DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 21-22 are objected to.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The present abstract is less than 50 words. However, the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortright et al., US 2009/0211942 A1 (Cortright) (provided in IDS received on 01/08/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7-12 and 15, Cortright teaches methods that can reform aqueous solutions of oxygenated compounds such as glycerol to generate products such as hydrogen; In some embodiments, aqueous solutions containing at least 20 wt % of the oxygenated compounds can be reformed over a catalyst comprising a Group VIII transition metal and a Group VIIB transition metal, preferably supported on an activated carbon-supported catalyst; in other embodiments, catalysts are provided for the production of hydrogen or alkanes at reaction temperatures less than 300˚C (Cortright, Abstract);
the reforming catalysts preferably comprise a mixture of Group VIIB and Group VIII transition metals and mixtures thereof; preferably, the reforming catalyst comprises Re and at least one transition metal selected from the group consisting of: Ir, Ni, Pd, Pt, Rh and Ru; Pt1.0Re2.5 is an example of one particularly preferred catalyst (Cortright, [0027]);
the reforming catalyst can be adhered to an aqueous-stable support. For example, the catalyst can be adhered to a support comprising one or more materials selected from the group including carbon; preferably, the catalyst is adhered to a carbon support (Cortright, [0028]);
the feedstock solution can be contacted with the reforming catalyst under conditions of reaction temperature and reaction pressure effective to produce hydrogen gas, as described herein. The reaction temperature and pressure are preferably selected to maintain the feedstock in the liquid phase. For example, the reaction temperature can be between about 80˚C and about 300˚C and the reaction pressure can be between about 10 bar (145 psi) and about 90 bar (1300 psi); more preferably, the reaction temperature can be between about 120˚C and about 300˚C, even more preferably between about 150˚C and about 300˚C, and the reaction pressure can be between about 10 bar (145 psi) and about 50 bar (725 psi) (Cortright, [0030]), which overlap the ranges of claims 1 and 7-12.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claims 2 and 13-14, as applied to claim 1, Cortright further teaches WHSV of 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and 4.8 for various samples (Cortright, TABLE 5).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Cortright further preferred loadings of the Group VIII metals would be in the range of 0.25 wt % to 25 wt % on the carbon, such as 1.00%, 5.00%, 10.00% (Cortright, [0055]).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Cortright teaches further teaches WHSV of 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and 4.8 for various samples (Cortright, TABLE 5), therefore it would have been obvious to apply the WHSV in combine with the ranges of feed stock concentration, reaction temperature, reaction pressure, and yield expected results, and thereby arrive at ranges that overlap claim 15.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortright as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynoso et al., Highly stable Pt/CoAl2O4 catalysts in aqueous-phrase reforming of glycerol, Catalysis Today, 2021 (Reynoso).
Regarding claims 16, as applied to claim 1, Cortright does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst displays stable activity for a period of at least 10 days.
With respect to the difference, Reynoso teaches Pt based catalyst for aqueous phase reforming of glycerol (Reynoso, Abstract). Reynoso specifically and expressly teaches the glycerol APR activity of bimetallic catalysts was very stable over 100 h with conversion values above 99% (Reynoso, Abstract).
Reynoso is analogous art as Reynoso is drawn to Pt based catalyst for aqueous phase reforming of glycerol.
In light of the motivation of using bimetallic catalyst for aqueous phase reforming of glycerol, as taught by Reynoso, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use bimetallic catalyst in Cortright, in order to improve stability of the catalyst.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of stable activity for a period of at least 10 days, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the catalyst bimetallic composition to improve activity stability of the catalyst, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired process performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortright and Reynoso, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Monnier et al., EP 2268572 B1 (Monnier) (provided in IDS received on 01/08/2025).
Regarding claims 17-18, as applied to claim 16, Cortright in view of Reynoso does not explicitly disclose wherein a gas conversion rate of at least 90% is maintained during the period or wherein a hydrogen yield of at least 40% is maintained during the period.
With respect to the difference, Monnier teaches production of hydrogen from oxygenated hydrocarbons by aqueous phase reforming (Monnier, [0001]). Monnier specifically teaches 91.5% glycerol conversion to gaseous product and H2 yield of 107.7 L/100 g C3H8O3 (Monnier, page 12, 1st paragraph and Table 4).
Given molecular weight of C3H8O3 (92 g/mol), it can be derived that H2 yield of 107.7 L/100 g C3H8O3 corresponds to hydrogen yield of 63% (i.e., 107.7/(100/92*7*22.4)= 63%)
As Monnier expressly teaches, the semi-batch stirred tank reactor provides higher glycerol conversion and higher H2 selectivity over fixed bed tubular reactor (Monnier, page 12, 1st paragraph and Table 4).
Monnier is analogous art as Monnier is drawn to production of hydrogen from oxygenated hydrocarbons by aqueous phase reforming.
In light of the motivation of using a semi-batch stirred tank reactor production of hydrogen from oxygenated hydrocarbons by aqueous phase reforming, as taught by Monnier, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a semi-batch tank reactor in Cortright in view of Reynoso for the aqueous phase reforming of glycerol, in order to provide higher glycerol conversion and higher H2 selectivity, such as 91.5% glycerol conversion to gaseous product and H2 yield of 107.7 L/100 g C3H8O3 (hydrogen yield of 63%), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortright, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynoso and Monnier.
Regarding claims 19-20, Cortright does not explicitly disclose (a)wherein the catalyst displays stable activity for a period of at least 20 days, (b) during which a hydrogen yield of at least 50 % is maintained; or (a) wherein the catalyst displays stable activity for a period of at least 40 days, (b) during which a hydrogen yield of at least 55 % is maintained.
With respect to the difference (a), Reynoso teaches Pt based catalyst for aqueous phase reforming of glycerol (Reynoso, Abstract). Reynoso specifically and expressly teaches the glycerol APR activity of bimetallic catalysts was very stable over 100 h with conversion values above 99% (Reynoso, Abstract).
Reynoso is analogous art as Reynoso is drawn to Pt based catalyst for aqueous phase reforming of glycerol.
In light of the motivation of using bimetallic catalyst for aqueous phase reforming of glycerol, as taught by Reynoso, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use bimetallic catalyst in Cortright, in order to improve stability of the catalyst.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of stable activity for a period of at least 10 days, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the catalyst bimetallic composition to improve activity stability of the catalyst, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired process performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (b), Monnier teaches production of hydrogen from oxygenated hydrocarbons by aqueous phase reforming (Monnier, [0001]). Monnier specifically teaches 91.5% glycerol conversion to gaseous product and H2 yield of 107.7 L/100 g C3H8O3 (Monnier, page 12, 1st paragraph and Table 4).
Given molecular weight of C3H8O3 (92 g/mol), it can be derived that H2 yield of 107.7 L/100 g C3H8O3 corresponds to hydrogen yield of 63% (i.e., 107.7/(100/92*7*22.4)= 63%)
As Monnier expressly teaches, the semi-batch stirred tank reactor provides higher glycerol conversion and higher H2 selectivity over fixed bed tubular reactor (Monnier, page 12, 1st paragraph and Table 4).
Monnier is analogous art as Monnier is drawn to production of hydrogen from oxygenated hydrocarbons by aqueous phase reforming.
In light of the motivation of using a semi-batch stirred tank reactor production of hydrogen from oxygenated hydrocarbons by aqueous phase reforming, as taught by Monnier, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a semi-batch tank reactor in Cortright in view of Reynoso for the aqueous phase reforming of glycerol, in order to provide higher glycerol conversion and higher H2 selectivity, H2 yield of 107.7 L/100 g C3H8O3 (hydrogen yield of 63%), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are 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.
Regarding claims 21-22, none or Cortright, Reynoso or Monnier discloses or suggests further comprising adjusting the temperature from a first temperature to a second temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights