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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are related as each group requires the catalyst of Group II and thus the groups should be considered to have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because though the groups relating to each other as sharing the catalyst of Group II shows unity a priority, that is before considering the prior art, unity of invention still requires a common special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art (a posteriori), a requirement which is not met in this case as explained in the Restriction Requirement and below in the prior art rejections. See also PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination (ISPE) Guidelines, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.21 (Example 1).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of Group II in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a unit of invention exists and that the groups have a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because Patchett teaches that the Fe2O3:CuO weight ratio of 0.1:1. As the instant application claims less than 0.1:1, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 8-17 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.
In claim 8, “type” in line 10 renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E
In claim 10, It is unclear whether the molar ratio of SiO2:Al2O3 is 1-50:1 or 1:1-50. For purposes of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as 1-50:1 for the ratio of SiO2:Al2O3.
Claims 9 and 11-17 are also rejected as they are dependent or otherwise require all of the limitations of claim 8.
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 Patchett (EP3708253A1).
In regards to claim 8, Patchett 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 [0023 Lines 36-38].
Patchett also teaches that the coating is disposed to at least 55% of the substrate length [0178 Lines 1-4],
Comprising a non-zeolitic oxidic material [0275 Lines 39-49],
Copper [0105 Lines 48-51],
And a zeolitic material comprising iron [0357 Lines 33-41].
Patchett also teaches a framework structure consisting CHA, AEI, RTH, LEV, DDR, KFI, ERI, and AFX [0192],
comprising Si, Al, and O [0195 Lines 25-29],
And a non-zeolitic oxidic material consisting of ceria, alumina, titania, and lanthana [0215 Lines 2-5],
With a weight ratio of Fe relative to Cu of 0.1:1 [0101-0108]. Taking 0.1% of Fe2O3 and the range of 0.1-10% of CuO, the range comes 0.1:1 to 1:1. As the instant application claims less than 0.1:1, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regards to claim 9, Patchett teaches that the zeolitic material comprised in the coating has a CHA framework structure type [0103 Lines 38-40].
In regards to claim 10, Patchett teaches that the zeolitic material comprised in the coating exhibits a molar ratio of silicon oxide to aluminum oxide in the range from 1 to 50 [0195 Lines 25-29].
In regards to claim 11, Patchett teaches that the copper comprised in the coating is comprised in at least the zeolitic material [0194 Lines 18-21].
In regards to claim 12, Patchett 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 [0196 Lines 30-37], where Patchett teaches a range of 0-10 weight %. 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, Patchett teaches a non-zeolitic oxidic material in the range from 0 to 20 weight % based on the sum of weight of Si and Al in the framework structure in the zeolitic material comprised in the coating [0275 Lines 39-49], where the non-zeolitic oxidic material comprises 0-1 weight % of the coating. 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, Patchett teaches the zeolitic material disposed on the surface of the internal walls of the substrate in the range of 1.00 to 4.50 g/in3 [0206 Lines 17-20].
In regards to claim 15, Patchett teaches having Fe loading in the range of 0.001 to 0.030 g/in3. Patchett teaches that the zeolitic material has a loading of 1 to 4.5 g/in3 [0117 Lines 47-51] and that Fe2O3 can comprise 0-10 weight % of the zeolitic material [0357 Lines 33-41]. The range of Fe in the loading range would then be 0.1 to 0.45 g/in3 given the percentages taught by Patchett. 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, Patchett teaches having Cu loading in the range of from 0.08 to 0.18 g/in3. Patchett teaches that the zeolitic material has a loading of 1 to 4.5 g/in3 [0117 Lines 47-51] and that CuO can comprise 0-10 weight % of the zeolitic material [0105 Lines 48-51]. The range of Cu in the loading range would then be 0.1 to 0.45 g/in3 given the percentages taught by Patchett. 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, Patchett 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 1 to 5.0 g/in3 [0154 Lines 8-11], where Patchett teaches loading in the range of 0.5-5.5 g/in3. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
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
Prosecution Insights