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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s amendment has incorporated claims 24 and 30 into the method of claim 12 and are also examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-17, 24, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, line 27, the phrase “with an aqueous solution of an inorganic salt or and organic solution” is likely intended to read “with an aqueous solution of an inorganic salt and/or an
Regarding claim 24, line 4, the comma after “synthesis gas,” should be deleted so the claim ends with a period.
Claims 12-17, 24, and 30 depend from claim 12 and thus are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 30 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, the phrase “thereby reducing conditions of thermodynamic affinity with respect to formation of carbonaceous residues, and further reducing ratios between atoms of steam and atoms of carbon in reactant mixtures, and/or a ratio between oxygen atoms and carbon atoms” is unclear. It is unclear if the phrase is setting forth a further limitation for use of the catalyst, in addition to the production of synthesis gas, or if the phrase is describing a consequence of producing synthesis gas. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the latter interpretation is applied to the claim where the “ratios between atoms of steam and atoms of carbon in reactant mixtures, and/or a ratio between oxygen atoms and carbon atoms” is a process setting during the production of synthesis gas. See at least Pg. 2, lines 6-14; Pg. 5, lines 11-16; and Pg. 9, lines 1-6 in the instant specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim states “the transition metal comprises one or more transition metals” which is redundant and does not serve to further limit the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 12-14, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (JP2008132458A English).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches a method of preparing a catalyst for carbonaceous raw material reforming that comprises depositing oxides of one or more of nickel, cobalt, iron cerium, zirconium, titanium, and magnesium oxides and a platinum group metal compound on at least one carrier of silica and/or alumina (Abstract; Claims).
Suzuki teaches the method includes impregnating a support with a mixed aqueous solution of one or more of nickel, cobalt, and iron, drying, and firing the product to obtain a powder comprising the transition metal (i.e. nickel, cobalt, iron) oxide on an alumina carrier (Pg. 5, Examples). Suzuki teaches following depositing Ni(NO3)2 on alumina and firing the material to obtain a nickel oxide on alumina material (i.e. decomposition of the inorganic salt and deposition of the transition metal on the support), the material is treated with a platinum acetylacetonate solution to support the platinum on the surface of the powder by an incipient wetness method prior to drying and firing to obtain the catalyst comprising nickel oxide and Pt support on alumina (Pg. 4, par. 4-5; Pg. 5, Examples). Suzuki teaches the catalyst contains Pt (Pg. 5, Examples), which requires it to be transformed from platinum acetylacetonate complex at least partially during the firing treatment.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki anticipates the method of claim 12 and further teaches the transition metal includes nickel, iron, and cobalt (Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki anticipates the method of claim 12 and the Suzuki further teaches the organometallic can be ruthenium (Pg. 7, Example 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
215
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki anticipates the method of claim 12 and Suzuki teaches platinum acetylacetonate complex is used (Pg. 5, Examples). Acetylacetonate has the formula shown below:
and satisfies the required formula of RCOCHCOR’ where R and R’ are the same and the alkyl group is C1 (i.e. methyl).
Regarding claim 24, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 12 and further teaches the catalyst can be used in steam reforming, production of hydrogen and carbon monoxide mixtures (i.e. synthesis gas) (Pg. 3, par. 3, 9, and 14).
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, 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 15, 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2008132458A English) in view of Basini et al. (WO2005023710A2; cited in IDS dated 12/12/2023).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki anticipates the method of claim 12 and the claim further requires limitations to which Suzuki is silent.
Basini teaches a catalyst for the transformation of hydrocarbons with a catalyst that comprises a support of oxide, nitride or oxynitride, carbide or oxycarbide impregnated with a transition metal solution by incipient wettability impregnation (Abstract; Pg. 3, lines 4-15; Pg. 11, lines 19-25; Pg. 13, lines 14-22). Basini teaches the transition metal can be introduced with an organometallic solution of a compound such as Rh4(CO)12, Rh6(CO)16, Rh(CH3COCHCOCH3)3, Ru3(CO)12, lr4(CO)12, Ir(CH3COCHCOCH3)3, Pt(CH3COCHCOCH3)2, Co4(CO)12, [C5H5Fe(CO)2]2, and Ni(CH3COCHCOCH3)2 (Pg. 11, lines 12-18).
Advantageously, the organometallic complexes taught by Basini allow for anchorage of the metallic species on the surface of the catalyst and material obtained can readily be used (Pg. 11, lines 19-25).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an organometallic solution of a compound such as Rh4(CO)12, Rh6(CO)16, Rh(CH3COCHCOCH3)3, Ru3(CO)12, lr4(CO)12, Ir(CH3COCHCOCH3)3, Pt(CH3COCHCOCH3)2, Co4(CO)12, [C5H5Fe(CO)2]2, and Ni(CH3COCHCOCH3)2 in the process of Suzuki in order to anchor the metallic species to the surface of the catalyst as taught by Basini.
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki anticipates the method of claim 12 and the claim further requires “the support is in the form of pellets or in the form of a monolithic structure and comprises one or more of: MgO; a-A1203; MgAlOx; CeO2; La2O3; ZrO2; TiO2; perovskites; cordierite; and FeCrAl alloys.” Suzuki teaches the support is alumina or silica, however Suzuki does not specify the support is a-Al2O3 (i.e. alpha-alumina) nor does Suzuki explicitly discusses the catalyst form as a pellet or monolith.
Basini teaches the catalyst can be formed as pellets or monoliths and that the catalyst comprises an alpha-alumina support (Pg. 11, lines 10-11; Pg. 13, lines 5-25).
Advantageously, the catalyst of Basini comprising alpha-alumina in a pellet or monolith shape provides for improved results that enables catalysis to be conducted at high pressures and space velocities while avoiding pressure drops (Pg. 12, lines 11-22).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an alpha-alumina support in the form of pellets or monoliths in the process of Suzuki in order to improve the catalyst operation at high pressures and space velocities while avoiding pressure drops, as taught by Basini.
Regarding claim 30, Suzuki anticipates the method of claim 12 and Suzuki teaches the catalyst can be used in steam reforming, production of hydrogen and carbon monoxide mixtures (i.e. synthesis gas) (Pg. 3, par. 3, 9, and 14).
The claim further requires “thereby reducing conditions of thermodynamic affinity with respect to formation of carbonaceous residues, and further reducing ratios between atoms of steam and atoms of carbon in reactant mixtures, and/or a ratio between oxygen atoms and carbon atoms.”
Suzuki teaching the process of claim 12 and that the catalyst is then used to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide mixtures (i.e. synthesis gas) is equivalent to “further comprising use of the catalyst in production of synthesis gas,” and accordingly, the method of Suzuki would necessarily be consistent with “thereby reducing conditions of thermodynamic affinity with respect to formation of carbonaceous residues.” See MPEP 2112.II. The claim further requires “further reducing ratios between atoms of steam and atoms of carbon in reactant mixtures, and/or a ratio between oxygen atoms and carbon atoms” to which Suzuki does not explicitly discuss these ratios.
Basini teaches the catalyst prepared can be used in the production of synthesis gas and that the ratio of vapor (i.e. steam) to C (carbon) is 0.5 v/v, which is adjusted at the inlet so that the feed stream has this ratio prior to producing synthesis gas (Title; Pg. 2; Pg. 10, lines 3-9; Pg. 16-17, Example 3). The ratio of steam to carbon taught by Basini is the same as the steam to carbon ratio described in the instant invention (see Spec, Pg. 23, SCT-CPO example). Accordingly, the ratio of Basini is considered to meet the limitation “further reducing ratios between atoms of steam and atoms of carbon in reactant mixtures, and/or a ratio between oxygen atoms and carbon atoms.” Advantageously, the synthesis gas forming conditions taught by Basini allow for an equivalent quantity of carbon atoms in the streams of natural gas (NG) and light cycle oil (LCO) and result in the formation of carbonaceous residues being avoided (Pg. 5, lines 2-18; Pg. 9, lines 4-18; Pg. 14, lines 5-25).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a steam to carbon atom ratio of 0.5 v/v in the feed stream during the production of synthesis gas in the process of Suzuki in order to avoid the formation of carbonaceous residues, as taught by Basini.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights