DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 4, 8-9, 14, 18-19, 21-22, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 33 have been amended. Claims 3, 6-7, 11-13, 15-17, 20, 24, 26, 30, 32, and 35 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 14, 18-19, 21-23, 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a National Stage application of PCT/US2021/053453, filed October 5, 2021 which claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/089,247, filed October 8, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 05/17/2023, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (i.e., claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 14, 18-19, and 21-23) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Michael A. Patané on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant traverses the Restriction Requirement on the ground that unity of invention exists because there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but is not persuasive. Pending claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 14, 18-19, 21-23, 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 lack unity of invention according to the PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (PCT/ISA/237) on January 25, 2022 cited for the prior art references such as US2019/0070596 (“the `596 publication”), because the special technical features of claim 1 drawn to a catalyst composition is also disclosed by the `596 publication. Please see the art rejection in this Office action. Applicant’s pending claims lack unity of invention. Therefore, the restriction requirement of lack unity of invention is indeed appropriate, maintained, and made FINAL.
However, the withdrawn claims may be subject to rejoinder when elected Group I is later found allowable.
Status of the Claims
Claims 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) responding to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 14, 18-19, and 21-23 are under examination on the merits.
Specification
The specification [0011] is objected to for containing the misspelling phrase “wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is prepared by heating a ferrite compound such that the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of the ferrite compound is increased decreased to a value of less than about 100 m2/g”, wherein the term “increased decreased” seems to be misspelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2019/0070596 (“the `596 publication”) to Yang et al.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a catalyst composition comprising: a catalytic material; and at least one magnetic component; wherein the magnetic component comprises at least one magnetic ferrite compound.
Claim 6 of the `596 publication discloses a catalyst composition, comprising a mixture of catalytically active particles and a magnetic material capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic material comprises superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Claim 7 of the `596 publication discloses a catalyst composition, comprising a mixture of catalytically active particles and a magnetic material capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic material comprises a rare earth containing particulate material comprising neodymium-iron-boron or samarium-cobalt particles. By definition, “ferrite compound” is one of a family of iron-oxide-containing magnetic ceramic materials. Therefore, the `596 publication anticipates claim 1.
In terms of claim 19, wherein the magnetic ferrite compound is the form of nanoparticles, claim 6 of the `596 publication discloses a catalyst composition, comprising a mixture of catalytically active particles and a magnetic material capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic material comprises superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.
Claims 1-2, 14, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jabbarzare et al., J. of Alloys and Compounds, (2016), v.688, p.1125-1130.
Jabbarzare et al. teaches a photocatalyst composition of yttrium ferrite ceramic (YFeO3) and its visible light photocatalytic and magnetic properties (see Abstract at p.1125). In addition, Jabbarzare et al. teaches YFeO3 is nanoparticles, and the nanometer scale of YFeO3 powders ensures a large specific area and consequently a better photocatalytic behavior (see left and right columns at p.1127). Therefore, Jabbarzare et al. anticipates claims 1-2, 4-5, 14, and 19, wherein the catalyst composition is a form of nanoparticles, and comprises iron and yttrium.
In terms of claim 21, wherein the catalytic material comprises a catalytic material for one or more of oxidation of carbon monoxide, oxidation of hydrocarbons, oxidation of NOx, oxidation of ammonia, selective catalytic reduction of NOx, and NOx storage/reduction, Jabbarzare et al. teaches the nanoparticles of YFeO3 is a photocatalyst, and the intend to use of the catalytic material is considered to be inherited properties of the YFeO3 photocatalyst.
In terms of claims 22-23, wherein the porous support is a refractory metal oxide or a molecular sieve, Jabbarzare et al. teaches a photocatalyst composition is an yttrium ferrite ceramic (YFeO3), and said photocatalyst composition is a porous support of refractory metal oxide.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9-10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the `596 publication in view of US2010/0249404 (“the `404 publication”) to Friese et al. and Jabbarzare et al., J. of Alloys and Compounds, (2016), v.688, p.1125-1130.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `596 publication (Abstract) discloses a catalyst composition including a mixture of catalytically active particles and a magnetic material, such as superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating electromagnetic field. The catalytically active particles will typically include a base metal, platinum group metal, oxide of base metal or platinum group metal, or combination thereof, and will be adapted for use in various catalytic systems, such as diesel oxidation catalysts, catalyzed soot filters, lean NOx traps, selective catalytic reduction catalysts, ammonia oxidation catalysts, or three-way catalysts. The `596 publication (claim 6) discloses a catalyst composition, comprising a mixture of catalytically active particles and a magnetic material capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic material comprises superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Claim 7 of the `596 publication discloses a catalyst composition, comprising a mixture of catalytically active particles and a magnetic material capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating electromagnetic field, wherein the magnetic material comprises a rare earth containing particulate material comprising neodymium-iron-boron or samarium-cobalt particles. The `596 publication [0009] discloses advantageous magnetic materials for inductive heating in the presence of an alternating electromagnetic field include materials comprising a transition metal or a rare earth metal, particularly oxides comprising such transition metals or rare earth metals.
The `404 publication [Abstract, 0011, and 0019-0020] discloses a solid heating medium that can be warmed by electromagnetic induction; the heating medium consists of an electrically conductive material that is heated by the action of an alternating electrical field; the heating medium is selected from particles of electrically conductive and/or magnetizable solids, which are preferably selected, for example ferromagnetic or superparamagnetic particles, which exhibit the lowest possible remanence or residual magnetism. The `404 publication [0021-0023] discloses magnetizable particles, in particular ferromagnetic particles may be used, and suitable nano-particles including spinel type ferromagnets such as MgFe2O4, MnFe2O4 and CoFe2O4; and nano-scale particles of superparamagnetic substances for example can be employed as the heating medium and are selected from aluminum, cobalt, iron, nickel or their alloys, metal oxides of the type n-maghemite (gamma-Fe2O3), n-magnetite (Fe3O4) or ferrites of the type MeFe2O4, wherein Me is a divalent metal selected from manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, calcium or cadmium.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between instant claim 2 and the `596 publication is that the prior art does not teach the magnetic ferrite compound comprises iron, and one or more of zinc, cobalt, nickel, yttrium, manganese, copper, barium, strontium, scandium, and lanthanum.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claim 2 would have been obvious over the `596 publication because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `596 publication and the `404 publication.
The `596 publication [0009] discloses advantageous magnetic materials for inductive heating in the presence of an alternating electromagnetic field include materials comprising a transition metal or a rare earth metal, particularly oxides comprising such transition metals or rare earth metals. It is well-known to one ordinary skilled in the art that transition metals and rare earth metals include zinc, cobalt, nickel, yttrium, manganese, copper, barium, strontium, scandium, and lanthanum of claim 2. The `404 publication [0021-0023] discloses magnetizable particles, in particular ferromagnetic particles may be used, and suitable nano-particles including spinel type ferromagnets such as MgFe2O4, MnFe2O4 and CoFe2O4; and nano-scale particles of superparamagnetic substances for example can be employed as the heating medium and are selected from aluminum, cobalt, iron, nickel or their alloys, metal oxides of the type n-maghemite (gamma-Fe2O3), n-magnetite (Fe3O4) or ferrites of the type MeFe2O4, wherein Me is a divalent metal selected from manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, calcium or cadmium. Considering that the `596 publication, and the `404 publication are in the same technical field, a person skilled in the art would easily arrive at claim 2 by applying the feature of the `404 publication to the invention of the `596 publication, and its effect would be predictable. Therefore, the `596 publication in view of the `404 publication would have rendered claim 2 obvious.
In terms of claim 4, the `596 publication [0009] discloses advantageous magnetic materials for inductive heating in the presence of an alternating electromagnetic field include materials comprising a transition metal or a rare earth metal, particularly oxides comprising such transition metals or rare earth metals, and the `404 publication [0023] discloses nano-scale particles of superparamagnetic substances for example can be employed as the heating medium and are selected from aluminum, cobalt, iron, nickel or their alloys, metal oxides of the type n-maghemite (gamma-Fe2O3), n-magnetite (Fe3O4) or ferrites of the type MeFe2O4, wherein Me is a divalent metal selected from manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, calcium or cadmium.
In terms of claim 5, the nickel/zinc molar ratio ranges from about 1/99 to about 99/1 would have been obvious-to-try in view of the wide range of the nickel/zinc molar ratio in view of the `596 publication and the `404 publication.
