DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/572,571 application filed 20 December 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 14-32 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14 recites “…wherein x, y, and z satisfy:
0 ≤ x ≤ 0.4,
0.3 ≤ (1-z) ≤ 1,
0 ≤ y, and
0 < (1-y-z).”
From the preceding, clearly x and y may be zero (0). From 0.3 ≤ (1-z) ≤ 1, it is obvious that z may also be 0 when x and y are 0. Thus, the perovskite structure represented by the formula (A1-xA’x)(Zr1-y-zByB’z)O3 in the instant claim may be reduced to AZrO3, wherein A is at least one element selected from alkaline earth metals. Thus, compounds such as barium zirconate, calcium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate meet the requirement of the perovskite structure of the instant claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 14-16, 22, 28, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanur et al (US 2017/0267605).
With respect to claims 14-16 and 22, Tanur et al discloses “catalysts and methods…useful in a variety of catalytic reactions, for example, the oxidative coupling of methane” [abstract]. More specifically, the reference teaches “embodiments of the invention are directed to catalysts and catalytic materials and methods for their preparation and/or methods for conversion of natural gas to higher hydrocarbons” [paragraph 0009], wherein “the catalytic material comprises [1.] a group 4, 6 or 13 element, such as a…zirconate…and [2.] an active catalyst (e.g., OCM active)…In some embodiments, the group 4, 6 or 13 element [of 1.] is in combination with an alkaline earth metal element. For example, in some embodiments, the catalytic materials comprise an…alkaline earth metal zirconate…and the active catalyst is an OCM active catalyst” [paragraph 0292] and “in some embodiments the catalytic materials comprise…barium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate” [paragraph 0306] and “the catalytic material comprises…barium zirconate, calcium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate, and an OCM active catalyst” [paragraph 0307; see, also, paragraph 0314]. Any of barium zirconate, calcium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate corresponds to the dehydrogenation reaction catalyst having a perovskite structure. For example, Tanur et al discloses “the perovskite comprises…Ca/BaZrO3,…, BaZrO3, Ca/Sr/BaZrO3,…, SrZrO3…” [paragraph 0258]. Additionally, Tanur et al discloses “the OCM active catalyst comprises a group 4 element, for example a compound comprising an alkaline earth metal and a group 4 element. For example, in some embodiments the alkaline earth metal is magnesium, calcium, strontium or barium. In some other embodiments, the group 4 element is…zirconium…For example, in certain embodiments the OCM active catalyst comprises an alkaline earth metal and…zirconium…” [paragraph 0278].
With respect to claim 28, note that z may be 0; therefore, BaZr1-zB’zO3 is BaZrO3.
With respect to claim 30, the catalytic material corresponds to the composite catalyst of the instant application, wherein the alkaline earth metal zirconate corresponds to the dehydrogenation reaction catalyst and the OCM active catalyst corresponds to the at least one of a metal catalyst and an oxide catalyst.
With respect to claims 31 and 32, see, for example, the support disclosed in paragraph 0179: “[w]hen used in catalytic reactions, such as the oxidative coupling of methane, the catalysts will often be combined with a diluent or support to form a catalytic material.”
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.
Claim(s) 17-21, 23-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanur et al (US 2017/0267605).
With respect to claims 17-19, Tanur et al discloses “the catalyst further comprises a dopant selected from group 3. In some embodiments the catalyst further comprises a scandium dopant. In other embodiments, the catalyst further comprises a yttrium dopant” [paragraph 0141]. Note that scandium and yttrium are rare earth metals. It is it is well known in the art that, for example, BaZrO3 and/or SrZrO3 doped with rare earth metal oxides may have conductivities ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 S/cm.
With respect to claims 20 and 21, the instant application discloses “[a] proton transport number of 0.01 or more can be easily achieved when the methane oxidative coupling catalyst in accordance with the present embodiment satisfies formula (1) and inequalities (2a) to (2d) described above” [see paragraph 0046 of the published application]. As noted above in the Claim Interpretation section, barium zirconate, calcium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate satisfy formula (1) and inequalities (2a)-(2d). Consequently, absent evidence to the contrary, it is expected that any of barium zirconate, calcium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate meet the limitation concerning proton transport number.
With respect to claims 24 and 25, the instant application discloses “A sum of the electron transport number and the hole transport number of 0.01 or more and 0.95 or less can be easily achieved when the methane oxidative coupling catalyst in accordance with the present embodiment satisfies formula (1) and inequalities (2a) to (2d) described above” [see paragraph 0047 of the published application]. For the reasons stated with respect to claims 20 and 21, absent evidence to the contrary, it is expected that any of barium zirconate, calcium zirconate and/or strontium zirconate meet the limitation concerning the sum of an electron transport number and a hole transport number.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, see discussion above concerning claims 20-21 and 24-25.
With respect to claim 29, see discussion above concerning claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Eastman et al (US 2008/0283411), which discloses “[p]rotonic conductors comprising ceramic mixed oxides such as cerates and zirconates may be preferred for high temperature (e.g., about 500o C. to about 900o C.) operation…Preferably, the protonic conductor will have an ionic conductivity (s) between about 0.01 S/cm to about 0.1 S/cm…In regards to ceramic mixed oxides, the following exemplary list of protonic conductors may be used as electrolytes in the electro-hydrocarbon devices described herein: perovskites of the form ABO3 such as BaZrO3, SrZrO3,…doped with rare earth oxides” [paragraphs 0179 and 0193-0194].
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
1 July 2026
Prosecution Insights