DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending
Claims 1-16 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality:
3. Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vjunov et al. (WO 2020128785 A1) (Vjunov).
6. Regarding claim 1, Vjunov teaches a catalytic article useful for the treatment of the exhaust gases (Vjunov, [0001]) with a substrate (i.e. base material), a second layer (i.e. a catalyst layer) and a first layer (i.e. a reforming reaction layer) (Vjunov, [0043]);
wherein the first layer (i.e. a reforming reaction layer) and the second layer (i.e. catalyst layer) (Vjunov, Abstract) are deposited as two zones on the substrate (i.e. base material) (Vjunov, [0043]);
wherein the second layer (i.e. catalyst layer) (Vjunov, Abstract) comprises a platinum group metal component responsible for three-way conversion (TWC) (i.e. three-way catalyst) (Vjunov, [0059]);
wherein the first layer (i.e. reforming reaction layer) comprises a nickel component (Vjunov, Abstract) that catalyzes the reaction of water with carbon monoxide or the reaction of water with hydrocarbons to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen in steam-reforming reactions (i.e. the reforming reaction layer includes a hydrogen generation catalyst) (Vjunov, [0035]);
wherein the first layer (i.e. reforming reaction layer) (Vjunov, Abstract) is located downstream of the second layer (i.e. catalyst layer) (Vjunov, Drawings p. 1/10, Fig. 1), see annotated Fig 1, Catalyst 5 (zoned) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
292
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1., Catalyst 5 (zoned)
7. Regarding claims 2-3 and 7, Vjunov further teaches the nickel component (Vjunov, Abstract) is nickel oxide (i.e. the hydrogen generation catalyst including nickel oxide) (Vjunov, [0005]).
8. Regarding claims 4, 8-9, Vjunov further teaches the first layer (i.e. reforming reaction layer) (Vjunov, Abstract) is supported on a ceria component (Vjunov, [0046])
wherein ceria is an oxygen storage component (i.e. includes an OSC material with oxygen storage capacity) (Vjunov, [0032]).
9. Regarding claims 5 and 10-12, Vjunov further teaches a first layer zone (i.e. reforming reaction layer) (Vjunov, Abstract) had a washcoat loading of 1.5 g/in3 containing 10% NiO (i.e. hydrogen generation catalyst including nickel oxide) (Vjunov, [0075])
wherein the loading (i.e. content) of NiO (i.e. hydrogen generation catalyst including nickel oxide) in the first layer zone (i.e. reforming reaction layer) is 9.15 g/L (see math below), which falls within the claimed range.
1.5 g/in3 * (1 in / 2.54 cm)3 * ( 1 cm3 / 1 mL ) * (1000 mL / 1 L) * (0.10 NiO) = 9.15 g/L
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
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.
11. Claims 6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vjunov as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Miyata et al., Promoting effect of Rh, Pd and Pt noble metals to the Ni/Mg(Al)O catalysts for the DSS-like operation in CH4 steam reforming (Miyata).
12. Regarding claims 6 and 13-16, Vjunov further teaches the first layer (i.e. reforming reaction layer) comprises a nickel oxide component (i.e. the hydrogen generation catalyst includes nickel oxide) (Vjunov, Abstract).
However, Vjunov does not teach the reforming reaction layer further includes Rh.
With respect to the difference, Miyata teaches noble metal-Ni supported catalysts in the steam reforming of CH4- (Miyata, Abstract) to form hydrogen atoms (i.e. a hydrogen generation catalyst) (Miyata, p. 103, right column, first paragraph)
wherein Rh is a noble metal supported on the NiO-MgO catalyst for steam reforming of CH4 (i.e. hydrogen generation catalyst includes nickel oxide and further includes Rh) (Miyata, p. 98, left column, first paragraph).
Miyata expressly teaches the addition of Rh was effective for inhibiting both coke formation and Ni oxidation under atmospheric pressure (Miyata, p. 98, left column, first paragraph)
wherein the addition of noble metals on the Ni achieved a decrease in the reduction temperature of Ni and an increase in the amount of H-2 uptake on Ni on the catalyst (i.e. higher catalyst efficiency) (Miyata, p. 103, right column, Conclusion).
Vjunov and Miyata are analogous art as they are all drawn to nickel oxide catalysts for hydrogen production utilizing the steam reforming reaction.
In light of the motivation for inhibiting both coke formation and Ni oxidation under atmospheric pressure as disclosed by Miyata, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Rh is a noble metal supported on the NiO-MgO catalyst steam reforming of CH4 (i.e. hydrogen generation catalyst includes nickel oxide) in the catalytic article useful for the treatment of the exhaust gases of Vjunov, in order to achieve a decrease in the reduction temperature of Ni and an increase in the amount of H-2 uptake on Ni on the catalyst (i.e. higher catalyst efficiency), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights