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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-38 and 40-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, claim 29 recites “wherein the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition is not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water”, such limitation is not described in the original disclosure. Rather instant disclosure discloses Al2O3 is dispersed in water with a dispersed particle size, and Al-compound precursor of Al2O3 source is dispersed in water forming tiny nanoparticles wherein such AI-compound precursor not being added as soluble ionic form, rather as dispersible particles in water media (see filed substitute specification page 13 lines 9-30, and page 14 lines 1-27 of the substitute specification, examples). It is noted that such description cannot support such claimed limitation of “wherein the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition is not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water”, because not using an ionic soluble form of Al compound rather Al2O3 dispersed in water media is a precursor or source material used (for forming Al2O3 the catalyst), which is completely different subject matter as compared to claimed Al2O3 in the catalyst--a component in the formed final catalyst product comprising copper ion-exchange zeolite, Al2O3 and a zirconium compound. Even instant specification discloses catalyst comprising Al2O3 with a crystalline size as d50 from 5-80 nm (see page 4 lines 24-26, page 8 lines 1-2), it is noted that such nanocrystalline Al2O3 component as fine disperse particles in the catalyst is completely different as compared to the instantly claimed “the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water”. Thus because such description does not support “the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water” as that of instantly claimed. All claim 29’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 29-38, 40-44 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0134617 to Lin et al.
Lin et al. disclose an SCR catalyst composition herein a zeolite material which can be CHA is ion-exchanged with a metal which can be copper, substantially as claimed herein. The copper amount and the aluminum in the zeolite result in a Cu/Al ratio commensurate with that claimed herein. BEA zeolites are additionally mentioned [0108]. The copper is present in an amount of 0.01% -15%, calculated as oxide and based on the total weight of the exchanged molecular sieve [0014]-[0015]. The zeolite can have a silica to alumina ratio (SAR) of from 5-100, overlapping the range claimed herein [Embodiment 5] and [0116]. The amounts of the materials would indicate that a TSAR as claimed herein would naturally follow from making the same catalyst materials. The copper exchanged zeolite can further contain promoters that may comprise zirconium and aluminum as claimed herein [0012], [0016], [Example 3], which can be present in clusters on the surface of the zeolite or in an intra pore site [0020]. The amount of the aluminum in the composition is 2-10% by weight, based on the total with of the ion-exchanged zeolite and calculated as aluminum oxide [0016], [0045]. The amount of the zirconium is 0.1%-50% relative to the weight of the ion-exchanged molecular sieve [0027]. The catalyst can additionally comprise other promoters inclusive of yttrium, hafnium, lanthanum and neodymium [0014]. The size of the zeolite particles is a D90 of 10-40 microns [0114]. A particulate binder material (alumina, zirconia) is added to the slurry for coating. This reads directly on the large alumina particles claimed herein. The reference does not specify the precise size of these particles, but specifically indicates this to be a result-effective variable for SCR catalysts by stating “the material may be milled to appropriate diameter at D90 for successful washcoating” [0179]. The artisan is aware that this type of material can be used to make a support for SCR, or can be coated on a filter material to create a support structure.
Accordingly, the only difference between the instantly claimed catalyst composition and the material disclosed by Lin et al. is the failure to specifically state that the alumina promoter material having a crystalline size d50 from 1 to 8 nm. However, the examiner considers that this feature would have been obvious to the artisan working in the field because each of the differing molecular sieve components has a maximum pore size depending on the structure type. As the aluminum can be added in a solution form, it will end up as alumina (i.e. Al2O3) particles within the pores and channels of the zeolite before the formation of the oxide form. The internal structure of the zeolite will limit the size of the final particles. The artisan is aware that the zeolites recited herein have the largest pores on the order 0.75 nanometers, which is considered to read on the term nanocrystalline. The artisan would expect larger crystallites or clusters to form on the surface of the zeolite (or during use from sintering), which would presuppose such clusters to form from at least 5 crystals if not more. As such, the zeolites carrying clusters of alumina would be expected to have a crystalline size d50 on the order of at least 0.75 - 4.0 nanometers, as set forth in the instant claims. Since such alumina cluster formed on the surface of the Cu-CHA catalyst, alumina dispersed particle size is clearly larger than the actual crystal size of the alumina, therefore, overlapping with that of instantly claimed dispersed particle size, renders a prima facie case of obviousness.
Furthermore, Lin teaches alumina binder- water dispersible binder ( not in an ionic soluble form) being used as binder, which is mixed with zeolite material and zirconium precursor, then going through calcining (para. [0140], [0142], [0144]-[0148]), wherein such process is same or substantially the same as that of instant application of forming the claimed catalyst (see filed substituted specification page 18 lines 14-27), therefore Lin formed catalyst composition from the same or substantially the same process as that of instant application is forming same or substantially the same the catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, i.e. comprising ZrO2 and comprising Al2O3 having same or substantially the same crystallite size of d50 from 1-8 nm, wherein the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition is not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water” as that of instantly claimed.
Since Lin teaches same or substantially the same nanocrystalline aluminum oxide as that instantly claimed, therefore, same or substantially the same “the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition is not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water” as that of instantly claimed is expected.
The limitations of all claims 29-38, 40-44 and 46-48 have been considered, and are deemed to be within the purview of the prior art.
Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0134617 to Lin et al.as applied above, and in view of US2018/0021768 to Chandler et al.
Regarding claim 45, Lin et al does not expressly teach the catalyst further including a silicon oxide or titanium oxide in stable form.
Chandler et al. teaches alumina, silica, non-zeolite silica-alumina, titania and mixture thereof can be used as binder in a copper exchanged molecular sieve containing SCR catalyst ([0021],[0023] [0025]). Chandler also teaches using alumina having crystalline size about 5 to 150 nm as binders together with molecular sieve as SCR catalyst (para. [0023])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such well-known stable oxide form of silica, titania as shown by Chandler et al to modify the catalyst composition of Lin because combining such known elements according to known method of forming a desired selective reduction catalyst as suggested by Chandler et al. ([0003], [0011], [0021]) would yield predictable results. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt nanocrystalline alumina having size 5 to 150 nm to modify the catalyst composition of Lin because adopting such known elements for help improving a known selective reduction catalyst would have reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments about instant specification discloses using small size of Al-compound with small crystal size (Al2O3) or Al2O3 within the catalyst composition being sourced from a dispersion of the Al2O3 (filed substitute specification page 13 lines 17-20) or Al2O3 in the catalyst is dispersible in water (filed substitute specification page 14 lines 9-28), the examiner recognized such description (see above 112 rejections), and clearly explained that instantly claimed Al2O3 within the catalyst being dispersible in water is completely different as compared to instantly claimed “the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water”. In other words, Al2O3 within the catalyst being dispersible in water-- Al2O3 can break apart and spread out water, but such description does not support Al2O3 of the catalyst composition not in a soluble form as applicant alleged. Rather instant specification only discloses not using Al source or precursor in soluble form when forming the catalyst composition (see filed substituted specification page 14 lines 24-25), but such source Al compound is different material as compared to Al2O3 within the catalyst, wherein former one is precursor used to make the catalyst, while later-one is a component in the final catalyst composition. Therefore, such arguments are not found convinicing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Lin not teaching the catalyst comprising ZrO2 because Lin not mention ZrO2 in para [0142] while para. [0144] only mentions metal precursors such as zirconium hydrogenphosphate, zirconium nitrate etc, it is noted that reference as whole as disclosed by Lin. Specifically, Lin teaches zirconium precursors such as zirconium hydrogenphosphate, zirconium nitrate etc., can be mixed with zeolite material, and aluminum precursor, then going through calcining (para. [0140], [0142], [0144], example 3), wherein such process is same or substantially the same as that of instant application of forming the claimed catalyst (see filed substituted specification page 18 lines 14-27), therefore Lin formed catalyst composition from the same or substantially the same process as that of instant application is forming same or substantially the same the catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, i.e. comprising ZrO2.
In response to applicant's arguments about Lin not teaching Al2O3 having size of 1 to 8 nm, Lin teaches the obtained final catalyst composition containing aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and zirconium oxide after such Al and Zr precursors going through high temperature calcining treatment (para. [0140], [0142], [0144], example 3). As set forth in the rejections, since such alumina particles are within the pores and channels of the zeolite before the formation of the oxide form. The internal structure of the zeolite will limit the size of the final particles. The artisan is aware that the zeolites recited herein have the largest pores on the order 0.75 nanometers, which is considered to read on the term nanocrystalline. The artisan would expect larger crystallites or clusters to form on the surface of the zeolite (or during use from sintering), which would presuppose such clusters to form from at least 5 crystals if not more. As such, the zeolites carrying clusters of nanocrystalline alumina would be expected to have a crystalline size d50 on the order of at least 0.75 - 4.0 nanometers, as set forth in the instant claims. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that alumina having crystalline size about 5 to 150 nm can be used as binders (see Chandler to US2018/0021768 para. [0023]) together with molecular sieve as SCR catalyst. Therefore, adopting nanocrystalline size of d50 of 1-8 nm is just obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments about Lin disclosed catalyst containing Al2O3 being in the form of solution, Lin teaches alumina binder- water dispersible binder ( not in an ionic soluble form) being used as binder, which is mixed with zeolite material and zirconium precursor, then going through calcining (para. [0140], [0142], [0144]-[0148]), wherein such process is same or substantially the same as that of instant application of forming the claimed catalyst (see filed substituted specification page 18 lines 14-27), therefore Lin formed catalyst composition from the same or substantially the same process as that of instant application is forming same or substantially the same the catalyst composition as that of instantly claimed, i.e. comprising Al2O3 having same or substantially the same crystallite size of d50 from 1-8 nm, wherein the Al2O3 of the catalyst composition is not in a soluble form such that the Al2O3 forms dispersed particles in water” as that of instantly claimed.
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 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
Prosecution Insights