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 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun WO 2022/081416 in view of Liu US 2016/0304344.
Regarding claim 1, Chun teaches a reforming catalyst (Abstract), wherein the catalyst system makes use of a monolith that may have a composition of 93 wt% alpha alumina, 5 wt% SiO2, and 2 wt% MgO (Paragraph 0057]), which meet the compositional ranges recited in instant claim 1. The frontal area of the monolith may be between 25% and 55% (Paragraph [0078]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The cell density may be between 100 to 600 cells per square inch (Paragraph [0078]).
Chun does not expressly state that the channels may have a substantially circular cross section.
Liu teaches an analogous reforming catalyst system where the monolith may be composed of channels have a square or circular cross section (Paragraph [0047]).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the catalyst of Chun with channels having a circular cross section in view of Liu. The rationale for do so would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2 and 5, the circular cross section may be considered at least rounded hexagons or triangles under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, Chun teaches the circular channels of Liu would inherently have a normalized radius.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches an analogous reforming catalyst system where the monolith may be composed of channels may have a circular cross section (Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Chun teaches the monolith may have no auxiliary oxides (Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Chun teaches the monolith may have a composition of 93 wt% alpha alumina, 5 wt% SiO2, and 2 wt% MgO (Paragraph 0057]). SiO2 and MgO are both listed as dopants so the combination of SiO2 and MgO is greater than just the amount of SiO2.
Regarding claim 9, Chun and Liu do not expressly state the density of the monolith. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 10, Chun teaches the monolith may have 400 cells per square inch (Paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 11, Chun teaches the monolith may have a washcoat (Fig. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights