DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/553,120 application filed 28 September 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of 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.” Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701. In the instant case, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the catalyst structure and the recitation of “for synthesis gas production for use in production of a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen” merely states the purpose or intended use of the catalyst structure. Therefore, the recitation of “for synthesis gas production for use in production of a synthesis gas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen” is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Applicant is further reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, a fine metal particle has been interpreted as “a single elementary metal, a mixture of two or more metal elements, or a mixture of two or more metal elements at least partially forming an alloy” [see paragraph 0070 of the published application].
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al (CN 110691646).
Note: with respect to the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the English language equivalent, US 2020/0114338, of the aforementioned reference.
With respect to claims 1-4, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 20, Masuda et al discloses “a structured catalyst for CO shift or reverse shift that can realize a long life time by suppressing the decline in function, a method for producing the same, a CO shift or reverse shift reactor, a method for producing carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and a method for producing carbon monoxide and water. The structured catalyst for CO shift or reverse shift (1) includes a support (10) of a porous structure composed of a zeolite-type compound, and at least one…catalytic substance (20) present in the support (10), the support (10) has channels (11) connecting with each other, and the CO shift or reverse shift catalytic substance (20) is present at least in the channels (11) of the support (10)” [abstract].
PNG
media_image1.png
585
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
More particularly, the reference teaches “[t]he support 10 is a porous structure, and as illustrated in FIG. 1B, a plurality of pores 11a, 11a, . . . are preferably formed so as to have channels 11 connecting with each other. Here, the…catalytic substance 20 is present at least in the channel 11 of the support 10, and is preferably held at least in the channel 11 of the support 10” [paragraph 0075] and “the channel 11 has any one of a one-dimensional pore, a two-dimensional pore, and a three-dimensional pore defined by the framework of the zeolite-type compound and an enlarged pore portion different from any of the one-dimensional pore, the two-dimensional pore, and the three-dimensional pore. In this case, the…catalytic substance 20 is preferably present at least in the enlarged pore portion 12, and is more preferably embedded at least in the enlarged pore portion 12. Additionally, the enlarged pore portion 12 preferably connects with the plurality of pores 11a, 11a constituting any one of the one-dimensional pore, the two-dimensional pore, and the three-dimensional pore” [paragraph 0078] and “[t]he support 10 is composed of a zeolite-type compound. Examples of zeolite-type compounds include zeolite analog compounds such as zeolites (aluminosilicate), cation exchanged zeolites, silicate compounds such as silicalite, aluminoborate, alminoarsenate salts, and germanate salts” [paragraph 0082] and “[t]he case in which the…catalytic substance 20 is made of metal nanoparticles will be described below in detail… The metal nanoparticles only need to be nanoparticles constituted by at least one type of metal or metal oxide. For example, the metal nanoparticles may be constituted of a single metal or metal oxide, or may be constituted of a mixture of two or more types of metals or metal oxides…Examples of such a metal include platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), ruthenium (Ru), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), cerium (Ce), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), and aluminum (Al). Preferably, any one of metal described above is the major component. Examples of such metal oxides include cobalt oxide (CoOx), nickel oxide (NiOx), iron oxide (FeOx), copper oxide (CuOx), zirconium oxide (ZrOx), cerium oxide (CeOx),…titanium oxide (TiOx),…molybdenum oxide (MoOx), vanadium oxide (VOx), and chromium oxide (CrOx). Preferably, any one of oxides described above is the major component…Among the metal nanoparticles constituted of a metal or metal oxide described above, the metal nanoparticles are preferably nanoparticles composed of at least one type of metal or metal oxide selected from the group consisting of cobalt, nickel, iron…” [paragraphs 0084 & 0087-0090]. Clearly, from the preceding, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the structured catalyst of the reference preferably comprises an iron-group element (Ni, Fe, and/or Co) and also a transition element with redox capacity such as Ti, Mo, V, Zr, and Cr. Applicant is reminded that “[a] genus does not always anticipate a claim to a species within the genus. However, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named.” See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716. In the instant case Ti, Mo, V, Zr, and Cr and clearly and explicitly named and, therefore, obvious second metals on the structured catalyst of Masuda et al, which corresponds to the second catalyst of the instant application (note that something that is anticipatory is obvious although it is not the case that something that is obvious is anticipatory). Since any of Ti, Mo, V, Zr, and Cr may be second metals in the catalyst structure of the reference, which metals are represented by reference element 20 [figure 1B], it is obvious from figure 1B that any of Ti, Mo, V, Zr, and Cr may be present inside the carrier, and the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious.
With respect to claim 5, the disclosure of “at least one…catalytic substance” renders obvious the required third catalysts, and the explicit disclosure of platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), ruthenium (Ru),… renders said metals as third catalysts obvious.
With respect to claim 6, Masuda et al discloses “metal element 20 (M) of the metal nanoparticles is preferably contained in 0.5 to 2.5 mass % relative to the structured catalyst…and more preferably from 0.5 to 1.5 mass % relative to the structured catalyst” [paragraph 0086]. Thus, the required range is obvious in view of the teaching of the reference.
With respect to claim 7, see, again, figure 1B and paragraph 0096.
With respect to claim 8, see paragraph 0153: “…detected in the catalytic structural bodies of each example having an average particle size from 1.2 nm to 2.0 nm determined from the TEM image….” See, also, claim 7.
With respect to claim 9, note that from the preceding paragraph, 1.2 nm < Dc [figure 1B] < 2.0 nm. Masuda et al also discloses that 0.1 nm < Df < 1.5 nm [paragraph 0081], which yields a Dc/Df ratio greater than unity and less than 12.
With respect to claim 10, reference is made to the preceding discussion of claim 6, wherein it was noted “Masuda et al discloses ‘metal element 20 (M) of the metal nanoparticles is preferably contained in 0.5 to 2.5 mass %…’” If the first catalyst particle is 0.5 mass % and the second catalyst is 0.85 mass %, the sum is 1.35 mass %, which is less than 2.5 mass % taught by the reference and, therefore, obvious.
With respect to claim 13, see figure 1B. Dc appears to be less than DE.
With respect to claim 16, since the structured catalyst of Masuda et al appears to be the same or similar to that of the instant application, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that said structured catalyst is “is capable of exhibiting a CH4 conversion rate of 50% or more when loaded in an atmospheric pressure flow reactor, supplied with a raw material gas with a CH4/CO2 volume ratio of 1.0, and used to perform a dry reforming reaction at 700°C and a gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 2000 h1 for 1 hour from start of supply of the raw material gas.”
With respect to claims 18 and 21, see paragraphs 0128-0129. Further with respect to 21, note discussion above concerning metal oxides.
With respect to claim 19, applicant is reminded that repetition of a known process until success is achieved is one of the “inference and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would employ.” Perfect Web Technologies Inc. v InfoUSA Inc., 92 UPSQ2d 1850. Thus a second impregnation and firing (or calcination) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sekine et al (US 2022/0016608), which is equivalent to WO 2020/116475 and cited in the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, does not appear to be prior art since both references listed above (the US and WO references) fall under the exceptions provided by 35 USC § 102(b). The same applies to Nakai et al (WO2020/116477), which is equivalent to US 2022/0023848).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
22 April 2026
Prosecution Insights