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
Claims 47-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/18/2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9-13, 18, 20, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20120085102A1, hereinafter ‘Knook’.
Regarding Claim 1, Knook discloses a method of oxidizing methane comprising:
activating a methane oxidation catalyst at an activation temperature at or below about 450° C. while exposed to an activation gas including less than 100% oxygen for an activation time; and exposing the activated methane oxidation catalyst to a reaction gas mixture including less than 100% methane at a temperature of, or less than about 350° C. in the presence of an oxidative agent including less than 100% oxygen to convert the methane to an oxidized product ([0039]-[0042], Fig. 1: catalysts for methane oxidation are activated at 400 °C in air, and are subsequently exposed to a gas phase comprising methane).
Regarding Claims 6, 9-12, Knook discloses activation of the catalyst in air, a gas mixture containing about 20% oxygen and about 80% nitrogen, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 13, Knook discloses activation of the catalyst at 400 °C as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 18, 20, and 22, Knook discloses the presence of an activation gas, air, as discussed above. Therefore, since an oxidative agent is claimed in the alternative to an activation gas, the instant claims are met by Knook.
Regarding Claim 23, Knook discloses the reaction gas mixture includes less than 50% methane ([0039]: the gas phase contains less than 50% methane).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120085102A1, hereinafter ‘Knook’.
Regarding Claim 30, Knook does not disclose that the reaction gas mixture comprises 10 ppm or less methane.
However, Knook discloses that the inventive method is a method for purifying flue gas from engines, wherein methane is an undesirable contaminant as a greenhouse gas ([0002]-[0003]). Knook also discloses that it is preferable to remove methane to a level below 100 ppb (0.1 ppm), preferably to a level below the current detection limit of 10 ppb (0.01 ppm; [0013]). Therefore, the range of gases that one of skill in the art would consider suitable for treatment by the instant invention are those which have an amount of methane above these limits, i.e., gas streams having greater than 0.1 ppm, or greater than 0.01 ppm methane.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a stream of reaction gas having 10 ppm or less of methane in the invention of Knook – such a gas stream has an amount of methane greater than the preferable rate of removal, such that one of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the disclosed invention to achieve the preferable rate of removal of methane from the stream.
Regarding Claim 31, Knook makes obvious the methane oxidation catalyst comprises iron, copper, or nickel ([0021]: If desired, the catalyst may be promoted with copper).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120085102A1, hereinafter ‘Knook’, in view of US20170267616A1, hereinafter ‘Leshkov’.
Regarding Claim 2, Knook does not disclose a catalyst activation time of 240 minutes or less.
Leshkov discloses systems and methods for oxidation of an alkane (e.g., methane) into an alcohol (e.g., methanol) in the presence of a catalyst (Abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Leshkov as analogous the claimed invention, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, oxidation of methane to produce methanol - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Leshkov discloses activation of the oxidation catalyst – particularly, Leshkov discloses activating the catalyst under a flow comprising oxygen for a period of time between 1 and 10 hours ([0033]-[0034]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize an activation time between 1 and 10 hours as taught by Leshkov in the process of Knook. Such a duration has been shown in the prior art to predictably result in the activation of methane oxidation catalysts. This range overlaps with the instant claimed range - as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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) – as such, the instant claimed range is obvious over the prior art range.
Regarding Claim 5, Knook as modified above makes obvious an activation time of 90 minutes or less, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 34-35, while Knook discloses the use of a catalyst in the oxidation of methane which may be promoted with copper, Knook does not disclose that the catalyst comprises iron, copper, or nickel, or that the catalyst includes a zeolite comprising a copper zeolite, an iron zeolite, or a nickel zeolite.
However, Leshkov discloses that the catalyst may comprise zeolites, such as ZSM-5 and mordenite (MOR), copper-containing zeolites, and ferrierite (FER), an iron-containing zeolite ([0053]-[0054]). In examples, Leshkov discloses copper exchanged zeolites ZSM-5 and mordenite (MOR) are of particular importance due to similarities in their active sites to methane monooxygenase enzymes: “These zeolites oxidize methane at low temperatures (>423 K) using molecular oxygen. Yet, methane is strongly bound to the copper active site or Bronsted acid sites as surface methoxy species, requiring water to extract methanol while simultaneously deactivating the active sites. Here we report the first continuous, catalytic, low temperature, vapor phase oxidation of methane into methanol over Cu-ZSM-5 and Cu-MOR. Stable catalytic activity over Cu-ZSM-5 was observed over several days using a simple mixture of methane, oxygen, and water between 473 K and 498 K” ([0062]). Examples of Leshkov demonstrate successful catalysis of methane oxidation using these materials ([0063]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a copper-containing zeolite, such as ZSM-5 or MOR as taught by Leshkov in the process of Knook. Such materials have been shown by Leshkov to be used in such processes to predictably result in catalysis of methane oxidation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 17, which requires the activation temperature be below about 250 °C. The process of Knook discloses activation temperatures having a minimum of 350 °C ([0022]), and does not disclose or suggest operation outside this range to be effective in activation of the disclosed catalyst.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights