DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application was filed on December 4, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 05/23/2024, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-18) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Jesse Gordon on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-18 are under examination on the merits.
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 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 5-6 contain terms “
PNG
media_image1.png
30
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, and “
PNG
media_image2.png
31
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”. However, the variable “δ” is not defined in the claims. Therefore, claims 5-6 are indefinite.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarfiello et al., Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, (2021), v.46, p.134-145 in view of US2021/0121857 (“the `857 publication”) to Mortensen et al., US2004/0168367 (“the `367 publication”) to Suenaga et al. and US2013/0018158 (“the `158 publication”) to Denifi et al.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a system, comprising: a composite catalyst comprising: a porous metal oxide; and a catalytically active phase supported by the porous metal oxide; and a power source configured to heat the composite catalyst by electrical resistance heating.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Scarfiello et al. (Abstract) discloses supported catalysts for induction-heated steam reforming of methane. Specifically, the supported catalysts are Ni60Co40 nanoparticles supported on γ-Al2O3 capable of simultaneously catalyzing the steam reforming reaction of methane and supplying in-situ the heat necessary to activate the reaction by induction heating, outlined in Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
500
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. In addition, Scarfiello et al. discloses the SEM images of all samples showed that the metal nanoparticles are evenly distributed within the porous aluminum structure (see right column at p.139). The metal catalysts contain Ni and Co such as Ni60Co40.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between the system of claim 1 and the system of Scarfiello et al. is that the prior art does not teach a power source configured to heat the composite catalyst by electrical resistance heating. Instead, Scarfiello et al. teaches the power source configured to heat the composite catalyst by induction heating system through an alternating radiofrequency magnetic field.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claim 1 would have been obvious over Scarfiello et al. because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `857 publication. The `857 publication teaches a system for methane steam reforming by resistance heating as being illustrated in Fig. 2.
Because both the systems are used for methane steam reforming, one ordinary skilled would have been motivated to using the resistance heating method disclosed by the `857 publication in the induction heating system of Scarfiello et al. for the same application.
In terms of claim 2 wherein the catalytically active phase is homogeneously distributed in the porous metal oxide, Scarfiello et al. teaches a method for preparing a composite catalyst by dipping the catalyst support γ-Al2O3 in a Ni(NO3)2*6H2O and Co(NO3)2*6H2O aqueous solution, drying, and calcination, resulting the composite catalyst having the catalytically active phase is homogeneously distributed in the porous metal oxide at left column at p.136 “Catalyst preparation and characterization”. In addition, Scarfiello et al. discloses “The SEM images of all samples showed that the metal nanoparticles are evenly distributed within the porous alumina structure.”
In terms of claim 3 wherein the catalytically active phase comprises a member selected from the group consisting of Ni, Ru, Fe, Pt, and Pd, Scarfiello et al. teaches the catalytically active phase comprises Ni.
In terms of claim 7 wherein the composite catalyst has a porosity of 20 % to 70 %, Scarfiello et al. teaches a method for preparing a composite catalyst by dipping the catalyst support γ-Al2O3 in a Ni(NO3)2*6H2O and Co(NO3)2*6H2O aqueous solution, drying, and calcination, resulting the composite catalyst having the catalytically active phase is homogeneously distributed in the porous metal oxide at left column at p.136 “Catalyst preparation and characterization”. In addition, Scarfiello et al. discloses “The SEM images of all samples showed that the metal nanoparticles are evenly distributed within the porous alumina structure.”, see right column, p.139. Depending on the synthesis conditions, samples loaded at 30% the size distribution curve shifts to higher median diameter values, 15-52 nm. The samples loaded at 30% indicates 30% active metal catalyst loaded within the porous catalyst support of metal oxide γ-Al2O3 having around a porosity of 30%.
In terms of claim 8 wherein the composite catalyst has a total surface area of 20 m2/g to 100 m2/g, Scarfiello et al. teaches the BET surface area of NiCo17 on support γ-Al2O3 was about 110 m2/g after the 5 h thermal treatment at 900 °C (Ar-H2 (3% vol)). However, it would have been obvious to have a composite catalyst has a total surface area of 100 m2/g based on the disclosure of the BET surface area of NiCo17 on support γ-Al2O3 was about 110 m2/g because they are very close in the BET value. In addition, the `158 publication (claim 1) teaches a catalyst in form of a solid particle, wherein the particle (a) has a specific surface area of less than 20 m2/g.
In terms of claim 9 wherein the catalytically active phase has a surface area of 1 m2/g to 20 m2/g, the `158 publication (claim 1) teaches a catalyst in form of a solid particle, wherein the particle (a) has a specific surface area of less than 20 m2/g.
In terms of claim 10 wherein the catalytically active phase comprises a member selected from the group consisting of nanoclusters and nanoparticles, Scarfiello et al. discloses “The SEM images of all samples showed that the metal nanoparticles are evenly distributed within the porous alumina structure.”, see right column, p.139.
In terms of claim 11 wherein the composite catalyst comprises 30 wt. % to 70 wt. % of the catalytically active phase, Scarfiello et al. discloses NiCo30 catalyst samples comprises 30 wt. % to 70 wt. % of the catalytically active phase, see Table 1 at p.136.
In terms of claims 12-13, the `857 publication teaches the composite catalyst comprises a tubular structure, see Fig. 4, and further comprising an inlet configured to deliver a gas to an interior space of the tubular structure.
In terms of claims 14-15, the `367 publication teaches a metal particle-dispersed composite oxide comprising honeycomb structures with a plurality of parallel channels, see FIGs. 8-9.
In terms of claim 16, further comprising: a pressure vessel; and an insulation material, wherein: the composite catalyst is disposed inside the pressure vessel; and the insulation material is between the pressure vessel and the composite catalyst, they are common design for one ordinary skilled in light of the disclosure of Fig. 1 by Scarfiello et al.
In terms of claim 17, see Fig. 1 by Scarfiello et al.
In terms of claim 18, it would be obvious over the disclosure by Scarfiello et al. because Fig. 1 by Scarfiello et al. is a reformer plant for preparing syngas, and a membrane gas separation unit is a common design for separating the prepared syngas from the residue catalyst solid.
Claim Objection
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusions
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are rejected.
Claim 4 is objected to.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights