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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorner (US20210170366A1).
In regard to claim 8, Dorner teaches a catalyst for exhaust gas treatment comprising a substrate with an inlet end, an outlet end, a substrate length extending from the inlet end to the outlet end of the substrate and comprises a plurality of passages defined by the internal walls of the substrate [0026].
Dorner also teaches that the coating is disposed on at least 55% of the substrate length [0029],
The catalyst of Dorner comprises a non-zeolitic oxidic material, such as a metal oxide comprising zirconia, alumina, titania etc. [0213],
and a zeolitic material comprising copper and iron [0210].
Dorner also teaches a framework structure consisting of CHA and AEI [0210],
Comprising SI, Al, and O [0211],
With a weight ratio of Fe relative to Cu of less than 0.1:1 [0212]. Taking 0.01% of Fe2O3 and the range of 1-10% of CuO, the range comes 0.001:1 to 0.1:1. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Dorner also teaches that the first non-zeolitic oxidic material comprised in the coating is 0 to 20 weight % based on the sum of the weight of Si and Al [0213].
In regards to claim 9, Dorner teaches of a CHA framework structure type [0210].
In regards to claim 10, Dorner teaches that the zeolitic material comprised in the coating exhibits a molar ratio of silicon oxide to aluminum oxide in the range from 1:1 to 50:1 [0211].
In regards to claim 11, Dorner teaches that the copper comprised in the coating is comprised in at least the zeolitic material [0212].
In regards to claim 12, Dorner teaches that the zeolitic material comprises Fe2O3 in the range of 0.05 to 2 weight % based on the sum of the weight of Si and Al in the framework structure in the zeolitic material comprised in the coating [0221]. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 13, Dorner teaches a non-zeolitic oxidic material, the metal oxide binder, in the range from 0.5 to 15 weight % based on the sum of weight of Si and Al in the framework structure in the zeolitic material comprised in the coating [0213]. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 14, Dorner teaches the zeolitic material disposed on the surface of the internal walls of the substrate in the range of 0.75 to 5 g/in3 [0048]. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 15, Dorner teaches having Fe loading in the range of 0.001 to 0.030 g/in3. Dorner teaches that iron has a loading of 0.75 to 5 g/in3 [0048], and at 0 to 0.01 weight % [0221], comes out to 0.0075 to 0.05 g/in3. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 16, Dorner teaches having a Cu loading in the range of from 0.08 to 0.18 g/in3. Dorner teaches that the zeolite has a loading of 0.5 to 3.5 g/in3 [0215], and at 1 to 10 weight % of the zeolite [0212], comes out to a loading of 0.005-0.35 g/in3. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 17, Dorner teaches that the zeolitic material comprised in the coating disposed on the surface of the internal walls of the substrate is at a loading in the range of 0.75 to 5.0 g/in3 [0048].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Remarks, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 8-17 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to amendments. The rejection of claims 8-17 under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-17 under 35 USC § 103 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 Dorner (US20210170366A1) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
