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 .
Interview summary
On 10/02/2026, Ms. Ann Canoni called about examiner mistakenly examined non-elected invention II, claims 8-15, while group I invention 1-7 being elected. Due to this error, previous office action dated 08/06/2026 has been vacated and a new non-final office has been issued hereof.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I invention (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-15 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/23/2026.
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.
Claims 5-7 are 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 silica “in the form of a discontinuous domain”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation of “in the form of a discontinuous domain”, such as silica being dispersed discretely onto zirconia particles, or silica material unevenly coating or just coating part of the outer surface of zirconia? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefinite. All claim 5’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6-7 are 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 6 recites “in the form of island”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what is the metes and bounds of such claimed “in the form of island”, silica particles being clustered or aggregated together, or silica material has certain dimension or geometric shape of an island? Therefore, such limitation renders claim indefiniteness. Claim 6’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
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 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.
Claim 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao et al (Zirconium Modification Promotes Catalytic Activity of a Single-Site Cobalt Heterogeneous Catalyst for Propane Dehydrogenation, ACS Omega 2018, 3, 1117-11127).
Zhao teaches a single-site cobalt catalyst for dehydrogenation (page 1119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation, section 2.4 Catalytic Activity Testing, Fig. 6, page 11123-page 11124 section 3.5 Catalytic PDH and section 4 Conclusion) comprising zirconia modified silica and cobalt loaded as active metal onto such support (page 1119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao does not expressly teach a silica-modified zirconia support, in which zirconia, as a core, has been surface-modified with silica.
However, Zhao further teaches at least a part of the silica is exposed on an outside of the zirconium containing surface (Fig. 8). Zhao further teaches such zirconium site on silica not stable to atmospheric oxygen and moisture wherein zirconium oxide appears to be produced thereof (page 11121 last para.). Therefore, such zirconium surface is zirconia surface. Hence, Zhao suggests the silica modified zirconia support has a structure in which at least a part of the silica is exposed on an outside of the zirconia, zirconia as a core (Fig. 8).
Furthermore, since Zhao teaches zirconium being mixed with silica material, then the resulting solid being dried and heated in air to obtain zirconium containing silica material (page 1119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation). Since the formed support material containing zirconium oxide and silicon oxide, wherein such material being produced via intimate mixing of zirconium and silicon oxide, then calcining in air, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the obtained support comprising zirconia having surface or outer portion of the zirconia with silica.
Zhao et al. further teaches cobalt having an oxidation number of 2+ exist in an isolated form of single-atom on the silica-modified zirconia support while being tetrahedrally coordinated at a three-membered hydroxyl ring on the surface of the support (Fig. 8-9, table 1, page 11123-page 11124 section 3.5 Catalytic PDH and section 4 Conclusion).
Regarding claim 5-6, Zhao et al. also teaches the silica exposed on the outside of zirconia has to be separated, i.e. in isolated domain because silica outside being attached via other/different zirconia outside surface (Fig. 8). Since such isolated silica has certain dimension, therefore, in a form of an island as recited in claim 6 is expected.
Claims 1 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hock (US2014/0275686) in view of Zhao et al (Zirconium Modification Promotes Catalytic Activity of a Single-Site Cobalt Heterogeneous Catalyst for Propane Dehydrogenation, ACS Omega 2018, 3, 1117-11127).
Hock teaches a single-centered Lewis acid metal ion catalyst on the surface of an amorphous support wherein the metal ion can be cobalt, while the support can be selected from the group consisting of silica, TiO2, ZrO2, CeO2, Al2O3, MgO and mixtures of these (para. [0007]-[0009], [0042]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 1, Hock does not expressly teach surface modifying a surface or outer portion of zirconia with silica to prepare a silica-modified zirconia support.
However, Hock already teaches the support can be silica or selected from zirconia etc. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such well-known silica and zirconia support for help obtaining a desired catalyst because by doing so would have reasonable expectation of success for one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2143 KSR). Since zirconia and silica can be mixed together as support, therefore, it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that some zirconia support surface or outer portion containing silica.
Furthermore, Zhao teaches a method preparing a single-site cobalt catalyst comprising surface modifying a silica support with zirconium (page 11119 section 2.2 Catalyst preparation) wherein zirconium being mixed with silica material, then the resulting solid being dried and heated to obtain zirconium containing silica material. Zhao further teaches such zirconium site on silica not stable to atmospheric oxygen and moisture wherein zirconium oxide appears to be produced thereof (page 11121 last para.).Since the formed support material containing zirconium oxide and silicon oxide, wherein such material being produced via intimate mixing of zirconium and silicon oxide, therefore, it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that a support comprising zirconia having surface or outer portion of zirconia with silica.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such support with zirconia having a surface or outer portion of zirconia with silica as shown by Zhao to modify the support of Hock because by doing so can help provide a cobalt centered catalyst having improved catalyst performance as suggested by Zhao et al. (see page 11124 4. Conclusion section).
As for the claimed “cobalt having an oxidation number of 2+ exist in an isolated form of single-atom on the silica-modified zirconia support while being tetrahedrally coordinated at a three-membered hydroxyl ring on the surface of the support, Zhao et al. teaches such limitation (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Hock further teaches the obtained cobalt catalyst having element cobalt content being 2.1% (para. [0043], or 1.12% (para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 3-4, Since Hock teaches support can be silica or selected from zirconia etc, therefore, combining such silica and zirconia forming a desired silica-zirconia support is well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, the content of silica in such silica-modified zirconia support can be greater than 0 but less than 100%, wherein such content overlapping with that of instantly claimed weight ratio thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP § 2144. 05 I). Furthermore, MPEP states that “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (see MPEP § 2144. 05 II).
Regarding claim 5-6, Since Hock already suggests silica and zirconia support can be mixed together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least part of the silica being exposed on an outside of the zirconia. Since some of the mixtures of silica and zirconia are not continuous or homogenous, therefore, it is possible that some of the mixture only having portion of silica at one portion surface of zirconia, while some other silica at another portion of zirconia, therefore, silica being discontinuous domain on the surface of zirconia.
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
