Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 25-26 and 29-30 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 this case, claim 25 recites “mixing the vanadium oxide and/or a precursor thereof, the antimony oxide and/or a precursor thereof, or the mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, or the mixed iron and vanadium oxide, optionally a support and/or a precursor thereof, and optionally a binder and/or matrix and/or a precursor thereof into a shapeable mixture”, one of ordinary skill in the art what components being mixed together for form an extrudable mixture, such as, mixing the vanadium oxide and/or a precursor thereof with what other components or substances form an extrudable mixture, or mixing the antimony oxide and/or a precursor thereof with what other components or substances to form an extrudable mixture, or mixing the mixed antimony and vanadium oxide with what other components or substances to form an extrudable mixture, or mixing the mixed iron and vanadium oxide with what other components or substances to form an extrudable mixture? Since a support and/or a precursor thereof being optional, and a binder and/or matrix and/or a precursor being optional, with only one component there (e.g. vanadium oxide and/or the precursor, antimony or the precursor thereof, mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, or the mixed iron and vanadium oxide), one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain how can a simple component forming a mixture which requires at least two different compounds or substances? Are these recited vanadium oxide and/or precursor, antimony oxide and precursor, mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, and mixed iron and vanadium oxide being mixed together with one another? Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed mixing step forming a shapable mixture. All claim 25’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 35 is 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 this case, claim 35 recites “mixing a mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, or a mixed iron and vanadium oxide, optionally a support and/or a precursor thereof, and optionally a binder and/or matrix and/or a precursor thereof into a shapeable mixture”, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain mixing a mixed antimony and vanadium oxide (or mixing the mixed iron and vanadium oxide) with what other components to form a shapeable mixture since a support and/or a precursor thereof being optional, and a binder and/or matrix and/or a precursor being optional, one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain how can mixing a mixed antimony and vanadium oxide forming a shapable mixture because a mixture requires at least two different compounds or substance? Are these recited mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, and mixed iron and vanadium oxide being mixed together with each other? Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of such claimed mixing step forming a shapable mixture.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 25, 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (CN106111118A) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Yu (US2014/0113802).
Liu teaches a method of forming a denitration catalyst body comprising kneading (i.e. mixing) vanadium precursor, antimony precursor together with support precursor, binder, hole expansion material to a shapeable mixture, then extruding such mixture into a honeycomb body, drying and calcining for 2-8 hours to form an extruded honeycomb catalyst containing extruded vanadium oxide (calculated based on V2O5) and antimony oxide (calculated based on Sb2O5) (claim 6-7, [0013]-[0019], [0039], [0046], [0054], [0060], [0072], example 1-8, table 1).
As for the claimed “flow-through” honeycomb, Liu already teaches a honeycomb body has holes dimension 5x5 mm (example 1-8) which fluid can flow through the catalyst body, therefore a flow-through honeycomb body is envisioned.
Liu further teaches vanadium oxide (V2O5) being supported on the carrier by a kneading method or co-precipitation method and antimony oxide being supported on the carrier by dipping or kneading (para. [0018], [0019], [0046], [0065]).
As for the claimed “wherein in the mixing i), when the precursor of the vanadium oxide is used, the precursor of the vanadium oxide is chosen from vanadyl oxalate, vanadium pentoxide, vanadium monoethanolamine, vanadium chloride, vanadium trichloride oxide, vanadyl sulfate and vanadium antimonate; and wherein in the mixing i), when the precursor of the antimony oxide is used, the precursor of the antimony oxide is used and the precursor of the antimony oxide is chosen from ethylene glycol antimony, antimony sulfate, antimony nitrate, antimony chloride, antimonous sulfide, antimony oxide and antimony vanadate”, it is noted that such limitation does not positively limit wherein in mixing i) mixing a vanadium oxide, an antimony oxide, or a mixed antimony and vanadyl oxide, mixed iron and vanadium oxide , but only positively limit when the precursor of vanadium oxide being used for mixing, or precursor of antimony oxide being used for mixing, but such mixing embodiment are just alternative choices based on claim 25 recited mixing step.
Regarding claim 25, Liu already teaches mixing a vanadium precursor and antimony precursor as described above, but does not expressly teach mixing a vanadium oxide, antimony oxide, or mixing a mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, or a mixed iron and vanadium oxide.
Yu teaches a method forming a denitration catalyst (including V2O5 as active component) comprising mixing a vanadium precursor which can be one or two of vanadyl acetylacetonate, ammonium metavanadate, vanadyl oxalate and vanadyl sulfate (para. [0026]) and such denitration catalyst can have the oxides of transition metals, such as Mn, Fe, Co, Nb be added to promote the dispersion and stabilization of the active component (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt an iron oxide containing material as shown by Yu into the mixing step of Liu of mixing vanadium oxide because by doing so can help obtaining a denitration catalyst with improved dispersion and stabilization of the active component of such catalyst as suggested by Yu (para. [0011]). Since an iron oxide and vanadium oxide being mixed together, therefore, a mixed iron and vanadium oxide is expected during such mixing step.
Regarding claim 29, Liu further teaches vanadium precursor, antimony precursor and support precursor are all mixed together with addition of appropriate amount of water (i.e., in a solution) to form a mixture (para. [0046], [0053], [0059], [0065]).
Regarding claim 35, Liu in view of Yu already teaches such limitations as discussed above.
Claim(s) 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (CN106111118A) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Yu (US2014/0113802) as applied above, and further in view of Schewefer (US2014/0363359) and Patil (US2018/0169634).
Regarding claim 26, Liu in view of Yu does not expressly teach air drying time being 6 weeks or honeycomb structure having cell density being 200 cells/inch2 (i.e., cells psi or cpsi), or honeycomb having six-edge cross section.
As for the claimed drying time, such time is an operating parameter. Liu further teaches drying the catalyst body for about 2 weeks (para. [0072]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such drying in air to dry the foil wrapped honeycomb catalyst body with a same time (e.g., 6 weeks) as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for obtaining a desired dried honeycomb catalyst body product.
Schewefer teaches a deNOX (denitration) catalyst are typically calcined at temperatures in the range from 400 to 650 °C (para. [0075]) and catalyst may be present in the form of shaped bodies of any size and geometry, preferably in geometries which have a high ratio of surface to volume, e.g. honeycomb (para. [0076]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known calcining temperature as shown by Schewefer to modify the calcining temperature of Liu in view of Yu because adopting such well-known calcining temperature for help forming a desired denitration catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Patil teaches honeycomb catalyst body comprising NOx removal catalyst can have cell density of 100 to 900 cells per square inch (cpsi) and the honeycomb channel cross section can be hexagonal shape (para. [0042], [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known hexagon cross section and such well known cell density of 100 to 900 cpsi as shown by Pali to practice a well-known honeycomb catalyst body of Liu in view of Yu because adopting such well-known hexagon cross section with such well-known cell density for modifying a well-known honeycomb shaped catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 30, Schewefer further teaches suitable auxiliaries for plasticization and binders can be mixed together with catalyst for extrusion for forming catalyst bodies (para. [0075], [0076]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mix such well-known auxiliaries for plasticization ( i.e. plasticizer) and binders together with catalytic material as shown by Schewefer to practice a well-known process of forming honeycomb catalyst body of Liu in view of Yu because mixing such well-known auxiliaries for plasticization ( i.e. plasticizer) and binders into catalyst precursor materials for modifying a well-known process of forming honeycomb shaped catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim(s) 25, 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (CN106111118A) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Zhao (WO2017/101449) (for applicant’s convenience, equivalent US 2018/0304236 has been used for citations).
Liu has been described as above.
Regarding claim 25, Liu does not expressly teach mixing a vanadium oxide, antimony oxide, or mixing a mixed antimony and vanadium oxide, or a mixed iron and vanadium oxide.
Zhao teaches mixing an antimony and vanadium oxide before shaping it to desired catalyst form (claim 8,12, para. [0069]-[0079], [0093]) for removing NOx ( i.e. a denitration catalyst.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known a mixture of antimony oxide and vanadium oxide, i.e. mixed antimony and vanadium oxide as shown by Zhao to modify the mixing step of denitration catalyst producing process of Liu because adopting such well-known mixed antimony and vanadium oxide as shown by Zhao to modify a well-known antimony and vanadium containing denitration catalyst for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP 2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 29 and 35, such limitations are taught as discussed above.
Claim(s) 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (CN106111118A) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been used for citations) in view of Zhao (WO2017/101449) (for applicant’s convenience, equivalent US 2018/0304236 has been used for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Schewefer (US2014/0363359) and Patil (US2018/0169634).
Regarding claim 26, Liu in view of Zhao does not expressly teach air drying time being 6 weeks or honeycomb structure having cell density being 200 cells/inch2 (i.e., cells psi or cpsi), or honeycomb having six-edge cross section.
As for the claimed drying time, such time is an operating parameter. Liu further teaches drying the catalyst body for about 2 weeks (para. [0072]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such drying in air to dry the foil wrapped honeycomb catalyst body with a same time (e.g., 6 weeks) as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for obtaining a desired dried honeycomb catalyst body product.
Schewefer has been described as above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known calcining temperature as shown by Schewefer to modify the calcining temperature of Liu in view of Zhao because adopting such well-known calcining temperature for help forming a desired denitration catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Patil has been described as above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known hexagon cross section and such well known cell density of 100 to 900 cpsi as shown by Pali to practice a well-known honeycomb catalyst body of Liu in view of Zhao because adopting such well-known hexagon cross section with such well-known cell density for modifying a well-known honeycomb shaped catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 30, Schewefer further teaches suitable auxiliaries for plasticization and binders can be mixed together with catalyst for extrusion for forming catalyst bodies (para. [0075], [0076]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mix such well-known auxiliaries for plasticization ( i.e. plasticizer) and binders together with catalytic material as shown by Schewefer to practice a well-known process of forming honeycomb catalyst body of Liu in view of Zhao because mixing such well-known auxiliaries for plasticization ( i.e. plasticizer) and binders into catalyst precursor materials for modifying a well-known process of forming honeycomb shaped catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
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 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 25, 29 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 -12 of U.S. Patent No. 11260371 in view of Liu. US’371 teaches a substantially the same process of mixing a mixed antinomy and vanadium oxide, shaping the mixture, drying and calcining to form a shaped catalyst, but does not teach extruding forming “flow-through” honeycomb, Liu teaches such limitations as discussed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt well-known extruding forming “flow-through honeycomb” as shown by Liu to modify a well-known process of producing shaped catalyst form of US’371 because by doing so for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Claim 26 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 -12 of U.S. Patent No. 11260371 in view of Liu as applied above, and further in view of Schewefer (US2014/0363359) and Patil (US2018/0169634). US’371 does not expressly teach air drying time being 6 weeks or honeycomb structure having cell density being 200 cells/inch2 (i.e., cells psi or cpsi), or honeycomb having six-edge cross section.
As for the claimed drying time, such time is an operating parameter. Liu further teaches drying the catalyst body for about 2 weeks (para. [0072]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such drying in air to dry the foil wrapped honeycomb catalyst body with a same time (e.g., 6 weeks) as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for obtaining a desired dried honeycomb catalyst body product.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known hexagon cross section and such well known cell density of 100 to 900 cpsi as shown by Pali to practice a well-known honeycomb catalyst body of US’371 in view of Liu because adopting such well-known hexagon cross section with such well-known cell density for modifying a well-known honeycomb shaped catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mix such well-known auxiliaries for plasticization ( i.e. plasticizer) and binders together with catalytic material as shown by Schewefer to practice a well-known process of forming honeycomb catalyst body of US’371 in view of Liu because mixing such well-known auxiliaries for plasticization ( i.e. plasticizer) and binders into catalyst precursor materials for modifying a well-known process of forming honeycomb shaped catalyst body for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights