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 II, claims 20-31 in the reply filed on August 17th, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s amendments to claims 32-33 clarify the issue cited on Page 2, lines 11-14 of the Restriction Requirement dated May 4th, 2026 and establish that these claims are part of the non-elected Group I, which also includes claims 14-19.
Claims 14-19 and 32-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 17th, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 28 recites a limitation directed to “grinding the salt mixture while calcining”. With respect to grinding, the instant Specification states, “Periodic grinding during the calcining process is preferred” (Specification, Page 14, line 15). The example provided for perovskite calcining is also consistent with periodic grinding (Specification, Page 20, lines 31-33, “The perovskite powder was then removed and hand ground using agate mortar and pestle, after which it was calcined for a second cycle at 600°C for 3 h.”). In accordance with the Specification, periodic grinding between calcining steps is interpreted to read on “grinding the salt mixture while calcining”, as individual claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP § 2111.
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 (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 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 20-27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn (WO 2018/222749 A1) in view of Lima (“Structural features of La1-xCexNiO3 mixed oxides and performance for the dry reforming of methane”, 2006).
Regarding claim 20, Kuhn teaches a method of preparing a perovskite catalyst (Kuhn, [00124]), the method comprising:
dissolving salts of Sr, La, and Fe (Kuhn, [00124]), which differs from the claimed Ni, La, and Ce, to form a homogenous solution (“Metal precursors La(NO3)3 (Aldrich 99.9%), SrCO3 (Aesar 99.994%), and Fe(NO3)3 (Aldrich ACS grade +98%) were each dissolved into the CA solution followed by 2 hr of stirring (200 rpm) at 60°C to minimize mixture variations.”),
drying the solution to form a salt mixture (Kuhn, [00124], red viscous gel charred at 450°C),
calcining the salt mixture to form a perovskite having a formula La0.75Sr0.25FeO3 (Kuhn, [00124], effectively La1-xSrxFeO3, where x = 0.25), which differs from the claimed formula of La1-xCexNiO3,
blending the perovskite with a rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier to form a blend (Kuhn, [00124], CeO2; Page 11, lines 23-25 of the instant Specification indicate that ceria is a rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier),
sintering the blend to form the perovskite catalyst (Kuhn, [00124], “LSF and the respective materials (X% w/w LSF/support) were grinded together by hand in a mortar and pestle for about 15 min and then heated in air at 950°C for 10 hr to achieve aggregation of constituents and to ensure strong adhesion of the perovskite phase to the support particles.”).
While Kuhn’s La0.75Sr0.25FeO3 differs from the claimed La1-xCexNiO3, where 0.02 < x < 0.98, Kuhn teaches generally that cerium (Ce) is a possible A component, that A can have a formula of A1xA2y, where x is 0-1, y is 0-1, and the sum of x and y is 1, and that nickel (Ni) is a possible B component in an ABO3 perovskite catalyst (Kuhn, [0076], [0080]). Moreover, Lima teaches the preparation of a La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 perovskite (Lima, Page 95, Col. 2, Paragraph 2) which participates as a reverse water gas shift catalyst (Lima, Fig. 9, Page 103, Col. 1, Paragraph 1), which is the purpose of Kuhn’s catalyst (Kuhn, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted Kuhn’s La0.75Sr0.25FeO3 perovskite for Lima’s La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 perovskite. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, as Kuhn lists Ce, Ni, and La as suitable components to use in the perovskite, and Lima teaches that La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 is suitable as a catalyst in the reverse water gas shift reaction (Lima, Fig. 9, Page 103, Col. 1, Paragraph 1), it would have been obvious to employ La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 as the perovskite component of Kuhn’s catalyst, which conforms to the claimed formula of La1-xCexNiO3, where x = 0.05.
While the salts of Sr and Fe used in the embodiment of Kuhn cited above (Kuhn, [00124]) differ from the claimed salts of Ni and Ce, selecting Lima’s La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 material would naturally render Lima’s method for preparing it obvious. In Lima’s preparation of La0.95Ce0.05NiO3, salts of Ni, La, and Ce are dissolved to form a homogeneous mixture, dried to form a salt mixture, and calcined to form La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 (Lima, Page 95, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, Ni(NO3)2•6H2O, La(NO3)3•5H2O, and Ce(NO3)3•6H2O). These steps would have been obvious to perform to yield the predictable effect of acquiring La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 to use as a perovskite in Kuhn’s catalyst. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143.B.).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the blend is sintered at 950°C (Kuhn, [00124]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising adding and dissolving citric acid in the solution (Lima, Page 95, Col. 2, Paragraph 2; see rejection of claim 20 above regarding the obviousness of using Lima’s synthetic procedure to prepare Lima’s La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 perovskite material).
Regarding claims 23-24, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the salt mixture is calcined at a temperature of 550°C (Lima, Page 95, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, “This citrate precursor obtained was then crushed and decomposed at 823 K for 3 h, and finally calcined in air at 1173 K for 10 h for obtaining the final mixed oxide.” Lima thereby calcines in two steps: first at 550°C, and again at 800°C; see rejection of claim 20 above regarding the obviousness of using Lima’s synthetic procedure to prepare Lima’s La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 perovskite material).
Regarding claims 25-26, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the salt mixture is calcined for 10 hours (Lima, Page 95, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, “This citrate precursor obtained was then crushed and decomposed at 823 K for 3 h, and finally calcined in air at 1173 K for 10 h for obtaining the final mixed oxide.” Lima thereby calcines in two steps: first at 550°C for 3 hours, and again at 800°C for 10 hours; see rejection of claim 20 above regarding the obviousness of using Lima’s synthetic procedure to prepare Lima’s La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 perovskite material).
Regarding claim 27, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the salt mixture is calcined at a temperature of 550°C for 3 hours (Lima, Page 95, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, “This citrate precursor obtained was then crushed and decomposed at 823 K for 3 h, and finally calcined in air at 1173 K for 10 h for obtaining the final mixed oxide.” Lima thereby calcines in two steps: first at 550°C, and again at 800°C; see rejection of claim 20 above regarding the obviousness of using Lima’s synthetic procedure to prepare Lima’s La0.95Ce0.05NiO3 perovskite material).
Regarding claim 29, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the perovskite and rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier are blended in a weight ratio of 1:3 (Kuhn, [00124], [00150], Table 3, LSF25/CeO2).
Regarding claim 30, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 29 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the perovskite and rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier are blended in a weight ratio of 1:3 (Kuhn, [00124], [00150], Table 3, LSF25/CeO2), which differs from the claimed weight ratio of from 1:2 to 2:1. However, Kuhn teaches that a weight ratio of the perovskite oxide to the oxide support can be in a range of 1:9 to 9:1 (Kuhn, [00103], 10:90 to 90:10) and exemplifies a ratio 1:1 within this range (Kuhn, [00103], 50:50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a weight ratio of the perovskite and rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier of 1:1, as Kuhn teaches that this is a suitable option from a list of perovskite oxide: oxide support ratios (Kuhn, [00103]), and the support used in the embodiment above (Kuhn, [00124], [00150], CeO2) is itself a rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier. In efforts to maximize the beneficial effects of increasing exposed surface area while improving catalyst stability (Kuhn, [0061]-[0062]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select this catalyst: support mass ratio.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the perovskite: rare earth metal oxide oxygen carrier ratios a because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 31, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above. While the embodiment of Kuhn cited above (Kuhn, [00124]) does not explicitly teach further grinding or forming the perovskite catalyst into pellets or beads after sintering the blend, Kuhn teaches generally that the catalyst may be shaped into pellets (Kuhn, [0091] under heading “The catalyst composite”, “Industrial-scale pellets are often shaped as spheres, cylinders, Raschig rings and other common variations with an extruded substrate serving as a catalyst support.”). Kuhn also teaches implicitly that pellets should be designed with a supporting material (Kuhn, [00148], “As opposed to using bulk single-phase catalyst pellets, the inclusion of supporting material was necessary to improve perovskite surface area and accelerate oxygen self-diffusion.”… “This phenomenon, Illustrated in Fig. 7 with LSF, foreshadowed low CO yields and long cycle times if pellets were designed without supporting material able to maintain a high surface to volume ratio for the perovskite phase.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the perovskite catalyst into pellets after sintering the blend, as Kuhn teaches that this is a conventional means of forming the catalyst into a usable form (Kuhn, [0091]), that surface area consideration is important for designing pellets (Kuhn, [00148]), and that the support provides a means of increasing the surface area (Kuhn, [00140], [00144]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of successfully acquiring a usable catalyst pellet when forming the perovskite catalyst into pellets after sintering the blend.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn (WO 2018/222749 A1) in view of Lima (“Structural features of La1-xCexNiO3 mixed oxides and performance for the dry reforming of methane”, 2006), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Campbell (U.S. Patent No. 5,026,945, 1991).
Regarding claim 28, modified Kuhn renders the method of claim 20 obvious, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach grinding the salt mixture while calcining. However, Campbell teaches grinding perovskite precursors during calcination (Campbell, Col. 6, lines 31-37, “A technique which has been employed for making perovskites is to effect two or more calcinings with regrinding and preferably adding additional alkali carbonate to the reground intermediate product. This technique thus enhances compositional uniformity of the
perovskite and assures that adequate alkali metal is provided to fill the alkali metal sites in the perovskite.”; see Claim Interpretation section regarding “grinding the salt mixture while calcining”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ground the salt mixture of modified Kuhn (i.e., the dried mixture of Ni(NO3)2•6H2O, La(NO3)3•5H2O, and Ce(NO3)3•6H2O after processing with citric acid) while calcining. From Campbell, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that doing so would enhance compositional uniformity of the perovskite product (Campbell, Col. 6, lines 31-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights