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 newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 2/2/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16, 18-22 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new references below.
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, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel (CN 102245298) and in view of Eijsboutz (CZ 20012560).
As to Claims 1, 2, 10, 11 and 14, Ditzel describes a catalyst (title) that is made by combining an ammonium zeolite with a copper precursor in an aqueous solution (para. 85). The copper-modified zeolite is then combined with a binder a mixed (para. 87). The admixing step can take place for 12 hours (para. 121). The BET surface area is from 1-500 m2/g (para. 38). Ditzel does not specifically state what the specific surface area is. The binders can include those listed in paragraph 35, which includes alumina (para. 35). Alumina is considered the refractory metal oxide of the claim. The slurry is not filtered or washed prior to adding the alumina binder (of para. 85).
The copper combined with the zeolite is ion-exchanged into the sieve (para. 15, 17). This can be considered an in-situ exchange process.
As to the specific surface area of the alumina of Ditzel, Eijsbouts describes a process for preparing a catalyst (title). The reference explains that if alumina is used as a binder, this compound usually has a specific surface area of 50-600 m2/g (page 12, lines 18-19).
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 within 50-600 m2/g, as taught by Eijsbouts for use with the alumina-containing catalyst of Ditzel because Eijsbouts explains that this specific surface area is typical for alumina.
As to the intended use features, 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 would be effective in the same way.
As to Claim 3, Ditzel teaches that the copper metal used is in the form of copper nitrate (para. 121).
As to Claim 6, Ditzel teaches use of MOR (para. 101).
As to Claim 15, Ditzel teaches mixing, but does not state a temperature (para. 85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature would be at room temperature.
As to Claim 16, Ditzel teaches that the copper-modified zeolite is ground and then combined with a binder (para. 91). This can be considered a type of milling.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Eijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 105944753).
Kamikubo teaches that the copper precursor used can be copper acetate (see para. 17),
But does not describe that copper precursor in the form of one of the salts of Claim 3.
Li describes a copper modified SSZ-13 (title). SSZ-13 is a type of CHA. The Cu is ion-exchanged into the SSZ-13 for use as a catalyst (abstract).
The Cu added to the zeolite is added in the form of a copper precursor in either the form of copper nitrate, copper acetate, copper oxide or copper sulfate (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 employ copper oxide as the copper precursor, as taught by Li for use as the copper precursor of Ditzel and Eijsboutz because Li explains that copper oxide is a useable and effective copper precursor in lieu of copper acetate.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute copper acetate by its functional equivalent copper oxide in Kamikubo, Nakano and Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Eijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tejima (JP 2016/150277).
The references do not describe use of acetic acid.
Tejima describes a method of making a NOx catalyst (page 4, last 10 lines) that includes a Cu-exchanged zeolite (page 5, last para). Tejima explains that it is desirable to adjust the pH if it is too alkali using acetic acid (page 10, second to last para.) in order to knead the product (page 10, third to last para).
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 acetic acid, as taught by Tejima for use in the process of making the catalyst of Ditzel and Eijsboutz to produce a product that is kneadable.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Elijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sunley (ID P 201700857).
Ditzel and Elijsboutz describe use of a zeolite for carbonylation, but not one with a CHA or AEi framework or with the Si, Al, O content and ratios of Claim 9.
Sunley describes a catalyst useable for carbonylation (title). The catalyst includes a zeolite (abstract) that is ion-exchanged (page 2, last line) in its ammonium form (page 3, lines 1-2). The zeolite can have a MOR framework or another framework, such as a CHA framework (page 3, para. 9). The zeolite is a crystalline aluminosilicate (page 3, para. 6). Aluminosilicates include silicon, aluminum and oxygen. The silica to alumina ratio is from 10-90:1 (page 4, 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 employ a zeolite with a CHA framework an that has an aluminsilicate content with a silica to alumina ratio of 10-90:1, as taught by Sunley for use with the carbonylation catalyst of Ditzel and Elijsboutz because Sunley explains that this framework is effective for use in the same type of catalysis.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Elijsboutz as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ahmad (BR P 10921675).
Ditzel describes that the binder can be alumina or other inorganic oxides, such as zirconium oxide (para. 35), but not use of zirconium acetate.
As to zirconium acetate, Ahmad teaches a catalyst article (title). The reference explains that the CHA zeolite can be combined with a binder (“reactive coating preparation”, para. 1). The binder can include ZrO2 (“reactive coating preparation”, para. 1). The ZrO2 is derived from a suitable precursor, such as zirconium acetate (“reactive coating preparation”, 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 employ zirconium acetate, as taught by Admad in the binder of Ditzel and Elijsboutz because Ahmad explains that zirconia is derived from zirconium acetate precursors.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Elijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 107519915).
Ditzel and Elijsboutz do not describe use of the additives of Claim 13.
Wang describes a catalyst for use in the carbonylation of dimethyl ether (title). The process combines a molecular sieve with a dispersing agent for making the product (abstract).
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 dispersing agent, as taught by Wang in the carbonylation catalyst of Ditzel and Elijsboutz because this is a known ingredient for use with these types of catalysts.
Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Elijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hacul (US Pat.: 4713363) and in view of Caudle (US Pat.: 8524185).
Ditzel and Elijsboutz describe the catalyst composition. The references do not describe coating the catalyst using the method of claim 18.
Hacul describes a catalyst that is useable for a variety of processes, to include carbonylation reactions (col. 2, lines 67-68). The catalyst includes a zeolite modified with a metal (col. 4, lines 15-23). The catalyst is deposited on the surface of the substrate (col. 5, lines 1-4, 23-28). The coating is then heated to dry the coating (col. 5, lines 59-65) and then calcinated (col. 6, lines 67-68). The slurry is not filtered or washed prior to coating.
Hacul does not specifically state that the honeycomb substrate has an inlet, an outlet and a plurality of passages.
As to the honeycomb, Caudle teaches that a honeycomb substrate comprises a plurality of parallel gas flow passages extending along the longitudinal axis of the substrate and has an inlet and an outlet end (Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the carbonylation catalyst of Ditzel and Elijsboutz on a substrate using the process described by Hacul because this method is known to support these types of catalysts for use in carbonylation processes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the honeycomb substrate of Hacul has the features described by Caudle because honeycomb substrates are known to have the honeycomb substrates are known to have these features.
As to Claims 19 and 20, Hacul teaches that the drying step is performed from 100-400 degrees C (col. 5, line 60) and the calcination temperature is at about 500 degrees C (col. 6, line 68).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Elijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonkovich (US Pub.: 2006/0102519).
The references do not teach that the substrate is a flow-through or a wall-flow filter.
Tonkovich describes use of a catalyst that can include a carbonylation catalyst (para. 90). The catalyst can be supported on a number of different supports that can include a flow-through support or a honeycomb structure (Claim 67).
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 flow-through substrate, as taught by Tonkovich with he carbonylation catalyst of Ditzel and Elijsboutz because flow-through substrates are a known alternative support over honeycomb substrates.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzel and Elijsboutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 104014363).
The references do not describe use of copper in an amount of 2-10wt%.
Wang describes a copper-containing mordenite catalyst (title) useable for a number of r-ocesses, to include carbonylation (para. 6). Wang explains that an amount of copper of 7.6-9.2wt% is effective (para. 59) or an amount of 1-12% (Claim 9).
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 an amount of 1-12%, as taught by Wang for use with the carbonylation catalyst of Ditzel and Elijsboutz because this concentration of copper would lead to predictable and expected results.
Copyright ©2026 Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Clarivate Analytics content, including by framing or similar means, is prohibited without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics. Clarivate and its logo are trademarks of the Clarivate Analytics group.
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 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 March 17, 2026