In Table 1, samples include 0.85%K-2%Pt/ZrO2, 1.70%K-2%Pt/ZrO2, 2.60%K-2%Pt/ZrO2, 3.40%K-2%Pt/ZrO2, 4.25%K-2%Pt/ZrO2, 8.55%K-2%Pt/ZrO2 (i.e., wt% based on a total weight of the catalyst) (Watson, page 2, Table 1; page 7, section 2.1.), which are within the claimed ranges.
Watson further discloses platinum catalyzes oxygen-vacancy formation, which formally reduced surface Zr4+ to Zr3+ (reading upon a partially reduced metal (IV) oxide active support, comprises a partially reduced ZrO2) (Watson, page 3, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Further regarding claim 1, while there is no disclosure that the potassium loading on Pt/ZrO2 catalyst is for performing a reverse water gas shift reaction as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all 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”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. for performing a reverse water gas shift reaction, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights