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 Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/26 have been fully considered but given the claim amendments, the references are newly considered.
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, 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gast (GB 2538414).
Gast describes a catalytic article for treating exhaust gas (title). The catalyst can include a molecular sieve, that can include a BEA framework sieve (page 10, lines 1-5). The silica to alumina ratio of this sieve can range from 10-50 (page 10, lines 28-29). 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.” The molecular sieve is modified with a metal, such as Cu, which is added to the molecular sieve in an amount of 0.1 to 10 weight % (page 12, lines 31-32). When analyzed, the copper oxide present in the catalyst resides on the surface of the molecular sieve (page 14, lines 1-2).
As to the efficiency of the BEA zeolite, Gast does not specifically state that their composition is a hydrocarbon adsorbent or that the efficiency of the hydrocarbon adsorbent is 50% or greater, but 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 catalyst would be effective to perform the same process.
As to Claims 3 and 6, Claim 3 describes a hydrocarbon but only in the context of when the composition is used in an intended way. Therefore, Therefore, 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 catalyst would be effective to perform the same process.
Similarly, 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 catalyst would be effective to perform the same process.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gast as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikuno “Structure-directing behaviors of Tetraethylammonium cations. . . “.
The references do not describe the features of Claims 4 and 5.
Ikuno describes making a beta zeolite (“experimental section”, para. 1) and explains that in tests, the zeolites were treated hydrothermally (“Results and Discussion”, para. 1). In each successive heat treatment, the peak between 5 and 10 gradually increased (see Fig. 2a). As to NMR peaks changed, so did the FT-IR spectra (Fig. 2a). It can be seen that the peak between 5-10 rises at 82 hrs and it more defined at 240 hours. Hydrothermal treatment changed the size of the particles and the shapes of them (see “results and discussions”, para. 4) so that the particles changed from larger and irregular shapes to more uniform and slightly smaller (“results and discussions”, para. 4).
Therefore, since Ikuno teaches hydrothermal treatment produces these peaks and that the hours spent performing this treatment adjusts the peak height, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hydrothermally treat the beta zeolite based on the desired peak height, as taught by Ikuno for use with the process of making the BEA of Gast because hydrothermal treatment produces rounder, more uniform zeolite particles.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gast as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pereda-Ayo et al. “Role of the different copper species on the activity of Cu/zeolite catalysts for SCR of NOx with NH3” (P-A).
Gast describes a method of adding copper into the zeolite, which is added by metal-exchanging of the metal into the molecular sieve (see page 11, lines 16-19), but does not describe the size of the copper metal added into the zeolite.
P-A describes an SCR catalyst that contains a Cu-modified BETA zeolite (Introduction, para. 3). The Si/Al has a ratio of 12.5 (Table 1). The Cu may be added to the zeolite by ion-exchange (see section 2.1, para. 1, “metal ion exchange”). Some of that copper is on the surface of the zeolite (page 424, right col, lines 1-2) in the form of CuO (page 425, right col, line 20). P-A teaches that the copper size can range from 0.5 to 3.5nm (see Fig. 4 and 423, left col, lines 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ copper with a size of 0.5 to 3.5 mm, as taught by P-A for use with the copper-modified zeolite of Gast because adding copper by ion-exchange into a zeolite is known to effectively make copper particles in this size range, which are predictably effective for use in SCR catalysts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights