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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks, the following:
As Applicant's attorney pointed out during the above-referenced interview, Jiang teaches that the zeolite peaks do not significantly shift when Fe is added to the framework (see Fig. 3 (b)) using 29Si MAS NMR analysis, and that iron oxide peaks are not observed in the XRD pattern of Fe-substituted ZSM-5 samples (first paragraph of Section 3.1. (Structure, morphology and textural properties)). However, Fe is incorporated only in the zeolite framework in Jiang samples (second paragraph of Section 3.1).
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Chiffey states on page 11, para. 1 that iron may be supported on the zeolite by “impregnation, adsorption, ion-exchange, incipient wetness, precipitation, or the like” (page 11, lines 1-5). These are all impregnation techniques where the metal becomes incorporated into the zeolite. Therefore, Chiffey also incorporates iron into their framework.
Next, the remarks argue on page 7, the following:
In the Examples of the present specification, it is verified that the exhaust gas
purification device of Example 3, which comprises iron-supported metal oxide particles produced by a spray drying method, a ferric oxide peak is not observed in XRD thereof, and the device shows a higher NOx purification rate and a smaller amount of NO slip than the device of Example 5, which comprises iron-supported metal oxide particles produced by an impregnation method and a ferric oxide peak is observed in XRD thereof (Table 4, Analysis Examples 1 and 2, Figs. 1 and 6).
None of Chiffey, Green, or Voss [or Saira or Jiang] discloses or suggests XRD of
base ferric oxide-supported oxide particles, let alone the above-emphasized feature of Claim 10 or the production of the base metal-supported oxide particles by a spray drying method so as to achieve high dispersion of the supported base metal, added to withdrawn Claim 20 by the above-discussed amendment.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. As shown in the prior rejection, iron peaks are not found in the NMR analysis. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made below to further address these features and the newly added ones.
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) 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilgendorff (CN 107949436), see EPO translation, and in view of Magalhaes et al. “Synthesis and Properties of *BEA Zeolite Modified with Iron (III) Oxide”.
Hilgendorff describes an exhaust catalyst (title). The reference explains that their catalyst can include a first catalyst that includes a molecular sieve of either copper or iron on a microporous molecular sieve that is then physically mixed with a metal-modified on a refractory metal oxide support (para. 27).
Hilgendorff explains that the copper and iron combined with the microporous molecular sieve can include “one or more of copper, iron . . . to promote [the] molecular sieve (para. 77). These metals are independently exchanged into the molecular sieve (para. 77). The iron can be in the form of Fe2O3 (para. 80).
As to the iron being supported on the metal oxide particle, since Hilgendorff teaches that the iron-containing molecular sieve is physically mixed with the refractory metal oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least some of the iron-containing material is at least partially supported on the refractory metal oxide.
The catalyst is supported on a substrate (para. 15) in the form of a coating (para. 13).
The total metal content used in the catalyst ranges from 0.1 wt% to 10wt% (para. 78). When copper is used, the maximum is about 5wt% and when iron is used, the maximum is about 5wt% (para. 79, 80).
As to the formation of particles, Hilgendorff teaches that the particles made are crushed and ground to a particular particle size and milled (para. 131).
As to the XRD for the milled product of the iron oxide, Hilgendorff does not describe this feature, but explains that the iron content is at most 5wt% (see above).
Magalhaes describes an XRD analysis of catalysts that contain Fe2O3 modified zeolite (see table 1). In analysis, Magalhaes shows that the XRD spectrum of the compositions in Figure 1, which shows the spectrum in order from alpha-Fe2O3 (top line) and 40%-Fe2O3-BEA (last line in Fig. 1). The spectrum shows that the second line in the graph has no iron (showing HBEA). As compared with the spectrum with 10wt% Fe2O3, the peaks are similar, where there are no added/extra peaks (see Fig. 1).
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 added Fe of Hilgendorff would not significantly alter the spectrum because Magalhaes explains that XRD analysis shows that at 10wt%, Fe2O3 does not significantly show peaks and Hilgendorff describes a maximum iron oxide content of about 5wt%.
As to Claims 11 and 12, Hilgendorff explains that the refractory metal oxide support can be one of alumina, silica, zirconia or titania (para. 13).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilgendorff and Magalhaes as applied to claims 10 or 11 above, and further in view of Saira (JP H1085587).
The references do not specifically teach the amount of iron in the catalyst is from 0.3 g/L or more and 1.3 g/L.
Saira describes a NOx adsorbent (title). Saira explains that the iron amount in the NOx adsorbent can range from 0.01 to 1 mol/L (page 3, last few lines and Claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to Saira that employs an amount of iron from 0.01 to 1 mol/L for use in the catalyst of Claim(s) 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilgendorff and Magalhaes because this concentration is known to be effective for use in a NOx reduction.
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.”
As to Claim 15, Saira describes a NOx adsorbent (title). Saira explains that the iron amount in the NOx adsorbent can range from 0.01 to 1 mol/L (page 3, last few lines and Claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to Saira that employs an amount of iron from 0.01 to 1 mol/L for use in the catalyst of Claim(s) 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilgendorff and Magalhaes because this concentration is known to be effective for use in a NOx reduction.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (WO 2021/116683) and in view of Hilgendorff (CN 107949436), see EPO translation, and in view of Voss (US Pub.: 2018/0043305) and in view of Magalhaes et al. “Synthesis and Properties of *BEA Zeolite Modified with Iron (III) Oxide”.
Green describes an SCR (page 9, lines 27-30). The first SCR catalyst can comprise a Cu-molecular sieve (page 8, lines 5-12). The second SCR catalyst can include iron or other metals, such as copper, molybdenum (page 8, lines 16-18) in the form of an oxide (page 8, line 15, “oxide of a base metal”). The composition can include titania (pg 8, line 23) and other compounds, such as silica or zirconia (pg 8, lines 27-28). This can be considered to meet the feature describing iron oxide to be supported on a metal oxide particle since all the compounds are mixed together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some of the iron oxide is supported on the metal oxide.
There is also a third catalytic region (pg 12, last para). The third catalyst can be the same as the first catalyst (pg 13, lines 1-3).
Green does not explain what form the iron is in. Specifically, Green does not state that the iron is a ferric oxide.
Hilgendorff describes an SCR catalyst (para. 65) that contains a molecular sieve (para. 69), such as a zeolite (para. 72) that contains a metal, to include Fe (para. 77). The Fe in the molecular sieve is in the form of Fe2O3 (para. 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the iron of Green is in the form of Fe2O3, as taught by Hilgendorff because use of iron in the form of ferric oxide is known to be effective for use in an SCR.
As far as coating, Green states that the third catalyst can extend from 20-100% of the substrate (pg. 13, lines 6-9).
Although Green describes the coating layers in terms of length, Green does not describe the coating in terms of weight percent.
Voss describes a wall flow coating on a substrate (para. 111) using a Cu-zeolite (para. 106). The reference explains that the total loading of the catalyst material (ion-exchanged metal on molecular sieve) on the substrate can be altered by modifying the solids content of the coating slurry (para. 112). Voss explains that by repeated immersions of the substrate in the coating slurry can be performed to adjust the loading amounts (para. 112).
It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to the catalysts being in the form of particles, Voss teaches that the catalyst slurry can be milled to enhance mixing of the particles and formation of a homogeneous material to form particles with a definite size (para. 97).
As to the mass %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Cu-CHA coating layer, as taught by Voss for use with the Cu-CHA layer of Green because Voss explains that it is known in the field to adjust the thickness of the Cu-CHA coating layer to the desired mass by repeated coating of the catalyst on the substrate.
As to the milling feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mill the catalysts in the slurry, as taught by Voss for use with Green because milling catalysts in a slurry facilitates mixing of the particles and forming a homogeneous mixture.
As to the iron feature, Green describes use of iron, which an range in an amount of 1-9wt% (page 12, lines 9-10), but does not describe the XRD measurement of that iron.
As to the XRD for the milled product of the iron oxide, the references do not describe this feature, but explains that the iron content is at most 5wt% (see above).
Magalhaes describes an XRD analysis of catalysts that contain Fe2O3 modified zeolite (see table 1). In analysis, Magalhaes shows that the XRD spectrum of the compositions in Figure 1, which shows the spectrum in order from alpha-Fe2O3 (top line) and 40%-Fe2O3-BEA (last line in Fig. 1). The spectrum shows that the second line in the graph has no iron (showing HBEA). As compared with the spectrum with 10wt% Fe2O3, the peaks are similar, where there are no added/extra peaks (see Fig. 1).
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 added Fe of Green, Hilgendorff and Voss would not significantly alter the spectrum because Magalhaes explains that XRD analysis shows that at 10wt%, Fe2O3 does not significantly show peaks and Hilgendorff describes a maximum iron oxide content of about 5wt% and Green describes use of iron in a range of 1-9wt%.
As to Claim 11, Green teaches that the catalyst contains silica or zirconia (pg 8, lines 27-28).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilgendorff, Magalhaes and Saira as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Voss (US Pub.: 2018/0043305).
The references do not teach that the ratio of Cu-CHA to the iron-supporting metal oxide particles range from 5-20%.
Voss describes a wall flow coating on a substrate (para. 111) using a Cu-zeolite (para. 106). The reference explains that the total loading of the catalyst material (ion-exchanged metal on molecular sieve) on the substrate can be altered by modifying the solids content of the coating slurry (para. 112). Voss explains that by repeated immersions of the substrate in the coating slurry can be performed to adjust the loading amounts (para. 112).
It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to the catalysts being in the form of particles, Voss teaches that the catalyst slurry can be milled to enhance mixing of the particles and formation of a homogeneous material to form particles with a definite size (para. 97).
As to the mass %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Cu-CHA coating layer, as taught by Voss for use with the Cu-CHA layer of Hilgendorff, Magalhaes and Saira and Saira because Voss explains that it is known in the field to adjust the thickness of the Cu-CHA
Conclusion
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 February 4, 2026