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
The claims are amended to incorporate parts of former Claim 12 into Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The relevant argument in the remarks state the following:
With respect to claim 12, the Office has alleged that the combination of Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler, and Punke renders claim 12 obvious. OA, page 7. Applicant respectfully thanks Examiner for acknowledging that "[t]he references do not teach the D50 and the D90 features of the zeolite." OA, page 7, sixth paragraph. However, the Office then relies on Punke's d90 range of 0.5 to 20 micrometers to address the D90 limitation, but Applicant respectfully submits that the outstanding OA does not address the D50 limitation.
As none of the cited references teaches or suggests a D50 value for zeolite particles prior to admixing with the aqueous mixture, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, is allowable. Claims 6, 7, 10-14, 17, 19-22, 24-26, 28, 29, and 31-34 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
The remarks are respectfully contended. Chiffey does not state what their d50 is. Punke states that the entire catalyst has a size where the d90 is from 0.5 to 20mm. Since the zeolite is in the catalyst, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the d50 of Chiffey to be from 0.5 to 20mm, as taught by Punke because, as stated, this size range is effective and leads to predictable support of the catalyst within the pores of the substrate. Although Punke does not state that the size of the zeolite is measured prior to mixing, since Chiffey does not grind their catalyst in examples 1 and 2 and Punke describe an effective size of 0.5 to 20mm, it would be obvious that the d50 size of the zeolite in Chiffey is the same after blending than prior to blending.
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, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey (GB 2492175) and in view of Ikeda (JP 2020/138183) Chandler (US Pub.: 2018/0021768) and further in view of Punke (CN 107849962).
As to Claims 1, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 26, Chiffey describes a catalyst and a method of making the catalyst (abstract). The process combines an aqueous mixture of alumina with a slurry of copper exchanged zeolite and iron oxide (example 1, lines 25-30). The copper and iron modify the zeolite by ion-exchange (page 11, lines 1-5).
As to the milling feature, Chiffey explains that the base metals are milled prior to forming the slurry (page 11, lines 6-15).
As to the size, Chiffey explains that the d90 of the iron precursor is 10 microns (see example 1, lines 25-27).
Chiffey states that the iron is in the form of iron acetate (page 11, lines 1-3) or iron oxide (example 1, line 27), but does not state that iron is in the form of iron carbonate.
Ikeda teaches a catalytic composition (title). The reference explains that for the iron precursor, any form can be used, such as iron acetate, iron carbonate or iron oxide (page 3, lines 4-12) because all of these can be fired into iron (page 3, lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an iron carbonate instead of iron acetate as the iron precursor, as taught by Ikeda for use with the catalyst of Chiffey because Ikeda explains that any of these iron salts can be fired to convert the iron into iron.
Chiffey teaches that the catalyst can be combined with alumina (see example 1, para. 2). This can be considered a binder. The binder is combined with the catalyst in a slurry (see example 1). This can be considered an admixture.
The references do not state that the binder has a BET specific surface area of 200-1,000 m2/g.
Chandler describes a catalyst that is washcoated on a substrate (para. 11, 7, abstract). The catalyst includes a zeolite composition (para. 12) that is metal-exchanged with a transition metal (para. 16) and combined with a binder (para. 21). The binder can be alumina has a specific surface area of 100-400 m2/g (para. 21). Chandler explains that use of binders depend upon its intended purposes and should take into account the catalyst surface, the substrate surface, intended reaction conditions of the catalyst (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an alumina binder that has a specific surface area of 100-400 m2/g, as taught by Chandler for use with the catalyst of Chiffey and Ikeda because use of these types of binders are known to be effective for use in a catalyst washcoat to produce a supported catalyst with expected and predictable results.
As to the zeolite size, Chiffey does not teach the d50 prior to mixing.
The catalyst particle size is adjusted so that it has a d90 that is 25% or less the average hole size of the wall substrate it attaches to (page 7, lines 7-14). The specific size of the catalyst, the d90, is from 0.5 to 20 micrometers (page 7, lines 7-14).
Since the zeolite is in the catalyst, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the d50 of Chiffey to be from 0.5 to 20mm, as taught by Punke because, as stated, this size range is effective and leads to predictable support of the catalyst within the pores of the substrate.
As to Claim 6, Chiffey teaches that the mixture can include stabilizers or promoters or dispersants (page 9, lines 25-26).
As to Claim 7, Chiffey teaches that the zeolite can be a FAU, a ZSM, ferrierite, mordenite, CHA, OFF, ERI, BETA or others (see page 8, lines 5-10).
As to Claim 17, None of the references teach that the binder has a d90 value of 0.5 to 20 micrometers.
Punke describes depositing catalyst on a substrate (page 7, lines 7-9). The catalyst (title) contains a zeolite (page 6, lines 19-23) modified by a metal, such as Cu and/or Fe (page 6, lines 35). The alumina, which can be considered the binder is pre-ground so that it has a particle size 5 microns and there is a d90 of 5 microns (see embodiment 1, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a binder that has a d90 of 5 micron, as taught by Punke for use with the catalyst of Chiffey, Ikeda and Chandler because this binder size would be effectively support the catalyst within the pores of the substrate support.
As to Claim 20, Punke teaches that the solids content of the slurry is from about 39wt% (see embodiment 1). Some of the contents of the slurry may be ground (embodiment 1) and then slurry is then used to coat a substrate (embodiment 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid content of 39wt%, as taught by Punke, for use with the catalyst composition of Chiffey, Ikeda and Chandler because this this size range effectively and predictable supports the catalyst within the pores of the substrate support.
As to Claims 25 and 33, Chiffey teaches that the catalyst slurry is deposited on a substrate (page 9, lines 27-30). The substrate can have parallel thin-walled channels with an inlet or outlet with a plurality of channels (page 6, lines 18-28). The coated substrate is then dried at 80-150 degrees C and then calcinated at 400-600 degrees C (page 10, lines 5-10).
As to Claim 28, Chiffey teaches that the substrate can be a flow-through filter (page 6, lines 17-20).
As to Claims 31 and 32, although the references cited do not specifically state the characteristics of the zeolite in terms of the tests described in Claims 31 and 32. Nonetheless, 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 catalyst would have the same characteristics when tested under the same parameters.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergeal (US Pub.: 2017/0096922).
The references do not describe that the molar ratio of SiO2:Al2O3 is from 1-100.
Bergeal teaches a NOx absorber (title) that includes a molecular sieve modified with a metal (para. 26), such as copper (para. 32). The SAR in the molecular sieve can have a range of 10-200 (para. 50).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a molecular sieve with a SAR range of 10-200, as taught by Bergeal for use with Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke because this range is known to be effective for use in a NOx absorber.
Claim(s) 11, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hepburn (US Pat.: 5727385).
Chiffey teaches that the copper is modified in the zeolite in the form of an ion-exchange.
The references do not teach the amount of copper in the catalyst.
Hepburn describes a lean burn NOx trap (title). The catalyst can include a transition metal, such as copper (col. 3, lines 20-22) that is exchanged into a zeolite (col. 3, lines 23-25) in an amount of 0.1-10wt % (col. 3, lines 30-32).
Since Chiffey does not describe a copper loading amount by weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add copper in an amount of 0.1 to 10wt%, as taught by Hepburn for use with Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke because Hepburn offers guidance into an effective amount of copper to add to the zeolite for effective use in a NOx trap catalyst.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sankar “Alkali Resistant Fe-Zeolite Catalysts for SCR. . “.
The references do not teach the BET surface area of the zeolite.
Sankar explains that the unique properties (high surface area and acidity) of Fe-zeolites could convey a good alkali tolerance in the reduction of NO in exhaust, especially for biomass fired power plants, unlike metal oxides like TiO2 or ZrO2 possessing less surface area (\100 m2 /g) and moderate acidity (250 lmol/g). Acidity and surface area of zeolites are easily tunable with maximum values observed with compositions corresponding to Si/Al ratios of 10–25 [19–21]. High surface area facilitates dispersion of the catalyst (pg. 1287, para. 2). This can be applied to H-ZSM-5 sieves that are ion exchanged with metals, such as Fe (section 2.1, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the surface area of the ZSM-5 sieve, as taught by Sankar to an effective range for use with the Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke because a high surface area is known to be adjustable to higher ranges since that facilitates catalytic dispersion.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kanazawa (US Pub.: 2009/0317307).
Chiffey describes a lean NOx trap catalyst (abstract). The references do not teach adding a copper precursor in the form of those listed in claim 24.
Kanazawa teaches a NOx adsorbent material (abstract) that is modified with a metal, such as Fe/Cu (abstract). The method of making the catalyst includes adding copper nitrate precursor to the zeolite to make a NOx adsorbent (para. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add copper to the iron in the form of copper nitrate, as taught by Kanazawa for use with the NOx adsorbent material of Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke because Kanazawa explains that an effective NOx adsorbent can include iron in addition to copper and that the copper can be in the form of copper nitrate for effective use as a NOx adsorbent material.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Kanazawa (US Pub.: 2009/0317307) and further in view of Yoon (US Pub.: 2022/0134320).
The references do not teach inclusion of a copper acetate salt in their NOx storage catalyst.
Kanazawa teaches a NOx adsorbent material (abstract) that is modified with a metal, such as Fe/Cu (abstract). The method of making the catalyst includes adding copper nitrate precursor to the zeolite to make a NOx adsorbent (para. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add copper to the iron in the form of copper nitrate, as taught by Kanazawa for use with the NOx adsorbent material of Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke because Kanazawa explains that an effective NOx adsorbent can include iron in addition to copper and that the copper can be in the form of copper nitrate for effective use as a NOx adsorbent material.
As to the use of copper in the form of copper acetate, Yoon describes a NOx storage catalyst made up of a zeolite ion-exchanged with a transition metal (abstract). The metal can be a copper metal, which can be in the form of a number copper salts, such as copper acetate (para. 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ copper in the form of copper acetate for use in a NOx storage catalyst, as taught by Yoon for use with the NOx storage catalyst of Chiffey, Ikeda, Chandler and Punke because Kanazawa explains that copper can be added to the iron catalyst for use with NOx storage materials.
As to the operation temperature, since this is a catalyst claim, 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 catalyst would be effective in the same way.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights