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 in response to the Amendment dated July 16, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims 4, 7-11, and 19-20 (species) drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on March 10, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 have been objected to because of minor informalities.
The objection of claims 1 and 2 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 12 and 15 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (“Electrochemical Conversion of Methane to Ethylene in a Solid Oxide Electrolyzer,” Nature Communications (2019 Mar 12), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-8).
The rejection of claims 1-2, 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Zhu et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. Claim(s) 3 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (“Electrochemical Conversion of Methane to Ethylene in a Solid Oxide Electrolyzer,” Nature Communications (2019 Mar 12), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-8) as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Krist et al. (US Patent 5,064,733).
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Krist et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
II. Claim(s) 6 and 18 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (“Electrochemical Conversion of Methane to Ethylene in a Solid Oxide Electrolyzer,” Nature Communications (2019 Mar 12), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-8) as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of CN 103811772 (‘772) and Chen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0081596 A1).
The rejection of claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of CN 103811772 (‘772) and Chen et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
III. Claim(s) 17 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (“Electrochemical Conversion of Methane to Ethylene in a Solid Oxide Electrolyzer,” Nature Communications (2019 Mar 12), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-8) as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 15
above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0163889 A1).
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Kato et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
IV. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 12, 15 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0067169 A1) in view of Zhong et al. (“Polyethylene Plastic Production Process,” Materials Science: Materials Review (2017 Dec 31), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9) and Krist et al. (US Patent 5,064,733).
With regard to claim 5, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. in view of Zhong et al. and Krist et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
With regard to claims 1-3, 12, 15 and 18, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. in view of Zhong et al. and Krist et al. stands.
Regarding claim 1, Ingram teaches a method comprising:
• introducing oxygen-containing molecules (= oxidant species) [page 2, [0030]] to a first electrode (= the cathode 6) [page 1, [0020]] of an electrochemical cell (= a solid oxide cell or other electrochemical cell) [page 1, [0020]], the electrochemical cell comprising:
۰ the first electrode (= the cathode 6) [page 1, [0020]];
۰ a second electrode (= the anode 4) [page 1, [0020]] comprising at least one catalyst
material formulated to accelerate oxidative coupling of methane (CH4) (OCM) reaction rates
to produce C2H4 from CH4 and oxygen ions (O2-);1 and, the at least one catalyst material comprising a perovskite-structured mixed metal oxide material exhibiting a cubic lattice structure with a chemical formula ABO3-δ, where A comprises one or more of lanthanum (La) and strontium (Sr), B comprises titanium (Ti) and scandium (Sc),and S is an oxygen deficit (= examples of anode materials include lanthanum strontium titanium oxide) [page 3, [0033]];2 and
۰ an electrolyte between the first electrode and the second electrode (= a middle layer being a cell electrolyte or oxygen transport membrane 2) [page 1, [0020]];
• introducing CH4 to the second electrode of the electrochemical cell (= in one
embodiment, the anode uses the oxygen species from the electrolyte to facilitate the oxidation of a hydrocarbon, for example, forming methanol from methane) [pages 1-2, [0022]]; and
• applying a potential difference in electrolysis mode between the first electrode and the second electrode of the electrochemical cell (= the anode and cathode voltage leads were connected to a potentiostat) [page 4, [0047]], the oxygen-containing molecules interacting with the first electrode to produce the O2- through reduction of the oxygen-containing molecules, transporting the O2- through the electrolyte (= flowing an oxidant species over the reducing side of an oxygen transport membrane. The oxidant species is then reduced to generate O2− anions.
O2− anions are then continuously transported from the reducing side through the oxygen transport membrane to the oxidizing side) [page 1, [0019]].
Ingram does not explicitly teach the following:
a. Of forming ethylene (C2H4).3
b. Producing C2H4 at the second electrode through OCM.
Ingram teaches the oxidation of alkanes to olefins (Fig. 1). Methane is a reactant and
some possible organic reactants and their possible products include (but are not limited to)
ethylene (page 3, [0035]).
Zhong teaches that polyethylene has become the most important polyolefin plastic with
excellent mechanical properties, processing properties and chemical resistance. It is used in the production of film, packaging and pipe (page 1, abstract). Polyethylene is formed by addition polymerization of ethylene (CH2 = CH2). [2] (page 2, line 29).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Ingram by producing C2H4 at the second electrode through OCM. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Ingram teaches that methanol, dimethyl ether and formic acid are possible products all from using methane as a reactant in [0035]. This teaching would have suggested that other products are also possible from using methane as the reactant where Ingram teaches all of the electrolysis conditions that can
produce ethylene4 as presently claimed where similar processes can reasonably be expected to yield products which inherently have the same properties. In re Spada 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (CAFC 1990); In re DeBlauwe 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (CAFC 1984); In re Wiegand
182 F.2d 633, 86 USPQ 155 (CCPA 1950), and because the addition polymerization of ethylene would have produced polyethylene, which is a polyolefin plastic with excellent mechanical properties, processing properties and chemical resistance used in the production of film, packaging and pipe.
Regarding claim 2, Ingram teaches wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to
a first electrode of an electrochemical cell comprises selecting the oxygen-containing molecules to comprise CO2 (= CO2 which is reduced) [page 2, [0030]] and applying the potential difference between the first electrode and the second electrode of the electrochemical cell (= the anode and cathode voltage leads were connected to a potentiostat) [page 4, [0047]] while the CO2 interacts with the first electrode to produce CO and O2- through a CO2 reduction reaction (= CO2 which is reduced to CO or C) [page 2, [0030]; and Fig. 1: O2-].
Regarding claim 3, Ingram does not explicitly teach wherein introducing CH4 to the second electrode of the electrochemical cell comprises introducing natural gas comprising CH4 and at least one other material to the second electrode.
Krist teaches the anodic reaction of:
2O2- + 2CH4 → C2H4 + 2 H2O + 4e-
(col. 6, lines 49-52).
Likewise, any methane containing gas, such as natural gas, synthetic natural gas, solid or liquid hydrocarbon gasification products containing methane, or methane enriched gases may be supplied to the anode for dimerization (col. 9, lines 2-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Ingram with
wherein introducing CH4 to the second electrode of the electrochemical cell comprises
introducing natural gas comprising CH4 and at least one other material to the second electrode. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because natural gas5 would have been a source of methane (CH4) for a solid oxide electrolyzer
for producing ethylene (C2H4) as taught by Krist in col. 9, lines 2-7, and Fig. 1.
MPEP § 2144.07 states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Regarding claim 12, Ingram teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises an O2-
conducting material (= O2− anions are then continuously transported from the reducing side through the oxygen transport membrane to the oxidizing side) [page 1, [0019]].
Regarding claim 15, Ingram teaches wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to a first electrode comprises introducing carbon dioxide (CO2) [= CO2 which is reduced to CO or C] (page 2, [0030]) to the first electrode (= the reaction carried out at the cathode) [page 2, [0028]].
Regarding claim 18, Ingram teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) material, a scandia-stabilized zirconia (ScSZ) material, a lanthanum gallate (LaGaO3) material, a ytterbium-stabilized zirconia (YbSZ) material, a ceria (CeO2) material, samaria-doped CeO2 (SDC), a bismuth oxide (Bi2O3) material, a yttria- stabilized bismuth oxide
(YSB) material, or a thorium dioxide (ThO2) material (= some of these materials include yttria-
stabilized zirconia (YSZ), scandia-stabilized zirconia (ScSZ), ceria, gadolinium-doped ceria (GDC), samarium-doped ceria (SDC), calcium-doped ceria (CDC)) [page 2, [0027]].
V. Claim(s) 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0067169 A1)in view of Zhong et al. (“Polyethylene Plastic Production Process,” Materials Science: Materials Review (2017 Dec 31), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9) and Krist et al. (US Patent 5,064,733) as applied to claims 1-3, 12, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of CN 103811772 (‘772) and Chen et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0081596 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ingram et al. in view of Zhong and Krist teach the method of at least
claims 1-3, 12, 15 and 18 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to a first electrode of an electrochemical cell comprises selecting the at least one catalyst material of the second electrode of the electrochemical cell to comprise nanorods.
CN ‘772 teaches that:
This perovskite-type oxide is a mixed ionic conductor with high oxygen ion conductivity and electronic conductivity (ρ [0049]).
According to the composite material provided by the present invention, the perovskite-
type oxide is a particulate powder, a one-dimensional nanopowder, or a mesoporous material (ρ [0050]).
In the composite material provided by the present invention, the one-dimensional nanopowder is a nanorod, nanotube, nanofiber, or nanowire (ρ [0051]).
Chen teaches that:
In addition, the electrode architecture of the present disclosure has high cathode electronic conductivity and electrocatalytic activity. LSC has the highest electronic conductivity
among all the reported perovskite-type oxides. The interconnected LSC nanoparticles form an uninterrupted electron conduction path, minimizing the ohmic losses in the cathode layer. LSC has the highest surface oxygen exchange coefficient which promotes oxygen reduction reaction at the cathode. In addition, nanosized LSC particles have large surface areas which further enlarge the oxygen reduction sites and consequently enhance the oxygen reduction process (page 2, [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified Ingram with wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to a first electrode of an electrochemical cell comprises selecting the at least one catalyst material of the second electrode of the electrochemical cell to comprise nanorods. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the architecture of having a
one-dimensional nanopowder comprised of a nanorod would have provided more active sites to interact with reactants and would have provided high oxygen ion conductivity and high electronic conductivity.
