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 17 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. Claim 17 recites “remnants of a precursor solution comprising Me-nitrate……, or Me-Ethylenediamine (EDA)”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what “remnants” (or exact material) of such precursor solution being presented in the shell section, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed limitation.
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.
Claim 15-34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Forrest (WO2012/056211) in view of Lee (US2010/0167919).
Forrest teaches an egg-shell catalyst body (page 2 lines 9-14) comprising Ni being deposited onto a shaped support which comprises metal aluminate such as magnesium aluminate or calcium aluminate via impregnation method (page 1 lines 35-37, page 2 lines 16-19, page 3 lines 8-9, 18-20, page 4 lines 30-34, page 5 lines 3-8), then drying and calcining the catalytic metal impregnated carrier under temperature of 250-850 °C (page 5 lines 10-15). Forrest specifically teaches the impregnation method including immersing the calcined catalyst support in a nickel acetate solution or by so-called incipient wetness impregnation (page 5 lines 3-8). Forrest teaches eggshell catalyst representing that the catalytically active metal or metals are concentrated at the surface and therefore form a thin layer having a thickness most preferably ≤300 µm (page 2 lines 9-14), with such catalytically active metal or metals being absent beneath this layer (page 2 lines 9-13). Forrest further teaches the catalyst support body can have pore volume of 0.1 to 0.3 cm3/g (i.e. 100-300ml/kg) and surface area of 0.5 to 40 m2/g (page 4 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 15, Forrest does not expressly teach impregnate the carrier comprising an alkaline earth metal oxide or alkaline earth metal hydroxide layer on the carrier.
Forrest also teaches the support comprises calcined mixture of alumina, calcium aluminate and optionally lime (page 3 lines 8-9). Forrest further teaches calcium aluminate can add lime (CaO) for forming desired shape for the support (page 3 lines 5-6, 8-9, 18-20) and catalyst support can be alkalized by impregnation with a solution of an alkali (such as potassium hydroxide) before being impregnated with catalytically active metal solution (page 4 lines 25-28, 30-34). Forrest also discloses up to about 5% wt of alkali oxide on the calcined support may be used (page 4 lines 27-28). Forrest further teaches the shaped catalyst support can be calcined at temperature between 400 and 1400 ºC in air for desired strength, porosity and surface area (page 4 lines 10-19).
Lee teaches a hydrocarbon reforming catalyst comprising an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal such as magnesium, calcium being deposited onto the carrier including at least one of oxide, e.g. Al2O3 (para. [0046], [0049]). Lee also teaches the alkaline earth metal can be loaded onto the oxide carrier via wet impregnation, then dried and heat treated/calcined under air atmosphere (para. [0060]-[0064]), wherein such process is same or substantially as that of instant application forming the alkaline earth metal oxide or hydroxide layer onto the carrier (see the published application US2025/0128244 para.[0036]-[0039], example I-II, VI and X), therefore, same or substantially the same alkaline earth metal oxide or hydroxide (e.g. magnesium or calcium oxide or hydroxide) layer being formed onto such carrier is expected.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such alkaline earth metal oxide layer as shown by Lee to modify the carrier of Forrest because by doing so can help provide a catalyst with high coking resistance and sustainable performance stability as suggested by Lee (para. [0045], [0060]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Forrest also teaches the catalytic metal being Ni and such eggshell layer comprising NiO (page 5 lines 10-14, page 6 lines 10-12). As for the claimed “impregnated with”, such limitation appears to be product by process limitations, Forrest in view of Lee already teaches a catalyst body comprising a carrier comprising an alkaline earth metal oxide or hydroxide and catalytic metal oxide.
Regarding claim 17, as for the claimed “remnants of a precursor solution comprising Me-nitrate, Me-citrate, Me-ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA), Me-ethylenediamine (EDA)”, it is noted that such limitation appears to be product by process limitation, even though product-by-process limitations are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In this case, Forrest in view of Lee already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst body comprising a same or substantially the same shell with catalytic metal. Furthermore, Forrest also teaches metal solution for impregnation being nickel acetate (page 4 line 35-page 5 line 1, page 5 lines 12-13, example 1), and after nickel being impregnated, it will be dried and calcined wherein calcining temperature of 250-850 ºC is used to convert impregnated nickel acetate to nickel oxide (page 5 lines 10-14). Lee also teaches the nickel salt can be nickel acetate, nickel nitrate or mixture thereof (para. [0059]). Therefore, adopting nickel nitrate to impregnate nickel onto the carrier for obtaining a desired hydrocarbon reforming catalyst only involves conventional skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence, Forrest in view of Lee disclosed teachings suggest the shell comprising a remnant of a precursor solution comprising nickel nitrate.
Regarding claim 18-21 and 23-24, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, Forrest in view of Lee does not expressly teach the catalyst body having a hammock profile. However, Forrest in view of Lee already teaches a same or substantially the same catalyst body having a same or substantially the same core section and a shell section, wherein such catalyst body is obtained via a same or substantially the same impregnation, drying and calcining steps as that of instant application (see the published application US2025/0128244 para.[0036]-[0039], examples), therefore, a same or substantially the same catalyst body having a same or substantially the same hammock profile as that of instantly claimed is expected.
Regarding claim 25, Lee already teaches using alkaline earth metal and Ba is one of the choices for alkaline earth metal. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” Ba as alkaline earth metal because choosing Ba from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of alkaline earth metal would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143 §KSR).
Regarding claim 26-29, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 30, Forrest already teaches the catalyst carrier can be impregnated with up to 5% alkali oxide for minimizing lay down of carbon on the catalyst during steam reforming (page 4 lines 25-28). Since Lee teaches alkali metal and alkaline earth metal are equivalents (para. [0049]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt up to 5% of alkaline earth oxide as shown by Lee to substitute the alkali oxide because substituting equivalent for same purpose is prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144. 06 I).
Regarding claim 31, Forrest further teaches the catalytic metal concentrated at the surface (i.e. an outer layer) of the support and the catalytic metal (Ni) content being preferably 4 to 15 wt.% (page 5 lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 32-34 and 37, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Forrest (WO2012/056211) in view of Lee (US2010/0167919) as applied above, and further in view of Feaviour (WO2012/110781A1).
Regarding claim 35-36, Forrest in view of Lee does not expressly teach the catalyst body having a radius of 5-100 mm or having one or more through going holes.
Feaviour teaches a reforming catalyst body including active metal such as nickel being deposited onto a metal oxide shaped support which can be alumina, magnesia, calcium aluminate, magnesium aluminate and mixtures thereof (abstract, page 2 lines 15-17, page 4 lines 22-38). Feaviour further discloses the shape support having a smallest unit dimension (e.g. diameter) in the range of 1 to 50 mm, preferably, 1.2 to 25 mm (i.e. 0.6-12.5mm radius) (page 4 lines 14-16) wherein the shaped support having form of spheres, cylinders, rings (indentation) or multi-holed units (2-10 through holes) (page 3 lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a support body having such radius and through holes as shown by Feaviour to modify the catalyst body of Forrest in view of Lee because adopting such well-known technique of such support radius and indentation or through holes to modify a well-known catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP 2143 §KSR).
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