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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/26 has been entered.
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, 14, 15, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 102302944), EPO translation and in view of Li (US Pub.: 2011/0286914) and in view of Eijsboutz (CZ 20012560) and in view of Althoff (US Pub.: 2014/0322127).
Chen describes a method of making a catalyst that includes mixing ferrous sulfate with molecular sieve, molding aids with acid and boehmite and clay (para. 21). The mixture can be blended in a solvent (para. 23). In the process, each compound is dissolved in the solution (para. 30). Therefore, this can be considered a slurry. The boehmite can be considered a refractory metal oxide. The process does not filter or wash the slurry prior to adding the refractory metal oxide. The molecular sieves can be a zeolite (para. 48).
As to the ion-exchange feature, although Chen does not specifically state that the process is an in-situ ion exchange process, 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 process used the same way would have at least some of the same ion-exchange features.
Chen does not teach that prior to their admixing, that the zeolite used is in an ammonium-form prior to contacting the zeolite with the iron sulfate.
Li describes a metal-doped zeolite (para. 39) for catalytic use (para. 2). The method of adding the metal, such as iron, can be performed in a number of different ways (para. 39), but the metal precursor used can include iron sulfate (para. 42). In their process of making the zeolite, the process first mixes the compounds to make a gel of the product (para. 47). This product is then crystallized and filtered (para. 49). After performing a series of washing steps (para. 51), Li explains that the process then removes any residual sodium from the product by performing an ion-exchange step using an ammonium salt (para. 52). The product made is then an NH4-exchanged zeolite (para. 84). This product is then used to perform the ion-exchange step with the iron sulfate (para. 69, 84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange the zeolite with an ammonium solution prior to admixing with the iron sulfate source, as taught by Li for use with the process of Chen because Li explains that ion-exchanging with an ammonium solution to exchange it with the zeolite prior to adding the iron allows for further removal of sodium ions in the zeolite, which is desirable.
As for the admixing for 12-24 hours, Althoff describes a metal-doped zeolite (title) that exchanges the metal into a zeolite that can be ammonium exchanged previously (para. 12, 18). The metal exchange can include iron (para. 30). The method of adding the metal can include a number of different ways (para.42). Althoff explains that the metal addition may be added to the zeolite for a period of 1-15 hours (para. 36) to produce a metal-exchanged zeolite (para. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stir the metal salt and zeolite mixture for 1-15 hours, as taught by Althoff for use with the process of metal-exchanging the zeolite of Chen because Althoff explains that this is a known and effective amount of time to exchange a metal into a zeolite to produce a metal-exchanged zeolite product.
As to Claim 6, Chen teaches use of a molecular sieve with a X, Y, ZSM, MFI or MOR framework (para. 48).
As to Claim 10, Chen teaches use of boehmite (para. 21), which can be considered an alumina binder.
As to Claim 15, the references teach mixing (see Chen, para. 65), 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 22, Li teaches that the amount of Cu or Fe added to the catalyst can range from 1-10wt% (para. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ 1-10wt% of Cu or Fe, as taught by Li for use with Chen because this amount is effective for catalytic function.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 105944753), Li II.
Li describes ion-exchanging either a copper or iron product into the zeolite (para. 39). Li explains that the copper source can be one of: copper acetate, copper chloride, copper hydroxide, copper nitrate and copper sulfate (para. 43). Li does not teach use of copper oxide.
Li II describes a method of modifying a zeolite material with copper (title) and explains that the copper used can be added in the form of a copper precursor in either the form of copper nitrate, copper acetate, copper oxide or copper sulfate (Claim 6).
Therefore, since Li teaches that the zeolite can be modified using either copper or iron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the zeolite of Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff with copper oxide, as taught by Li II because Li II explains that copper used in any of the forms above, include copper oxide, is an effective precursor for copper.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uoe (JP 2014/018768).
Chen describes use of acids, such as citric acid (para. 59) and nitric acid (para. 60), but Chen explains that nitric acid has strong oxidizing properties (para. 60) and therefore it is desirable to use a mixture of weaker acids with nitric acid (para. 60). Chen does not describe use of acetic acid in the process.
Uoe describes a method of making a metal-modified zeolite (abstract). Uoe explains that dispersants used in their process can include inorganic acids or organic acids (page 11, para. 7). Among the inorganic acids, Uoe teaches use of nitric acid (page 11, para. 7) or, alternatively, Uoe teaches that citric acid or acetic acid can be used (page 11, para. 7).
Therefore, since Chen explains use of a weaker acid than nitric acid, and explains that citric acid is an alternative, 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 Uoe because acetic acid is a known alternative to citric acid for use in zeolite manufacture and processing.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO 2018/101718).
Chen teaches use of a zeolite with an A, X, Y, ZSM, MFI or MOR framework (para. 48), but does not teach use of a CHA or AEI framework. Li describes ion-exchanging either a copper or iron product into the zeolite (para. 39) when used for NOx catalysis (para. 3, 2). The references do not teach use of CHA or AEI-frameworks.
Kim describes a zeolite (title) for use in NOx catalysis (see “technical field”, para 1). The catalyst used are known to include the frameworks: LTA, AEI, AFT, AFV, KFI, FAU, MFI, BEA, FER or MOR (page 5, para. 5).
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 CHA or AEI framework, as taught by Kim for use with the zeolite of Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff because these are known to be effective alternative frameworks for use as NOx catalysis.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohanan (US Pub.: 2014/0112852).
Mohanan describes a molecular sieve catalyst modified with a metal (abstract). The metal added can be an iron (para. 46). Mohanan explains that when the molecular sieve is used for NOx catalysis (para. 9), then framework may be an aluminosilicate zeolite with a silica to alumina ratio of 5-100 (para. 11).
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 molecular sieve with a silica to alumina ratio of 5-100, as taught by Mohanan for use with the catalyst of Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff because this feature used in a zeolite is known to be effective for use in a NOx catalyst.
As to Claims 11 and 12, Mohanan describes use of a binder, which can include a zirconium acetate binder (para. 106).
As to Claim 13, Mohanan teaches that the additives used to make their catalyst can include stabilizers, promoters, dispersants and other additives (para. 33).
As to Claim 16, Mohanan teaches that the particles are milled prior to combining in order to obtain a desired particle size (para. 67).
As to Claim 18, Mohanan describes coating the catalyst as a washcoat onto a substrate (para. 36, 35). The substrate can be a honeycomb monolith that has fine, parallel gas flow passages extending through from an inlet to an outlet face, such that the passages are open to fluid flow (para. 37). The walls of the passages are coated with the catalytic material (para. 37). The coating is performed using a solution of the catalyst-containing solution (para. 67). The solution is dried and then calcinated (para. 64). The slurry is not filtered or washed prior to contacting the solution (para. 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 the process of Mohanan for use with the catalyst of Chen, Li, Eijsboutz and Althoff because this process is known to produce a catalyst for use in NOx reduction.
As to Claims 19 and 20, Mohanan teaches that the drying step is performed at a temperature of 110 degrees C for 3 hours, followed by calcinating the solution at 450 degrees C (para. 107).
As to Claim 21, Mohanan teaches that the substrate can be a flow through or a wall flow filter (para. 91).
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 September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights