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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/4/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
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, 2, 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 15-18 (page 10, lines 28-29). 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, Li 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) 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
As to Claims 1 and 2, 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 in an amount of 0.5 to 1.3-4.9% (Table 1). 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).
As to the efficiency of the BEA zeolite, P-A 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.
As to Claim 9, 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).
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gast or P-A 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 or P-A because hydrothermal treatment produces rounder, more uniform zeolite particles.
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 26, 2026