VI. Claim(s) 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0067169 A1)in view of Zhong et al.
(“Polyethylene Plastic Production Process,” Materials Science: Materials Review (2017 Dec 31), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9) and Krist et al. (US Patent 5,064,733) as applied to claims 1-3, 12, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0163889 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ingram et al. in view of Zhong and Krist teach the method of at least
claims 1-3, 12, 15 and 18 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to a first electrode comprises introducing the oxygen-containing molecules to the first electrode comprising one or more of lanthanum oxide (La2O3), praseodymium oxide (PrO2), or cerium oxide (CeO2).
Kato teaches that:
In the apparatus according to the present invention, the anode and cathode material is preferably material having an elevated oxygen ion conductivity and/or electronic conductivity as obtained by partial element substitution in, for example, ZrO2, CeO2, LaCrO3, LaTiO3, or LaGaO3. When, in particular, the material used exhibits both electronic and oxygen ion conductivities, this is effective for reducing the reaction overvoltage since many reaction sites will be present in the case of application as an electrode and the area available for oxygen ion diffusion is also increased (page 2, [00028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified Ingram
with wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to a first electrode comprises introducing the oxygen-containing molecules to the first electrode comprising one or more of lanthanum oxide (La2O3), praseodymium oxide (PrO2), or cerium oxide (CeO2). The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because CeO2 would have elevated oxygen ion conductivity and/or electronic conductivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 defines over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any
language that teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein introducing oxygen-containing molecules to a first electrode of an electrochemical cell comprises selecting the at least one catalyst material of the second electrode of the electrochemical cell to comprise La0.3Sr0.7Sc0.1Ti0.9O3-δ. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
Claim 5 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The standing prior art rejections have been maintained for the following reasons:
• Applicant states that thus, Ingram identifies methane as a reactant for methanol, dimethyl ether, and formic acid, and separately identifies ethane as the reactant for ethylene.
In response, all disclosures of the prior art, including non-preferred embodiments, must be considered, In re Lamberti and Konort, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1967). All disclosure in the prior art, not just specific examples, must be evaluated for what it fairly teaches those of ordinary skill in the art, In re Snow and Steinhards,176 USPQ, 328, 329 (CCPA 1973). Non-preferred
embodiments can be indicative of obviousness, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976); In re Kohler, 177 USPQ 399.
Ingram teaches some possible organic reactants and their possible products include (but are not limited to) what is shown in the table in [0035]. This teaching would have suggested that other products are also possible from using methane as the reactant where Ingram teaches all of the electrolysis conditions that can produce ethylene that is presently claimed.
The fact that the Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
• Applicant states that a broad list of possible anode materials does not teach or suggest selecting a scandium-containing Ti/Sc B-site composition for a second-electrode OCM catalyst that produces C2H4 from CH4 and O2-.
In response, Ingram’s express teaching of lanthanum strontium titanium oxide as suitable for the anode material provides reasons for one of ordinary skill in the art to select it. See Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the ‘813 patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.”).
There is no requirement that the presently claimed features be expressly articulated in
one or more of the references. The teaching, suggestion or inference can be found not only in the references but also from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ashland Oil v. Delta Resins 227 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1985). References are evaluated by what they
collectively suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Simon 174 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1972); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, 514 (CCPA 1970).
A process yielding an unobvious product may nonetheless be obvious where Applicant claims a process in terms of function, property or characteristic and the process of the prior art is the same or similar as that of the claim but the function, property or characteristic is not explicitly disclosed by the reference (MPEP § 2116.01).
• Applicant states that Krist therefore does not teach or suggest an ABO3-δ perovskite-structured mixed metal oxide in which B comprises titanium and scandium.
The rejection is not overcome by pointing out that one reference does not contain a particular limitation when reliance for that teaching is on another reference. In re Lyons 150 USPQ 741 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
• Applicant states that Sun and Chen do not teach or suggest the catalyst material recited in claim 1.
The rejection is not overcome by pointing out that one reference does not contain a particular limitation when reliance for that teaching is on another reference. In re Lyons 150
USPQ 741 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
• Applicant states that Kato does not teach or suggest the catalyst material recited in claim 1.
The rejection is not overcome by pointing out that one reference does not contain a particular limitation when reliance for that teaching is on another reference. In re Lyons 150 USPQ 741 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it is well settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Keller 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 PM.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 A perovskite ceramic material with the general chemical formula La1-xSrxTiO3.
2 Lanthanum (La3+) and strontium (Sr2+) randomly occupy the A-site corners of the cube, titanium (Ti4+) occupies the B-site center, and oxygen anions sit at the face centers.
3 This is recited in the preamble.
4 This is the product from performing the process. See MPEP § 2116.01.
5 Natural gas is a fossil fuel primarily composed of methane (CH4), typically making up 90-97% of its volume. It contains smaller amounts of other hydrocarbons (ethane, propane, butane) and impurities like nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor.
Prosecution Insights