DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/018,939 application filed 31 January 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, tertiary structure has been interpreted as “gauzes that have relief-like, non-planar topographic surfaces” [paragraph 0022 of the published application]. It is noted that non-planar is a definition by negation; that is, defining something by what it is not rather than by what it is. This may lead to a very broad interpretation of the term tertiary structure. Furthermore, relief-like appears to be a relative term. Like means the same or nearly the same as in appearance, character, or quantity. One might question to what degree is the appearance, character, or quantity nearly the same. Additionally, a topographic surface is continuous. Surface means the exterior or upper bound of an object or body. However, gauze is discontinuous although it may appear otherwise with the naked eye and/or at a distance. Upon closer inspection with, say, a microscope, the discontinuities are obvious. Indeed, the instant application even states “[t]hree-dimensionally knitted noble metal gauzes…are knitted in two or multiple layers and the meshes of the individual layers are connected to one another in one form by a pile thread or multiple pile threads, so that the noble metal gauze has a tertiary structure” [abstract], where a mesh is defined as a woven, knit, or knotted material of open texture with even spaced holes (the discontinuities). Therefore, defining tertiary structure as gauzes that have relief-like, non-planar topographic surfaces is not clear because it defines the structure in terms of something that it is not (“continuous”) and defines it in relative terms (“relief-like”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 recite a “tertiary structure.” However, the definition of that term is unclear for the reasons noted above in the Claim Interpretation section.
Claim 3 recites “…individual stitches are selectively skipped periodically…” Skipped means to pass over or omit an interval, item, or step. This suggests that there is an a priori interval, item, or step. It is not clear what the a priori interval, item, or step may be so that it is clear what is being skipped. Perhaps the claim should recite that the individual stitches are spaced non-uniformly or the like. This issue also relates to claims 4 and 5 as well.
The term “wavelike” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See discussion of like above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Said claims recite the use for the recited gauzes but the uses do not appear to further limit the structure of the gauzes. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al (US 2002/0127932 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Neumann et al discloses “three-dimensional catalyst gauzes for gas reactions knitted in two or more layers from noble metal wires in which weft threads are inserted between the mesh layers. The mesh layers are preferably joined by pile threads. Thus, in one embodiment, the present invention provides a catalyst gauze comprised of:
a. a plurality of mesh layers;
b. pile threads, wherein said pile threads join at least two mesh layers to each other; and
c. weft threads, wherein said weft threads are located between at least two mesh layers that are joined by said pile threads” [paragraphs 0011-0014] and “FIG. 2 is a representation of a section from a knitted catalyst gauze according to one embodiment of the present invention” [paragraph 0018].
PNG
media_image1.png
531
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein “[i]n the figure, the pile and weft threads are represented with a larger wire thickness than the mesh thread for visual illustration of the structure of the gauze geometry. The figure shows a catalyst gauze of two mesh layers (2), (3) joined to one another by pile threads (1), into which weft wires (4) arranged approximately parallel to one another are inserted as single wires approximately centrally between the mesh layers (2), (3). The weft wires (4) are fixed in the crossing points (5) of the pile threads (1) and form a further catalytically active plane approximately centrally between the mesh layers (2), (3)” [paragraph 0030]. The reference further teaches “knitted noble metal catalyst gauzes have a number of advantages over woven catalyst gauzes, and for this reason they are currently preferred for industrial uses. First, knitted catalysts can be produced more economically, since shorter set-up times are achieved with the knitting technique than with the weaving technique. This causes a considerably reduced binding of noble metal in production” [paragraph 0006]. Clearly, the structure in figure 2 is non-planar and, therefore, corresponds to the tertiary structure of the instant application.
With respect to claims 3-5 and 7-8, Neumann et al discloses “[t]he weft threads are located between the mesh layers. The weft threads can be inserted between the mesh layers in several planes…The weft threads are preferably arranged approximately centrally between two mesh layers, and are typically arranged here unidirectionally in the planes. They are also preferably arranged approximately parallel to one another and are aligned in their direction perpendicular to the direction of the meshes in the mesh layers. Further, the weft threads are preferably inserted into the pile threads, which join the mesh layers and are fixed by them. The weft threads can also be constructed as multiple wires. The knitted catalyst gauzes according to the present invention typically have a number of weft threads per mesh corresponding to their wire properties. The preferred number will readily be determinable by one skilled in the art upon reading this disclosure, based on the particular catalyst gauze that is being used and the application in which it is being used” [paragraphs 0023-0024]. Applicant is reminded that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. In the instant case, optimum or workable ranges may be characterized by “selective skipping periodically” or having a “non-symmetric” or “non-periodic” structure arising from the number of weft threads per mesh.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, see paragraph 0008. The teachings therein make the Ostwald process obvious.
With respect to claim 11, see claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 2, Neumann et al discloses “[i]n these gauzes, the individual mesh layers, which are comprised of mesh threads, are joined to one another by pile threads. Up to ten pile threads per mesh can be present here, the pile threads being aligned at an angle of 0o to 50o to the direction of flow of the reaction gases (corresponding to 90o to 40o to the plane of the gauze)” [paragraph 0022].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
4 August 2025