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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-11, filed 12/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 20 under the Final 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the references below.
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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier (US Pub.: 2015/0246345) and in view of KR (101791274) and in view of Matsuo (JP 2012024674) and in view of Beeckman (US Pub.: 2006/0122053) and in view of Hofmann (EP 1852174).
As to Claims 1, 5, 6 and 10, Collier describes an SCR catalyst (title) made from a molecular sieve, that can be a zeolite modified by an iron metal (para. 8). The framework of the molecular sieve that include chabazite (para. 9), which is a crystalline small-pore sieve. The iron metal can be in the form of iron sulfate (para. 12). The molecular sieve and iron are combined with at least one organic compound to form a mixture (para. 8). The combination is then admixed with a binder in a slurry (para. 45). The organic component can be one of the compounds listed in para. 10, which can include citric acid, succinic acid, ethyelediamine (para. 10). The binder can include a number of inorganic compounds, such as alumina or an alumina-containing compound, such as silica-alumina (para. 44). The mixture is mixed in a solution (para. 48), the solution can be water (para. 77).
The mixture may be extruded (para. 14) and calcinated (para. 15). Extrusion can be considered the “moulding” step of Claim 1, step b.
Collier does not specifically state that the mixture is first moulded and then calcinated. Also, Collier does not specifically state that the small-pore molecular sieve in the form of H+ or NH4+ or what the solids content of the extruded slurry is.
As to the calcination after moulding step, KR ‘274 describes a method for the production of a SCR catalyst containing a zeolite material (title) modified by iron (abstract). The reference explains that in the background that it is known to knead a slurry containing the catalytic component, extruded into a honeycomb shape and then calcined (“Background-art” on page 2, para. 2). The heat treatment in this step solidifies the product (“Background-art” on page 2, para. 2).
Since calcination solidifies the extruded product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mould first and then calcinate, as taught by KR ‘274 for use with the process of Collier because calcination solidifies the product into the shape the molding step forms the product into.
As to the solids content feature, Matsuo describes a method of making a catalyst (title) for use as an SCR catalyst (abstract) that comprises iron and zeolite (abstract). When making a slurry, Matsuo explains that the solids content in the slurry is from 5-60 mass% (page 8, para. 7). When the solids content is less than the lower limit, the amount of the dispersion medium to be removed is large and when the solids amount is higher than this range, there is a tendency for the metal to become difficult to disperse and distribute uniformly on the zeolite (page 8, para. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the solids content of the slurry within the range of 5-60wt%, as taught by Matsuo for use with Collier because this solids range is known to have a good dispersion and uniform distribution.
As to the small-pore molecular sieve in the form of H+ or NH4+, Collier does not specifically teach this feature.
Beeckman describes a method of making a catalyst for use in a number of processes, such as catalysis (abstract and para. 2, 15). The catalyst includes a zeolite composition (para. 17). In the background, Beeckman explains that if cations, such as alkali or alkaline earth metals, are exchanged by ammonium exchange, followed by calcination to remove the ammonia to create the proton form of the zeolite, it imparts the zeolite with Bronsted acid sites, which have catalytic activity (para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert the zeolite to its proton form by ammonium exchange, as taught by Beeckman for use with the process of making a zeolite, as taught by Collier because this exchange imparts the zeolite with Bronsted acid sites, which have catalytic activity.
As to the combination forming a plastic mixture, since the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition blended together would result in the same compound.
As to the temperature range of step (a), the mixing step, although Collier does not specifically state that the mixing step is carried out at a temperature range of 10 to 35 °C, since this overlaps ambient temperature (15-25 °C), 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 step, unless otherwise stated, would occur at ambient temperatures.
As to the amounts of each, Collier teaches use of 3wt% of iron (para. 55, 60) or 5wt% iron (para. 66, 72). Collier teaches that the organic component can be in a 1:2, 1:4 or 1:8 ratio with the iron (para. 55). In this case, it would range from 10, 20 or 40% of the mixture. The organic component can be considered the organic auxiliary agent of the claims.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05
The reference does not specifically teach how much of the molecular sieve, the inorganic matrix or how much inorganic fibers are added.
Hofmann describes an extruded catalyst (title) used for decomposing NOx gases (Description, para. 1). The catalyst includes zeolite in amount of 60-87% (see page 3, para. 6, 7 and page 4, second to last para, describes an amount of zeolite that is not ion-exchanged in an amount of 70-85wt%). The alumina composition can be alumina in an amount of 10-37wt% (page 3, lines 20-23). The mixture can include fibers (page 4, para. 4) and an organic composition, such as cellulose or an organic plasticizer (see Claims 10-19). Therefore, since Hofmann states that the amount of fibers used are optional “can include”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this range includes zero addition of fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include zeolite in an amount of 60-87% and the alumina in an amount of 10-37wt% and zero or greater fibers, as taught by Hofmann for use with the SCR catalyst of Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo and Beeckman because these amounts are known to lead to predictable and effective results for use in an SCR catalyst.
As to Claim 7, Matsuo explains that the solids content in the slurry is from 5-60 mass% (page 8, para. 7). MPEP states that prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity.” See 2131.03.
The obviousness statement above is reiterated here.
As to Claim 8, Collier teaches admixing with a refractory binders, such as alumina (para. 45).
As to Claim 11, Collier does not specifically state that the moulding step is carried out at a temperature range of 10 to 35 °C, since this overlaps ambient temperature (15-25 °C), 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 step, unless otherwise stated, would occur at ambient temperatures.
As to Claim 12, Collier teaches that the mixture is calcined and that there are not intermediate process steps (para. 15).
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofmann (US Pub.: 2007/0259770), Hofmann II.
The references do not teach the features of Claims 2 or 3.
Hofmann II describes an extruded catalyst used as an SCR (for breaking down NOx using a reducing agent, para. 1 and abstract). Hofman explains that use of 60-87wt% of an ion-exchanged zeolite combined with 10-39wt% of aluminum oxide and 2-10wt% of inorganic fibers (para. 13) produces a SCR with superior mechanical stability for long-term application (para. 14). The compares to the prior art, which Hofman explains in para. 3, 4, 5, 6, which do not contain the alumina binder or the inorganic fibers at all.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ inorganic fibers in an amount of 2-10wt% (Claim 2) and alumina in an amount of 10-39% and ion-exchanged zeolite in an amount of 60-87%, as taught by Hofmann II for use with Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann,because this combination of ingredients produces a SCR with superior mechanical stability for long-term application.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann,as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fedeyko (US Pub.: 2015/0265969).
The references disclose a small pore zeolite and iron sulfate, but does not describe the iron to aluminum ratio in the zeolite.
Fedeyko describes an SCR catalyst (abstract). The reference explains that the catalyst contains a zeolite, such as CHA (para. 15), modified by a metal (para. 17, 22). The metal used can include iron (para. 22). As to the ratio, Fedeyko teaches that the metal to aluminum ratio will range from 0.1 to 1 (para. 25).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
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 metal of Collier in a ratio with Al in a range of 0.1 to 1, as taught by Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann,because this range is known to be effective for use in a zeolite for use in an SCR.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann,as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Ferrous Sulfate” (Earthwise Organics), attached.
Collier describes inclusion of iron sulfate (para. 12), but the references do not teach that the iron sulfate is in crystalline form.
Earthwise is a commercial distributor of iron sulfate and shows that it is a crystalline material (see title and “Description”, line 1).
Since known manufacturers describe iron sulfate as a crystalline material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the iron sulfate used in Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann,as a crystalline material, as taught by Earthwise because Earthwise explains that iron sulfate materials manufactured is known to be crystalline.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann,as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (EP 2221099).
Collier teaches that the drying temperature of the method is about 105 degrees C (para. 48), but does not teach a drying temperature of below 95 degrees C.
Matsumoto teaches a honeycomb structure (title and abstract) that is modified with an SCR catalyst (para. 34). Matsumoto explains that their drying temperature can range from 50-120 degrees C, but that if the drying temperature is high, the thickness of the catalyst layer is higher, while if the drying temperature is low, the thickness of the catalyst layer is decreased because the slurry dries while it flows (para. 44).
Therefore, although Collier does not describe a drying temperature of lower than 35 degrees C (or 95 degrees F), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as catalyst layer thickness through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the drying temperature of the catalyst layer in Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann, as taught by Matsumoto because Matsumoto explains that adjustment of the drying temperature is a known method of optimizing catalyst layer thickness.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maurer (CN 108290136).
Collier describes a solids content of 5-60wt%, but does not describe a higher range of 60-80%.
Maurer describes a method for preparing a molding composition for producing a molded product (title). The molded product is formed by extuding the catalyst composition (page 3, last para). The moulding composition can have a solids content of 30-80wt% (page 9, 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 include the wider range of solids content to a range of 30-80%, as taught by Mauer for use with the extruded catalyst composition of Collier, KR ‘274, Matsuo, Beeckman and Hofmann because this wider range is known to effectively and predictably be useable for an catalytic extruded product.
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 February 25, 2026