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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on July 28, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 56 and 174 have been amended. Claims 1-55, 57, 60, 62-64, 72-74, 77, 79, 81 and 83-173 have been cancelled. New claims 174-175 have been added. Claims 56, 58-59, 61, 65-71, 75-76, 78, 80, 82 and 174-176 are pending. Claims 56, 58-59, 61, 65-71, 75-76, 78, 80, 82 and 174-176 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amended claim 56 to recite “one or more second elements comprising zinc2 and a first reduction gas to long-chain hydrocarbons as claimed.
Applicants argue that claims 56, 58-59, 61, 65-71, 75-76, 78, 80, 82 and 174-176 of the instant invention are not obvious over the cited prior arts, Benham et al. (US 5,504,118), Littlewood et al. (US 2023/0069964 A1) and/or Tsiotsias et al. (The Role of Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metals in the CO2 Methanation Reaction and the Combined Capture and Methanation of CO2, Catalysts 2020, 10, 812; doi:10.3390/catal10070812), because the claim 56, an independent claim from which all of the claims ultimately depend, has been amended to recite one or more second elements comprising zincin the context of a catalyst for converting CO2 and a first reduction gas to long-chain hydrocarbons. See Remarks, pages 6-15.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified ground of rejections to claims 56, 58-59, 61, 65-71, 75-76, 78, 80, 82 and 174-176 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 56, 61, 65, 66, 69 and 174-175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood et al. (US 2023/0069964 A1, hereinafter “Littlewood”), in view of Park et al. (Development of ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst for reverse-water-gas-shift reaction of CAMERE (carbon dioxide hydrogenation to form methanol via a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction) process, Applied Catalysis A: General 211 (2001) 81–90, hereinafter “Park”).
For recordation purposes, it is noted herein that, per MPEP 2111.02 II, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If 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. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property inherent in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim); STX LLC. v. Brine, 211 F.3d 588, 591, 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the preamble phrase "which provides improved playing and handling characteristics" in a claim drawn to a head for a lacrosse stick was not a claim limitation).
The preamble “A catalyst for converting CO2 and a first reduction gas to long-chain hydrocarbons” is considered to state 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. In addition, it is considered that the main body of the claim 56 fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention about the catalyst. Therefore, the examination of the instant Office action is based on the composition of the catalyst recited in the main body of claim 56, not based on the preamble of the claim.
In regard to claims 56, 61, 65 and 66, Littlewood discloses a method for the conversion of CO2 and a first reduction gas (H2 and/or CH4 gas) to long-chain hydrocarbons (LPG) (i.e., a liquid product mixture comprising paraffins and olefins) (Abstract) through two-stage reaction steps of (i) a reforming/RWGS (reverse water gas shift reaction) and (ii) LPG synthesis (FIGURE; paragraph [0010]).
Littlewood discloses a reforming/RWGS catalyst comprises:
(i) a support material comprising cerium oxide (i.e., a lanthanide), iron oxide, nickel oxide (paragraph [0042]) which meets the recited “one or more metals comprising iron in the form of iron oxide”);
(ii) novel metals such as platinum (Pt) and palladium (Pd) (paragraph [0048]); and
(iii) one or more of elements comprising Ca and Mg (Group II elements) (paragraph [0049]).
But Littlewood does not explicitly disclose the reforming/RWGS catalyst comprises one or more second elements comprising zinc (Zn).
Park discloses ZnO and ZnO/Al2O3 catalysts for a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (RWReaction) (Title; Abstract). Park discloses ZnO is an effective reduction material during reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (page 88; Section 3.5. Thermodynamics for reduction of ZnO).
It is noted that both the Littlewood and Park references direct a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction and its catalyst material
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Littlewood to provide the feature of the reforming/RWGS catalyst comprises one or more second elements comprising zinc (Zn) as taught by Park, because ZnO is an effective reduction material during reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (Park, page 88; Section 3.5. Thermodynamics for reduction of ZnO).
In regard to claim 69, Littlewood discloses one or more metal selected from the group comprising copper, zinc and aluminum, wherein the metal Al is in the form of oxide (paragraph [0065]) which directs the presence of oxygen element. The metal comprises about 1-10 wt% of the total catalyst weight (paragraph [0066], which directs the remainder is comprised of support material. In the support material, the cerium oxide and the second oxide such as iron oxide constitute about 99 wt% of the support, wherein the second oxide such as iron oxide comprised of 1-45 wt% of the support (paragraph [0043]). It is estimated that, in case, for example, the metal copper and zinc comprise 10 wt% of the total catalyst weight, the second oxide such as iron oxide comprised of 7.2 wt% of the support (5 wt% of iron atom in the total catalyst weight), the one or more metal (iron) mass composition based on the total amount of copper, zinc, and iron is 30 wt%. In light of teachings from Littlewood, in view of Park, the recited limitation “the one or more second element is present in an amount of about 0.5 to about 40 wt.% of the total amount of the one or more metals, the one or more second element, the optional one or more Group VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, or XI metal additives, and the Group IA or IIA metal promoter” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize catalytic activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the catalytic bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the feedstock as well as the nature of the reaction end-products.
In regard to claim 174, since Littlewood, in view of Park, discloses the same catalyst as that recited in claim 174, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the catalyst as taught by Littlewood, in view of Park, to function the same as the catalyst recited in claim 174. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the catalyst of Littlewood, in view of Park, would results the liquid product mixture comprises long-chain hydrocarbons with a carbon number between 6 and 26 as recited. See MPEP 2112.01 and 2112.02.
In regard to claim 175, Littlewood discloses a reforming/RWGS catalyst comprises: (i) a support material comprising cerium oxide (i.e., a lanthanide), iron oxide, nickel oxide (paragraph [0042]) which meets the recited “one or more metals comprising iron in the form of iron oxide”); (ii) novel metals such as platinum (Pt) and palladium (Pd) (paragraph [0048]); and (iii) one or more of elements comprising Ca and Mg (Group II elements) (paragraph [0049]). Park discloses ZnO and ZnO/Al2O3 catalysts for a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (RWReaction) (Title; Abstract). Park discloses ZnO is an effective reduction material during reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (page 88; Section 3.5. Thermodynamics for reduction of ZnO). This directs the reforming/RWGS catalyst does not include copper.
Claims 58 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood, in view of Park, as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Reverse water-gas shift reaction over co-precipitated Co-CeO2 catalysts: Effect of Co content on selectivity and carbon formation, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 42, Issue 6, 9 February 2017, Pages 3682-3689, hereinafter “Wang”).
In regard to claims 58 and 59, Littlewood, in view of Park, does not explicitly disclose the reforming/RWGS catalyst further comprises one or more metals such as cobalt.
Wang discloses Co–CeO2 catalysts with different cobalt contents were prepared via co-precipitation method and used for reverse water–gas shift (RWGS: CO2 + H2 → CO + H2O) reaction (Title; Abstract). Wang discloses Co–CeO2 catalysts is an effective catalyst material during reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (pages 3683-3688).
It is noted that both the Littlewood, Park and Wang references direct a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction and its catalyst material
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Littlewood, in view of Park, to provide the feature of the reforming/RWGS catalyst further comprises one or more metals such as cobalt as taught by Wang, because Co–CeO2 catalysts is an effective catalyst material during reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (Wang, pages 3683-3688).
Claims 67 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood, in view of Park, as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Tsiotsias et al. (The Role of Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metals in the CO2 Methanation Reaction and the Combined Capture and Methanation of CO2, Catalysts 2020, 10, 812, hereinafter “Tsiotsias”).
In regard to claims 58 and 59, Littlewood, in view of Park, does not explicitly disclose the catalyst further comprises a Group IA or IIA metal promoter.
Tsiotsias discloses a process for CO2 methanation and the role of alkali and alkaline earth metals in the CO2 methanation reaction and the combined capture and methanation of CO2 (Title; Abstract). Tsiotsias discloses alkali and alkaline earth metals can serve both as promoters for methanation catalysts, such as metal embedded oxide catalysts (page 16, Table 1), and as adsorbent phases upon the combined capture and methanation of CO2. Their promotion effect during methanation of carbon dioxide mainly relies on their ability to generate new basic sites on the surface of metal oxide supports that favor CO2 chemisorption and activation (Abstract; page 3, Section 2. Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metals as Promoters of the CO2 Methanation Reaction).
It is noted that both the Littlewood and Tsiotsias references direct a conversion of CO2 into chemicals/fuel in the presence of metal embedded oxide catalysts.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Littlewood to provide the feature of the catalyst further comprises a Group 1A or IIA element metal promoter as taught by Tsiotsias, because alkali and alkaline earth metals can serve both as promoters for methanation catalysts and as adsorbent phases upon the combined capture and methanation of CO2 as taught by Tsiotsias (Abstract; page 3, Section 2. Alkali and Alkaline Earth Metals as Promoters of the CO2 Methanation Reaction).
Claims 70, 71, 75, 78, 80, 82 and 176 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood, in view of Park and Tsiotsias.
As set forth above, Littlewood, in view of Park and Tsiotsias, discloses the catalyst for converting CO2 and a first reduction gas to long-chain hydrocarbons comprising Group IA or IIA metals as recited in claim 67.
In regard to claims 70, 71 and 75, Littlewood discloses the reforming/RWGS catalyst comprises additional support comprising aluminum, oxide, silicon oxide, etc. (paragraph [0042]).
In regard to claims 78, 80 and 82, Tsiotsias discloses alkali and alkaline earth metals can serve both as promoters for methanation catalysts, such as metal embedded oxide catalysts, wherein the alkali and alkaline earth metals comprise Li, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Sr and Ba (page 16, Table 1). Tsiotsias discloses a use of high surface mesoporous alumina Al2O3 in the catalyst (page 2, 1st paragraph from the bottom; page 9, Section 2.2.2. Magnesium (Mg)). It is known in the art, as evidenced by Wu et al. (Ordered Mesoporous Crystalline [Symbol font/0x67]-Al2O3 with Variable Architecture and Porosity from a Single Hard Template, J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 2010, 132, 12042-12050), the mesoporous alumina Al2O3 has a surface area of, for example, 261 m2/g (Wu et al., page 12045, left column, 1st paragraph from the bottom) and a particle size of about 1.4 µm (Wu et al., page 12044, right column, 2nd paragraph from the top).
In regard to claim 176, Littlewood discloses a reforming/RWGS catalyst comprises: (i) a support material comprising cerium oxide (i.e., a lanthanide), iron oxide, nickel oxide (paragraph [0042]) which meets the recited “one or more metals comprising iron in the form of iron oxide”); (ii) novel metals such as platinum (Pt) and palladium (Pd) (paragraph [0048]); and (iii) one or more of elements comprising Ca and Mg (Group II elements) (paragraph [0049]). Park discloses ZnO and ZnO/Al2O3 catalysts for a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (RWReaction) (Title; Abstract). Park discloses ZnO is an effective reduction material during reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (page 88; Section 3.5. Thermodynamics for reduction of ZnO). Tsiotsias discloses alkali and alkaline earth metals can serve both as promoters for methanation catalysts, such as metal embedded oxide catalysts, wherein the alkali and alkaline earth metals comprise Li, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Sr and Ba (page 16, Table 1). This directs the reforming/RWGS catalyst does not include copper.
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlewood, in view of Park and Tsiotsias, as applied to claim 70 above, and further in view of Furimsky (CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol and Methane over Carbon-Supported Catalysts, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 15393-15423).
In regard to claim 76, Littlewood, in view of Park and Tsiotsias, does not explicitly disclose the additional support comprises one or more carbon-based materials.
Furimsky discloses a CO2 hydrogenation to methanol and methane over carbon-supported catalysts (Title; Abstract). Furimsky discloses the stability of catalyst is increased when a carbon support, such as carbon black or activated carbon, is used (Abstract; pages 15394-15395).
It is noted that all the Littlewood, Park, Tsiotsias and Furimsky references direct a conversion of CO2 into chemicals/fuel in the presence of metal embedded oxide catalysts.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the catalyst of Littlewood, in view of Park and Tsiotsias, to provide the feature of the additional support comprises one or more carbon-based materials as taught by Furimsky, because the stability of catalyst is increased when a carbon support, such as carbon black or activated carbon, is used (Furimsky, Abstract; pages 15394-15395).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights