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 Status
Claim 1 is newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue the following on page 2:
Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection because Peden fails to disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1, particularly "the SCR catalyst has a post aging BET surface area after lean/rich aging at 850°C for 5 hours >550 m²/g, and exhibits a NH3 storage of at least about 0.60 g/L or greater at 200°C after a thermal aging treatment."
In the outstanding Office Action ("OA"), the Office alleged that Peden renders Applicants' claim 1 obvious because as "the same conditions would produce the same measured characteristics." OA, p4, para. 3. Applicants respectfully disagree. Applicants respectfully submit that Peden discloses neither the same conditions nor the same measured characteristics as Applicants.
While Peden discloses Cu-exchanged SSZ-13 zeolites with copper loading, Peden does not disclose or suggest that its catalysts achieve the specific post-aging performance characteristics recited in claim 1. Peden's hydrothermal aging was conducted by "passing air containing about 10% water vapor through the catalyst bed heated at a temperature of 750° C. for 16 hrs." Peden, para. [0038]. Peden does not disclose any testing under the specific lean/rich aging conditions recited in claim 1, specifically 850°C for 5 hours under cyclic lean/rich conditions, nor does Peden report any BET surface area data after such aging or any NH₃ storage capacity data.
Furthermore, Peden fails to teach the critical relationship between lowering CuO loadings with high thermal stability (e.g., 850°C) under lean/rich aging conditions, which is highlighted by the present application. The present application demonstrates that copper loadings of less than about 2.0% by weight or less than about 1.8% by weight are particularly advantageous as the BET surface area remains virtually unchanged after aging. See Specification, para. [0100]. The application further provides experimental data showing that at 3.2% CuO loading, the BET surface area after lean/rich aging at 850°C for 5 hours was only 65 m²/g, whereas at 1.7% CuO loading, the BET surface area was 578 m²/g, and at 1.1% and 0.6% CuO loadings, the BET surface areas were 583 m²/g and 586 m²/g, respectively. See Specification, Table 2. Accordingly, the Office has not established that Peden's catalysts would achieve the specific combination of post-aging BET surface area greater than 550 m²/g and NH₃ storage of at least 0.60 g/L at 200°C after the claimed thermal aging treatment.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The claims are composition claims and therefore the features described in claim describing that when the catalyst is treated under lean/rich aging conditions at 850 degrees C for 5 hours, the catalyst has a certain BET surface area, this is property of the claimed product. The specification of this application describes how this feature is achieved. That is, the specification explains that when a promoter metal is added to a molecular sieve at lower concentrations, it leads to catalysts that are more highly stable under these lean/rich aging conditions at temperature of 800 degrees C and above (see PG Pub of specification, para. 70). Promoter levels effective to show this stability range from 2.6% or less (para. 70 of the PG Pub.).
Therefore, as stated, since the loading is the same and the zeolite is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same conditions would produce the same measured characteristics.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 9, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peden (US Pub.: 2016/0107119).
Claim 1 describes the BET surface area of the sieve by stating that the “metal promoted molecular sieve after lean/rich aging at 850 degrees C for 5 hours is greater than 550 m2/g”.
According to the specification of this application, when a promoter metal is added to a sieve at lower concentrations, it leads to catalysts that are more highly stable under these lean/rich aging conditions at temperature of 800 degrees C and above (see PG Pub of specification, para. 70). Promoter levels effective to show this stability range from 2.6% or less (para. 70 of the PG Pub.).
Peden describes a NOx catalyst for use as an SCR catalyst (para. 9, title and para. 3). The catalyst can comprise a Cu-exchanged chabazite SSZ-13 zeolite (para. 10). The Cu is loaded into the zeolite in an amount of 0.01 wt% to less than 2wt% (para. 11). The catalyst is effective for use in lean-burning systems (para. 54).
Therefore, since the loading is the same and the zeolite is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same conditions would produce the same measured characteristics.
As to the “only SSZ-13” feature, Peden shows in the examples (see example 1 and 2), that only SSZ-13 is used as the sieve.
As to Claim 12, Peden teaches that the Si/Al ratio can be 12.5 (para. 52).
As to Claims 13 and 14, Claim 13 describes intended use features. Penden teaches the same composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would have the same properties.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerdes and Fedeyko as applied to claim 1 above, and evidenced by Voss (US Pub.: 2018/0043305).
Voss explains that zeolites that contain d6r units include CHA sieves (para. 71).
SSZ-13 are a form of CHA sieves.
Therefore, the same composition would have the same features.
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penden and further in view of Andersen (US Pub.: 2010/0267548).
As to Claims 15, 16, 17 and 18, the catalyst composition describes in the rejection to Claim 1 is re-iterated here.
Andersen describes an SCR catalyst used to treat NOx gases (para. 3) made up of copper-modified molecular sieve (para. 11) with a chabazite framework (para. 12). This catalyst may be coated on a monolith substrate (para. 66), which can be a number of different substrates, such as honeycomb monoliths or wall-flow filters (para. 66). The substrate may be made of a metal or a ceramic substrate (para. 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the catalyst composition of Penden as a coated material onto a substrate of either a honeycomb monoliths or wall-flow filters, where the substrate is either a metal or ceramic, as taught by Andersen because depositing this composition onto these types of filters is known to be effective in reducing pollutants in a flue gas stream.
As to Claim 19, Andersen explains that this catalyst may be coated on a monolith substrate (para. 66), which can be a number of different substrates, such as honeycomb monoliths or wall-flow filters (para. 66). Andersen describes employing a binder that can be made out of alumina, silica, titania or zirconia (para. 67).
