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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/4th par. as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. To the extent that Claim 23 can be met by the presence of titania, the claim does not further limit Claim 21, which also/already requires titania.
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.
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) 21-25, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106861674A, hereinafter ‘Zhou’1, in view of WO2018018406A1, hereinafter ‘Chen’.
Regarding Claim 21, Zhou discloses a catalyst composition comprising:
a support comprising titania in an amount of more than 50% by weight of the support ([0008]: Zhou discloses the use of titania as a support, i.e., a support mostly or entirely comprising titania),
catalytically active species comprising a vanadium species, an antimony species, and a tungsten species ([0027]: the exemplary catalyst comprises V2O5, Sb2O3, and WO3),
wherein the tungsten species, calculated as WO3, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount ranging from about 2.5 % to about 15 % by weight, relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, the aluminum species, and the at least one further species, if present ([0028]: the catalyst comprises a weight ratio of V2O5:Sb2O3:WO3:TiO2 = 10:2:10:78 – this implies 10 wt% tungsten oxide).
Further regarding Claim 1, while Zhou discloses a catalyst for SCR treatment of nitrogen oxides ([0029]), Zhou does not disclose an aluminum species present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 20% by weight, calculated as Al2O3 relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, the aluminum species, and the at least one further species.
Chen discloses an SCR catalyst with improved NO-x abatement (Page 2, lines 7-8). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Chen as analogous to the claimed invention, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, SCR of nitrogen oxides - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, MPEP 2141.01(a) I, citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Further, Chen discloses that the support for the SCR catalyst is at least one of TiO2, Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2, CeO2, zeolite, and combinations thereof at any ratio. In an embodiment, the support consists of TiO2 and SiO2 (Page 4, lines 12-21). Further, Chen discloses inclusion of at least one further component selected from the group consisting of silicon, aluminum and zirconium may further improve the catalytic properties of the inventive catalyst, especially at low temperature, e.g., at about 200 to 300℃ (Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 3).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the titania support as disclosed by Zhou with Al2O3, SiO2, or both in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, as each of these components are known in the art to be useful for such a purpose – it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…”[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the inclusion of Al2O3 and/or SiO2 to further improve the catalytic properties of the inventive catalyst, especially at low temperature.
Further, in performing such a modification as described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the disclosure of Chen for guidance regarding the precise loading of these materials, such that the benefits of addition of Al2O3 and/or SiO2 would be realized. Looking to Chen, Example 17 discloses the use of about 7 wt% Al2O3, and Example 15 discloses the use of about 7 wt% SiO2. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize about 7 wt% of Al2O3 and/or SiO2, as such an amount is utilized in the disclosure of Chen to achieve the disclosed benefits to the final catalyst.
Regarding Claim 22, Zhou as modified above discloses the vanadium species and the antimony species are in form of oxides of each, in form of a composite oxide comprising vanadium and antimony, or a combination thereof, the tungsten species is in form of an oxide thereof, and the at least one further species if present, is independently from each other, in form of SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2 and CeO2 (as discussed above, the catalyst of Zhou is a composite oxide comprising V2O5:Sb2O3:WO3:TiO2, which comprises antimony, vanadium, and tungsten in the form of an oxide).
Regarding Claim 23, Zhou as modified above suggests the catalyst to comprise alumina, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 24, Zhou as modified above discloses the vanadium species, calculated as V2O5, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount ranging from about 1 % to about 10% by weight, relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, and the at least one further species, if present (as discussed above, Zhou discloses a weight ratio of V2O5:Sb2O3:WO3:TiO2 = 10:2:10:78 – this discloses an amount of V2O5 of 10 wt%).
Regarding Claim 25, Zhou as modified above makes obvious the antimony species, calculated as Sb2O3, is present in the catalyst composition in an amount ranging from about 0.5 % to about 20% by weight, relative to the total weight of the support, the catalytically active species, and the at least one further species, if present (as discussed above, Zhou discloses a weight ratio of V2O5:Sb2O3:WO3:TiO2 = 10:2:10:78 – this discloses an amount of Sb2O3of 2 wt%).
Regarding Claim 27-29, the instant claims are drawn to further limiting limitations of Claim 21 that are presented in the alternative or as "optional", such that they are not required by the claim. Particularly, “the at least one further species,” deriving antecedent basis from Claim 21, is optional, and the instant claims do not positively require that the one further species is no longer optional by reciting, for example, “The catalyst composition of claim 21, wherein the catalyst comprises the at least one further species, wherein the at least one further species is a silicon species.” Therefore, the at least one further species are not positively required by the instant claims, and are rejected in the same way as Claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 30, Zhou as modified above suggests a catalyst comprising about 7 wt% SiO2, as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/11/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached on (571) 270-3591. 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.
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1 Note: citations to Zhou are to the English machine translation thereof, and shall also be considered to cite to the corresponding portions of the Chinese-language original document.
Prosecution Insights