In terms of claim 9, the `596 publication [0009] discloses advantageous magnetic materials for inductive heating in the presence of an alternating electromagnetic field include materials comprising a transition metal or a rare earth metal, particularly oxides comprising such transition metals or rare earth metals, and the `404 publication [0023] discloses nano-scale particles of superparamagnetic substances for example can be employed as the heating medium and are selected from aluminum, cobalt, iron, nickel or their alloys, metal oxides of the type n-maghemite (gamma-Fe2O3), n-magnetite (Fe3O4) or ferrites of the type MeFe2O4, wherein Me is a divalent metal selected from manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, nickel, magnesium, calcium or cadmium.
In terms of claim 10, the cobalt/zinc molar ratio ranges molar ratio ranges from about 1/99 to about 99/1 would have been obvious-to-try in view of the wide range of the cobalt/zinc molar ratio in view of the `596 publication and the `404 publication.
In terms of claim 14, Jabbarzare et al. teaches a photocatalyst composition of YFeO3, which comprises iron and yttrium.
In terms of claim 18, Jabbarzare et al. teaches YFeO3 is nanoparticles, and the nanometer scale of YFeO3 powders ensures a large specific area and consequently a better photocatalytic behavior (see left and right columns at p.1127). Therefore, the magnetic ferrite compound has a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of less than about 100 m2/g would have been obvious-to-try in view of the teaching of Jabbarzare et al. having a large specific area and consequently a better photocatalytic behavior.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,697,110 (“the `110 patent”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1, and 21-23 and claims 1-4 of the `110 patent are drawn to a catalyst composition comprising: a catalytic material, and at least one magnetic component, wherein the magnetic component comprises at least one magnetic ferrite compound; wherein the catalytic material comprises a catalytic material for one or more of oxidation of carbon monoxide, oxidation of hydrocarbons, oxidation of NOx, oxidation of ammonia, selective catalytic reduction of NOx, and NOx storage/reduction; the catalytic material comprises one or more catalytic metals impregnated or ion-exchanged in a porous support, wherein the one or more catalytic metals are selected from base metals, platinum group metals, oxides of base metals or platinum group metals, and combinations thereof; and the porous support is a refractory metal oxide or a molecular sieve, such as zeolite.
Claims 1, and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,508,578 (“the `578 patent”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1, and 21-23 and claims 1-6 of the `578 patent are drawn to a catalyst composition comprising: a catalytic material, and at least one magnetic component, wherein the magnetic component comprises at least one magnetic ferrite compound; wherein the catalytic material comprises a catalytic material for one or more of oxidation of carbon monoxide, oxidation of hydrocarbons, oxidation of NOx, oxidation of ammonia, selective catalytic reduction of NOx, and NOx storage/reduction; the catalytic material comprises one or more catalytic metals impregnated or ion-exchanged in a porous support, wherein the one or more catalytic metals are selected from base metals, platinum group metals, oxides of base metals or platinum group metals, and combinations thereof; and the porous support is a refractory metal oxide or a molecular sieve, such as zeolite. In terms of the magnetic material has an average particle size of less than about 100 nm, the present Specification [0134] discloses the magnetic ferrite compound in the catalyst compositions described herein comprises particles with average particle size ranging from about 20 nm to about 100 nm, such as about 20 nm, about 30 nm, about 40 nm, about 50 nm, about 60 nm, about 70 nm, about 80 nm, about 90 nm, or about 100 nm.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 14, and 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, and 16-18 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/029,840 (“the `840 application”), published as US2023/0364596.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Applicant’s claims 1-2, 4, 9, 14, and 21-23 and claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, and 16-18 of the `840 application are all drawn to an overlapped catalyst composition comprising: a catalytic material, and at least one magnetic component, wherein the magnetic component comprises at least one magnetic ferrite compound; wherein the catalytic material comprises a catalytic material for one or more of oxidation of carbon monoxide, oxidation of hydrocarbons, oxidation of NOx, oxidation of ammonia, selective catalytic reduction of NOx, and NOx storage/reduction.
Claim Objection
Claims 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closes prior art is Jabbarzare et al., which teaches a catalyst composition comprising YFeO3 nanoparticles. However, Jabbarzare et al. does not teach a catalyst composition comprising the magnetic ferrite compound comprises Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, Co0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, or Y3Fe5O12.
Conclusions
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 14, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected.
Claims 8 is objected to.
The specification is objected to.
Claims 25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731