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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/26/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks argue that the claims are allowable for the reasons cited in the remarks of 5/12/25.
This is respectfully contended. The reasons given for this objection are in the response filed on 6/27/25.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US Pub.: 2010/0196221) and in view of Gunugunuri (US Pub.: 2019/0076827) and in view of Schwefer (US Pub.: 2005/0244320).
As to Claims 1 and 2, Ando describes a system for removing NOx from exhaust gas by using an SCR catalyst and a reducing agent comprising ammonia or urea (abstract). The catalyst system includes a substrate (see Fig. 1, carrier). The substrate is coated with a catalyst layer that has an oxidative function for treating NO in exhaust and residual NH3 (catalyst layer A, para. 24 and Fig. 1, lower layer), followed by a second layer, an upper catalyst layer B having an absorbing function for ammonia (para. 24). The lower catalyst layer contains noble metal, and that noble metal can be platinum (para. 28).
The lower catalyst layer can be considered the second stage of Claim 1.
Ando teaches that the upper layer is a SCR catalyst layer used for purifying NOx gases and NO gases in exhaust, which are contacted using a reducing agent to reduce the NOx gases (para. 24). This can be considered the first stage of Claim 1. Ando does not specifically state what the NOx removal is. However, Ando explains that when the Pt amount is increased, the NOx reduction is increased (para. 87). Further, Ando describes that they have two layers, one of which is the SCR and the other is an oxidative layer (para. 52, 53, 48). This catalyst layer exhibits superior NH3-purification performance (para. 53). This lower layer has oxidation function for oxidizing NO (para. 48). Together, the two layers exhibit a cooperative function in reducing NOx gases (para. 42, 60, 88).
As to less than 10ppm slip of the reducing agent, Ando states that the ammonia slip is prevented due to the arrangement of the catalyst layers (para. 136, 143). Therefore, although Ando does not specifically state that the reducing agent slip is 10ppm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the prevention of ammonia slip can be considered close to zero.
Ando does not state that lower layer SCR contains a cobalt spinel.
As to the cobalt spinel feature, Gunugunuri teaches a catalyst used for NOx decomposition (title). The catalyst is a Co-containing spinel (para. 6). In the background, Gunugunuri explains that catalysts for abating NO and NO2 produce undesirable products, such as N2O or ammonia (para. 3). As a solution to this, Gunugunuri describes use of a Co-based spinel for use in direct decomposition (para. 21). Direct decomposition catalysts are where NOx is converted directly to N2 and O2 (para. 3).
The reference shows that these catalysts are effective in directly converting NO and NO2 to N2 and O2 (see equations I, II, III and IV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a known SCR catalyst, such as a Co-spinel, as taught by Gunugunuri for use with the catalyst of Ando because Co-based spinels are effective for direct decomposition and do not generate as much undesirable byproducts after catalysis.
As to the second stage, oxidizing catalyst, containing cobalt and having a high selectivity towards inert nitrogen or selectivity towards nitrous oxide, the specification of this application explains that cobalt spinels that are modified with one of the metals listed in para. 42 and 43 of the published specification. Therefore, the same composition would have the same selectivity.
Gunugunuri describes a Co-Fe2O4 spinel (para. 48) modified by potassium (para. 48 and Table 1). The specification of this application explains that iron and potassium are both parts of the spinel useable in obtaining a selective catalyst towards inert nitrogen and/or nitrous oxide.
As to the NOx removal, the references do not describe that substantially a full removal of NOx is performed in the first stage. However, Ando does describe use of a BETA-zeolite catalyst modified by iron as the first stage catalyst (para. 81).
Schwefer describes a denitrification method (title) using an iron-modified zeolite (abstract). The process uses a reducing agent, such as ammonia to the reaction step (para. 10), which passes over the catalyst at elevated temperatures (para. 12). Schwefer explains that the reducing agent is added in an amount required for complete reduction of NOx (para. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to completely reduce all the NOx by adjusting the amount of reducing agent fed to the system, as taught by Schwefer, for use in the process of Ando and Gunugunuri because Schwefer uses this method to determine the amount of reducing agent to use in their system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as reducing agent based on residual NOx through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to part of the nitrous oxide in the process gas being removed in the first stage and substantially all remaining nitrous oxide removed in the second stage, since the catalyst compositions are 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 composition used the same way would have the same effect on the same exhaust gas stream.
As to Claim 7, Ando describes inclusion of Pd, and transntion metals with the zeolite (para. 49, 50 and 51) and iron or cobalt (para. 81) and ion-exchanged (para. 69, 70, 73, 80).
As to Claims 8 and 9, Ando teaches that the zeolite can include a BEA zeolite (para. 71) modified with iron (para. 81).
As to Claim 10, Ando teaches that in the conventional art, vanadia and titania are known for use in SCR technology (para. 5, 12). Although Ando teaches that it is not preferred, these catalysts are known in the field for this use.
See MPEP 2131.05—Nonanalogous or Disparaging Prior Art:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102.” Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.).
A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”). See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed composition that expressly excluded an ingredient held anticipated by reference composition that optionally included that same ingredient); see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claimed composition was anticipated by prior art reference that inherently met claim limitation of “sufficient aeration” even though reference taught away from air entrapment or purposeful aeration.).
As to Claims 11 and 12, Ando shows that the catalyst layers are positioned as layers (see Fig. 1 and para. 52, lower layer and para. 86, upper layer). The upper layer can contain zeolite modified by metals (para. 86, 90). Claims 11 and 12 states that Claims 11 and 12 can include a SCR of NOx “and/or” the second catalyst comprises a cobalt in either a stacked layer or a monolith. Since Claims 11 and 12 describe these features is the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the SCR in the first stage meets the requirements of Claims 11 and 12.
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando, Gunugunuri and Schwefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nazarpoor (US Pub.: 2016/0263561).
Ando, Gunugunuri and Schwefer descries inclusion of an oxidation catalyst, but does not describe use of a cobalt spinel modified with one of the metals in Claim 5.
Nazarpoor describes use of a cerium-cobalt spinel for use in a DOC catalyst (abstract). Nazarpoor describes a NOx reduction system (para. 4) combined with oxidation catalysts are known (para. 5). However, Nazarpoor explains that the composition used in oxidation catalysts are typically platinum group metals and that they are scarce and expensive (para. 6). Therefore, as an alternative to this, Nazarpoor describes employing a Ce-Co-Cu spinel (para. 8). In tests, Nazarpoor describes NO and CO conversion to be high (see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a Ce-Co-Cu spinel, as taught by Nazarpoor to the oxidation catalyst of Ando, Gunugunuri and Schwefer because Nazarpoor explains that Ce-Cu-Co spinels are not as expensive and very effective for NO reduction.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando, Gunugunuri and Schwefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nazarpoor (US Pub.: 2016/0263561) and in view of Haneda et al. “Alkali metal-doped cobalt oxide catalyst for NO decomposition”.
The references do not teach inclusion of one of the metals of Claim 4 in oxidation catalyst.
Nazarpoor describes use of a cerium-cobalt spinel for use in a DOC catalyst (abstract). Nazarpoor describes a NOx reduction system (para. 4) combined with oxidation catalysts are known (para. 5). However, Nazarpoor explains that the composition used in oxidation catalysts are typically platinum group metals and that they are scarce and expensive (para. 6). Therefore, as an alternative to this, Nazarpoor describes employing a Ce-Co-Cu spinel (para. 8). In tests, Nazarpoor describes NO and CO conversion to be high (see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a Ce-Co-Cu spinel, as taught by Nazarpoor to the oxidation catalyst of Ando, Gunugunuri and Schwefer because Nazarpoor explains that Ce-Cu-Co spinels are not as expensive and very effective for NO reduction.
As to the use of a promoter, Heneda describes NOx reduction from various sources and that NOx reduction in SCR processes are known, but the direct decomposition of NO to N2 and O2 still remain a challenge (Introduction, para. 1). Cobalt oxide is effective for NO decomposition (Introduction, para. 2)
As to the inclusion of an alkali metal, Heneda explains that the addition of alkali metals increases the surface area and the catalytic activity per surface area (abstract) by creating catalytically active sites on the cobalt oxide surface as a result of interactions with alkali metals (abstract). This promotes NO decomposition (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an alkali metal, as taught by Heneda for use with the cobalt-containing spinel catalyst of Ando, Gunugunuri, Schwefer and Nazarpoor because the addition of alkali promotes NO decomposition, which is a known issue with SCR catalysts, as described by Heneda.
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 January 22, 2026