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 .
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 5 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. In this case, claim 5 recites “the atomic layer deposition”, since its parent claim 1 recites “a first atomic layer deposition” and “a second atomic layer deposition”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain which atomic layer deposition of claim 5 recited “the atomic layer deposition” referring. Thus, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lobo et al (Understanding the Chemistry of H2 Production for 1‑Propanol Reforming: Pathway and Support Modification Effects, ACS Catalysis, 2012, 2, 2316-2326).
Lobo et al. teaches a method of producing catalyst using ALD (atomic layer deposition) comprising forming a functional oxide layer (specifically CeO2 or TiO2) on a surface of a support-alumina particles, depositing platinum particles on the surface of the spherical ( i.e. bead-type) alumina support on which the functional oxide coating layer being formed via ALD (abstract, page 2317 left col. last para.-page 2318 third para., page 2319 section 3.1. Samples, table 1).
Regarding claim 1, as for the claimed catalyst being dehydrogenation catalyst, Lobo et al expressly teaches such catalyst can be used in a reaction dehydrogenating propanol to propanal (abstract, table 2, page 2319 last para), therefore, such catalyst can be envisioned as dehydrogenation catalyst. Hence, Lobo et al teaches every and each limitation of claim 1, therefore claim 1 is anticipated by Lobo et al.
Alternatively, Lobo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same method of forming a same or substantially the same catalyst, therefore, same or substantially of such catalyst having intended application as dehydrogenation catalyst would be expected.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lobo et al (Understanding the Chemistry of H2 Production for 1‑Propanol Reforming: Pathway and Support Modification Effects, ACS Catalysis, 2012, 2, 2316-2326) as applied above, and in view of Haga (US2008/0141984).
Regarding claim 2, Lobo et al does not expressly teaches spherical alumina support being porous.
Haga teaches a reforming catalyst using porous support such as alumina to support platinum catalyst to reform a mixture of alcohol and water as fuel to produce hydrogen (claim 13, 18, para. [0052], [0097]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known porous carrier as shown by Haga to modify the spherical alumina support in the catalyst producing process of Lobo et al because adopting such well-known technique of a porous carrier to support catalyst for modify a well-known reforming catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 3-4, Lobo et al. already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lobo et al (Understanding the Chemistry of H2 Production for 1‑Propanol Reforming: Pathway and Support Modification Effects, ACS Catalysis, 2012, 2, 2316-2326) in view of Haga (US2008/0141984) as applied above, and further in view of O’Neill (Catalyst Design with Atomic Layer Deposition, ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 1804−1825).
Regarding claim 5, Lobo et al in view of Haga does not expressly teach the ALD deposition being performed 5 cycles.
O’Neill teaches ALD forming/coating films can be repeated with cycles for desired thickness (Fig. 2, page 1807 left col. last para).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt certain cycles, i.e. same ALD cycles as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for achieving desired thickness as suggested by O’Neill (page 1807 left col. last para).
Regarding claim 6, Lobo et al. does not require metal particles being encapsulated by the functional oxide. Furthermore, Lobo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same method forming a same functional oxide onto the surface of a same or substantially the support, then forming a same or substantially the same metal catalyst particle on the surface of the functional oxide deposited support, therefore, same or substantially the same metal particles not being encapsulated by the functional oxide as that of instantly claimed is expected.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lobo et al (Understanding the Chemistry of H2 Production for 1‑Propanol Reforming: Pathway and Support Modification Effects, ACS Catalysis, 2012, 2, 2316-2326) in view of Haga (US2008/0141984) and O’Neill (Catalyst Design with Atomic Layer Deposition, ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 1804−1825) as applied above, and further in view of Watson (US2010/0196226).
Lobo et al. further teaches the catalyst being reduced under flowing hydrogen at 250 °C (page 2318 left col. 3rd para.).
Regarding claim 7, Lobo et al. in view of Haga and O’Neill does not expressly teach the reducing temperature being at a range of 350 -550 °C.
Watson teaches a method forming a reforming catalyst which can be used reforming alcohol wherein the catalyst can be reformed under temperature range of 300-500°C or 200-400 °C (para. [0041], [0042], [0059], [0070], claim 16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such reducing temperature as shown by Watson to modify the reducing temperature in the method of producing catalyst of Lobo et al. in view of Haga and O’Neill because adopting such reducing temperature can be help improving the catalyst activity as suggested by Wason (para. [0052], [0070]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lobo et al (Understanding the Chemistry of H2 Production for 1‑Propanol Reforming: Pathway and Support Modification Effects, ACS Catalysis, 2012, 2, 2316-2326) in view of Haga (US2008/0141984), O’Neill (Catalyst Design with Atomic Layer Deposition, ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 1804−1825) and Watson (US2010/0196226) as applied above, and further in view of Jeong (KR101372309) (citations are based on applicant provided translation).
Regarding claim 8, Lobo et al in view of Haga, O’Neill and Watson does not expressly teach the rotating a rotating device equipped with an inner barrel device inside a vacuum reactor during operation of the ALD.
Jeong teaches ALD can be operated in a vacuum reactor (item 100 Fig 1) comprising a rotating device (item 300, Fig. 1) equipped with an inner cylindrical device, i.e., cylindrical rollers (item 200 Fig. 1, claim 1, page 8 last para.-page 9 second last para.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate a rotating device equipped with an inner barrel device inside a vacuum reactor during operation of the ALD as shown by Jeong to modify the ALD in the method of producing catalyst of Lobo et al in view of Haga, O’Neill and Watson because by doing so can help obtain uniformity of the film thickness of very high efficiency with improved productivity as suggested by Jeong (page 7 4th-3rd last para.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 (Coris) 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights