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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/25 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19-30 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.
Claim 1, lines 8-9 states that “un-promoted zeolite in the catalyst composition” captures metal oxide clusters in situ. The specification respectfully does not definitively state that un-promoted zeolite capture metal oxide clusters in situ, but rather the specification of this application describes this in only two ways. The first way is in the Background section, which states that “the second zeolite can capture metal oxide”. The second mention of this feature is in paragraph 25, which states that “metal oxide clusters can be captured by an un-promoted zeolite (para. 25) and “the captured metal oxide clusters can react with the unpromoted zeolite in situ (para. 25 in the published specification). However, use of the word “can” as support for a method step in the claims is not definitive of that method steps, since it is unclear how the un-promoted zeolite does capture the metal oxide clusters and if it actually does capture it.
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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Green (US Pub.: 2015/0064088) and in view of Lee, et al. “Inter-particle migration of Cu ions ion physically mixed Cu-SSZ-13 and H-SSZ-13 treated by hydrothermal aging” and in view of Yang (US Pub.: 2019/0321783) and in view of JP 2017/523113 and in view of Kim (KR 2018/0120418), EPO translation.
As to Claims 1, 2, 26, 28, 29 and 30, Green describes a zeolite blend catalyst for use as an SCR (title and para. 8) that includes a first framework zeolite and a second framework zeolite, the first and second can be in the form of at least one of an H+ form or an NH4+ form (para. 9).
The blend of the first zeolite and the second zeolite includes a metal-promoted zeolite and an un-promoted zeolite (para. 18) and the final product is then hydrothermally aged afterwards (see examples 1 and 2).
As to the size range, Green teaches that the particle size of the zeolite has a d90 of 3 to 5 µm (para. 28) and that to achieve this size range, the zeolite can be milled until it achieves the size desired (para. 28).
As to the “in situ” feature, Green does not specifically state that the non-promoted zeolite is modified with the metal from the metal-promoted zeolite.
Lee describes physically mixing Cu-SSZ-13 with H-SSZ-13 by grinding the particles and then hydrothermally treating the mixture (abstract). Lee explains that mixing the two produces zeolite compounds with Cu ions dispersed in both (abstract). The composition is then hydrothermally treated (see section 2.1). The H-SSZ-13 is the un-promoted zeolite. Lee explains that a result of this mixing, some copper ions migrate from the Cu-containing zeolite to the zeolite without copper ions (see scheme 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 mixing of un-promoted zeolite with promoted zeolite produces a copper-modified zeolite in the un-promoted zeolite, and thereby reacting the un-promoted zeolite in-situ, as taught by Lee in the blended mixture of Green because Lee explains that combining a un-promoted zeolite with a promoted zeolite causes some of the copper to migrate to the un-promoted zeolite.
Green does not teach that the ion-exchanging step is performed in the presence of a slurry.
Yang describes a catalyst useable for NOx reduction (para. 2) used in the form of SCR catalysts (para. 48). The catalyst includes a zeolite (para. 6) that are modified by metals (para. 6). Yang explains that there are several typical methods for incorporating metal into a zeolite, which include several different processes, including drying grinding or wet grinding (para. 58, 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the metal into the zeolite by either a dry combination, such as dry grinding, or using a wet mixture, such as by wet grinding, as taught by Yang for use with the process of incorporating copper into the zeolite, as taught by Green because Yang explains that either metal are effective in incorporating a metal into a zeolite.
As to the metal oxide being in cluster-form formed under hydrothermal conditions, JP 113 teaches a method of encapsulating a metal into a zeolite (abstract) and explains that when metals are in the form of metal clusters in zeolite, it can extend the diversity of catalytic chemistry it is used for by allowing micrporous solids to react with reactants (Background, para. 1). Therefore, the metal oxide-containing zeolite is made by adding metal to the zeolite (page 3, lines 14-18) and that the metals in the zeolite are converted into clusters by hydrothermal treatment (page 3, lines 35-38, page 4, 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 the metal in cluster-form, as taught by JP ‘113 for the in-situ capture in the catalyst of Green because metal added in this form can extend the diversity of catalytic chemistry.
As to the presence of metal oxide, Green teaches that the copper-modified zeolite is hydrothermally treated (see examples 1 and 2), but the reference does not teach that the copper is in the form of a copper oxide.
Kim teaches a copper modified zeolite product (see para. 1) that is post-treated by hydrothermal aging (81). The reference explains that the treatment under hydrothermal aging showed formation of copper oxide (see para. 81).
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 hydrothermal treatment of Green would produce at least some copper oxide, as taught by Kim because Kim explains that hydrothermally heating a post-exchanged zeolite under elevated temperatures produces some copper oxide by-product.
As to Claim 5, Green teaches that the first zeolite is un-promoted until a metal is added and the second zeolite is also unpromoted (see examples 1 and 2).
As to Claim 6, Green teaches that the frameworks can include the combinations of para. 27. They show different frameworks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any combination of zeolites recited in Green can be used.
As to Claims 8 and 9, Green teaches that the first and second zeolites can both be a CHA (Claim 11 of reference). CHA is known to have an 8-ring framework.
As to Claim 11, Green teaches that the zeolite can include FAU (para. 27). FAU is a 12-ring zeolite.
As to Claim 18, Green teaches that one zeolite is in the mixture in a range of 75 to 95wt % and the second framework is in the range of 5 to 25 wt% range (para. 27).
As to Claim 20, Green teaches that their process employs copper acetate (para. 64).
As to Claims 25 and 26, Lee teaches that their SCR is known to be used with diesel engines (pg. 1059).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green, Lee, Yang, JP ‘113 and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stiebels (US Pub.: 2013/0089483).
Lee explains that the unpromoted zeolite becomes promoted after mixing (see above), but the references do not describe how much loading the catalysts have in the entire composition.
The references do not describe the loading of the first un-promoted zeolite and the second un-promoted zeolite.
Stiebels describes an SCR that can include one or more zeolites that contain a CHA structure (abstract) as well as other frameworks (can also include BEA) (abstract). The reference explains that one of the CHA structures can include Cu (abstract).
As to the loading, Stiebels explains that the first CHA may be loaded in the catalyst in an amount of 0.5 to 5 g/inch3, while the other zeolite may be loaded in the zeolite in an amount of 0.05 to 5 g/inch3 (para. 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to load the first zeolite in the catalyst in an amount of 0.5 to 5 g/inch3 and the loading of the second zeolite in an amount of 0.05 to 5 g/inch3, as taught by Stiebels for use with Green, Lee, Yang, JP ‘113 and Kim because this loading produces expected and predictable results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US Pub.: 2015/0064088).
Green describes a zeolite blend catalyst for use as an SCR (title and para. 8) that includes a first framework zeolite and a second framework zeolite, the first and second can be in the form of at least one of an H+ form or an NH4+ form (para. 9).
The blend of the first zeolite and the second zeolite includes a metal-promoted zeolite and an un-promoted zeolite (para. 18) and the final product is then hydrothermally aged afterwards (see examples 1 and 2).
As to the size range, Green teaches that the particle size of the zeolite has a d90 of 3 to 5 µm (para. 28) and that to achieve this size range, the zeolite can be milled until it achieves the size desired (para. 28). Green teaches that the promoted and un-promoted zeolite has an SAR ratio of 10 to 14 or 15 to 25 (para. 26).
As to the “in situ” feature, this is a product-by-process feature.
Although Green does not explicitly teach that the product is reacted in situ, as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Green meets the requirements of the claimed product, Green clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US Pub.: 2015/0064088) and in view of JP 2017/523113 and in view of Voss (WO 2016/138418) and further in view of Gorczynski (WO 2018/078513).
The rejection to Claim 1 over Green is incorporated here.
Green, JP ‘113 and Voss do not specifically disclose the features of Claim 21, 22 and 23.
As to Claims 21, 22 and 23, Gorczynski describes a SCR catalyst (abstract). The reference explains in the background that SCR catalysts are known to reduce emissions from lean burn (diesel) engines (pg. 1, lines 6-10, 14-16). The reference explains that their catalyst is deposited on a substrate, which can be a flow-through monolith (pg. 3, line 25 and pg. 4, line 36). The engine is upstream from the catalyst downstream of the engine (pg. 6, lines 15-20). The SCR can include a copper-SSZ-13 sieve (pg. 8, line 12, 33, 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the catalyst in the form of a flow-through monolith (Claim 21), downstream from a diesel or lean burn engine (Claim 22 and 23), as taught by Gorczynski in view of Green JP ‘113 and Voss because this arrangement is an effective means to reduce NOx pollutants in an exhaust gas stream.
As to Claim 24, Gorczynski teaches that upstream of the SCR is a DOC and CSF (see Fig. 7). Therefore, the SCR is downstream of both of these. The rest of Claim 24 is optional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a DOC and a CSF upstream of the SCR, as taught by Gorczynski for use with the SCR of Lee because Gorczynski explains that the SCR is known to be used with engine exhaust for pollution reduction in this way.
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 7, 2026