Claim(s) 20, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rivas-Cardona (US Pub.: 2015/0151288) “R-C” and in view of Gerdes (US Pat.: 4735927) and in view of Li ‘060 and in view of Fedeyko.
R-C describes a copper-CHA zeolite for use as an SCR used to reduce NOx (abstract) in exhaust gas streams (para. 9). The amount of copper in the catalyst can be 1.5 % or less (para. 9) and the silica/alumina ratio is about 40 (para. 9). Their catalyst is deposited on a honeycomb substrate (para. 53) made out of metal (para. 44). The substrate is a wall flow filter (para. 53).
R-C teaches that their composition is used for lean burn internal combustion engines (para. 73). The catalyst is used to treat the exhaust from the engine (para. 73, 74). This can be considered “in fluid communication with” the exhaust as stream. Also, the catalyst is downstream from the engine because the catalyst is used to treat exhaust from the engine.
As to the SCR composition, Gerdes describes a catalyst for the reduction of NOx gases (title). The catalyst is made up of a zeolite and is modified with a metal promoter, such as copper in an amount of at least 0.1wt% (abstract). Although Gerdes does not specifically describe an upper limit, in one example, Gerdes describes that the copper promoter added to the zeolite is added in an amount of 0.2 wt% of copper (see Table 1 under sample No.: 36309). The zeolite used can include a chabazite-zeolite (col. 2, lines 1-2, 19). Gerdes does not state that the chabazite used is a SSZ-13 zeolite.
Gerdes does not specifically teach that the CHA is an SSZ-13-type framework however.
As to the SSZ-13 framework, Fedeyko describes a selective catalytic reduction catalyst material (title and abstract). Fedeyko explains that making a catalyst blend of CHA sieves have shown to yield better performance, such as NOx conversion and hydrothermal stability over when they are separately (pg. 2, second to last para).
The catalyst material includes CHA zeolite of which there are many isotypes, which include SAPO-34 and SSZ-13 (pg. 5, lines 8-15). The preferred catalyst composition is a combination of a SAPO and a CHA aluminosilicate (pg. 2, last para). For the silicoaluminophosphate component, SAPO-34 is preferred (pg. 5, lines 15-20) and for the aluminosilicate component, Fedeyko an SSZ-13 framework is preferred (pg. 9, line 8). The amount of copper in the catalyst may range from 1-5wt% (pg. 10, lines 8-10) in the first framework component (pg. 10, line 7-9) and second extra-framework metal is present in an amount of 0.4: 1 to about 1.5:1 of the first metal (pg. 10, lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add SSZ-13 to the SAPO-34, as taught by Fedeyko for use with the catalyst of Gerdes because by combining these frameworks, Fedeyko explains that it yields better performance to include having better NOx conversion and higher hydrothermal stability.
The composition may be used as an SCR for reducing NOx in an exhaust gas (para. 48).
As to the feature that the SCR would be effective to abate NOx from a lean burn gasoline engine exhaust gas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would be effective in the same way.
The references do not specifically teach that the CHA is an SSZ-13-type framework however.
As to the SSZ-13 framework, Fedeyko describes a selective catalytic reduction catalyst material (title and abstract). Fedeyko explains that making a catalyst blend of CHA sieves have shown to yield better performance, such as NOx conversion and hydrothermal stability over when they are separately (pg. 2, second to last para).
The catalyst material includes CHA zeolite of which there are many isotypes, which include SAPO-34 and SSZ-13 (pg. 5, lines 8-15). The preferred catalyst composition is a combination of a SAPO and a CHA aluminosilicate (pg. 2, last para). For the silicoaluminophosphate component, SAPO-34 is preferred (pg. 5, lines 15-20) and for the aluminosilicate component, Fedeyko an SSZ-13 framework is preferred (pg. 9, line 8). The amount of copper in the catalyst may range from 1-5wt% (pg. 10, lines 8-10) in the first framework component (pg. 10, line 7-9) and second extra-framework metal is present in an amount of 0.4: 1 to about 1.5:1 of the first metal (pg. 10, lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add SSZ-13 to the SAPO-34, as taught by Fedeyko for use with the catalyst of Gerdes because by combining these frameworks, Fedeyko explains that it yields better performance to include having better NOx conversion and higher hydrothermal stability.
As to the surface area, Li ‘060 explains that the sieve after ion exchange and after aging is from 517-762 (Table 2).
The composition may be used as an SCR for reducing NOx in an exhaust gas (para. 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition of Li ‘060 in the system of R-C because SCR compounds in these types of systems are known to be effective for use in pollution reduction.
Claims 21, 22, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R-C Gerdes, Li and Fedeyko as applied to claim 20 or 23 above, and further in view of Narayanaswamy (US Pub.: 2010/0107606).
Narayanaswamy describes an exhaust gas treatment system used with lean-engine operation (para. 44) using catalysts in series (Fig. 7 and 8). The system includes an engine, followed by a TWC (Fig. 7, 8, 48), followed by an SCR (Fig. 7, 60). The TWC is close-coupled to the engine (para. 74, Claims 17, 18). The SCR includes a substrate coated with a catalyst washcoat layer (para. 41). Narayanaswamy teaches that the SCR catalyst can include iron or copper modified on zeolite (para. 10), but does not teach the amount of either metal in the zeolite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the TWC in close-coupled to the engine upstream of the SCR, as taught by Narayanaswamy for use with the SCR of R-C, Gerdes, Li and Fedeyko because this configuration is known to be effective to treat lean engine exhaust.
Conclusion
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights