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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/3/25 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, 6, 8, 9, 11, 26, 27, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017/533093 and in view of Moini (WO 2019/180663) and in view of JP 2017/523113 and in view of Voss (WO 2016/138418).
As to Claims 1, 8, 26 and 29, JP ‘093 describes a method of making a composition that combines a first molecular sieve modified with a metal promoter combined with a second molecular sieve that is not exchanged and blending them in a slurry (see example 1).
In one example, the first molecular sieve can be a CHA and the metal can be copper (page 17, lines 6-8).
The reference does not teach that the first catalyst, which in this case is a Cu-CHA is made by mixing the first zeolite in an un-promoted form with a metal precursor to form a slurry and then forming a metal-promoted zeolite.
As to how the first metal-modified zeolite is made, this taught by Moini. Specifically, Moini teaches that a promoter metal can be exchange dinot a zeolite by a liquid phase exchange process, where a soluble metal ion exchanges with the proton or ammonium or sodium ions within a zeolite (page 10, lines 31-33). The exchange process can be accomplished in an in-situ process during slurry preparation, where metals are suspended in a zeolite slurry under conditions for solid-liquid interactions (page 10, lines 3-38). Useable zeolites can include a CHA zeolite (page 2, lines 34-37) and the metal can include a number of different metals, such as those in groups IIIB, IVB, VB, VIB, VIIB, VIIIB, IB, IIIA, IVA and others (page 10, lines 19-24).
Since JP ‘093 describes a Cu-CHA, but does not describe how that is made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to a known process of making a copper modified CHA in JP ‘093, such as those described in Moini because their method of making Cu-CHA is known in the art and would yield predictable results.
As to the metal oxide being in cluster-form formed under hydrothermal conditions, JP 113 teaches a method of encapsulating a metal into a zeolite (abstract) and explains that when metals are in the form of metal clusters in zeolite, it can extend the diversity of catalytic chemistry it is used for by allowing micrporous solids to react with reactants (Background, para. 1). Therefore, the metal oxide-containing zeolite is made by adding metal to the zeolite (page 3, lines 14-18) and that the metals in the zeolite are converted into clusters by hydrothermal treatment (page 3, lines 35-38, page 4, 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 employ the metal in cluster-form, as taught by JP ‘113 for use in the catalyst of JP ‘093 and Moini because metal added in this form can extend the diversity of catalytic chemistry.
As to the d90 of the zeolite, this feature is taught by Voss.
Voss describes an exhaust gas treatment system and catalyst (abstract) for use in SCR catalysis (page 1, lines 1-4). The catalyst used is a zeolite-modified by a metal (page 8, para. 2) and can include a first zeolite and a second zeolite (page 11, lines 35-37). Voss explains that the catalyst can have a D90 of 1-40 microns (page 13, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a D90 of 1-40 microns, as taught by Voss for use with the SCR catalyst of JP ‘093, Moini and JP ‘113 because this particle size range is known to be effective for use in SCR catalysis.
Although Voss does not specifically state that the particle size of both the first and second zeolite are within this range, since the catalyst comprises both the first and second zeolites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that they both have the same D90.
As to Claim 6, JP ‘093 teaches use of two different zeolite frameworks (see example 1).
As to Claims 9 and 11, JP ‘093 describes that the first zeolite can have a CHA framework (page 17, lines 9-10) and the second zeolite can have a 12 member ring size, such as in ZSM-5 or BEA, including others (see page 17, lines 11-13).
As to Claim 27, the rejection of Claim 1 is re-iterated here. As to the SAR features, JP ’093 states that the terms “zeolite” generally refers to a zeolite that contains an SAR of 2 or more (see page 7, lines 1-2). As to the metal being in the form of a metal oxide, JP ‘093 teaches that the copper is in the form of CuO (page 10, para. 4).
As to Claim 28, JP ‘093 teaches that the slurry is milled prior to loading (page 14, para. 5).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 1027930) and in view of JP 2017/523113 and in view of Voss (WO 2016/138418).
Takahashi describes a method of making a composition that includes first combining a first zeolite with a metal precursor in an aqueous solution (para. 59). Then combining the metal-modified first zeolite with a second zeolite that is unpromoted (para. 60, “unloaded”). The first and second zeolites are mixed in solution (para. 61).
As to the metal oxide being in cluster-form formed under hydrothermal conditions, JP 113 teaches a method of encapsulating a metal into a zeolite (abstract) and explains that when metals are in the form of metal clusters in zeolite, it can extend the diversity of catalytic chemistry it is used for by allowing micrporous solids to react with reactants (Background, para. 1). Therefore, the metal oxide-containing zeolite is made by adding metal to the zeolite (page 3, lines 14-18) and that the metals in the zeolite are converted into clusters by hydrothermal treatment (page 3, lines 35-38, page 4, 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 employ the metal in cluster-form, as taught by JP ‘113 for use in the catalyst of Takahashi because metal added in this form can extend the diversity of catalytic chemistry.
As to the d90 of the zeolite, this feature is taught by Voss.
Voss describes an exhaust gas treatment system and catalyst (abstract) for use in SCR catalysis (page 1, lines 1-4). The catalyst used is a zeolite-modified by a metal (page 8, para. 2) and can include a first zeolite and a second zeolite (page 11, lines 35-37). Voss explains that the catalyst can have a D90 of 1-40 microns (page 13, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a D90 of 1-40 microns, as taught by Voss for use with the SCR catalyst of Takahashi and JP ‘113 because this particle size range is known to be effective for use in SCR catalysis.
Although Voss does not specifically state that the particle size of both the first and second zeolite are within this range, since the catalyst comprises both the first and second zeolites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that they both have the same D90.
As to Claim 5, Takahashi teaches that the metal promoter can be one of those listed on page 10, lines 19-30. Some of those metals included Zinc, those in group IIB (page 10, lines 20-37). Therefore, in some embodiments, the metals added to the zeolite can include non-transition metals.
As to Claim 6, Takahashi teaches that the zeolites frameworks are different (para. 59).
Claim(s) 2, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘093 and Moini, JP ‘113 and Voss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Green (US Pub.: 2015/0064088).
JP ‘093 describes that the second zeolite is in the hydrogen form, but does not state that the first zeolite prior to exchange with the metal is in the ammonium form.
Green describes a zeolite blend catalyst for use as an SCR (title and para. 8) that includes a first framework zeolite and a second framework zeolite (para. 9).
The blend of the first zeolite and the second zeolite includes a metal-promoted zeolite and an un-promoted zeolite (para. 18). Green explains that the zeolite that is unpromoted can be in the form of H+ or NH+4 (para. 19). The zeolite that is modified by a metal in Green may be in either form prior to promotion with a metal and the zeolite combined with the metal-promoted zeolite may be in either form as well since it is also considered an un-promoted zeolite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an unpromoted zeolite (the first zeolite prior to the addition of a metal and the second zeolite prior to mixing with the first zeolite), in the form of either H+ and NH4+, as taught by Green for use with the process of making the catalyst of JP ‘093 and Moini, JP ‘113 and Voss because Green explains that the zeolite in both forms are effective in the field.
As to Claim 18, Green teaches that one zeolite is in the mixture in a range of 75 to 95wt % and the second framework is in the range of 5 to 25 wt% range (para. 27) in their NOx catalyst (para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a mixture of the two zeolites containing 75-95wt% of the first zeolite and 5-25wt% of the second zeolite, as taught by Green for use with the catalyst of JP ‘093 and Moini, JP ‘113 and Voss because this mixture is effective in the art for use in a NOx catalyst.
As to Claim 20, Green teaches that their process employs copper acetate (para. 64). 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 acetate as a copper source, as taught by Green for use with JP ‘093 and Moini, JP ‘113 and Voss because Green teaches that copper acetate is an effective copper precursor to use in ion-exchange of zeolites.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘093, JP ‘113 and Voss or Takahashi, JP ‘113 and Voss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stiebels (US Pub.: 2013/0089483).
JP ‘093 and Takahashi do not specifically teach how much the SSZ-13 (CHA) and Cu-modified SSZ-13 is in the catalyst.
Stiebels describes an SCR that can include one or more zeolites that contain a CHA structure (abstract) as well as other frameworks (can also include BEA) (abstract). The reference explains that one of the CHA structures can include Cu (abstract). As to the loading, CHA can be in the catalyst from 0.5 to 5 g/inch3 (para. 70) and BEA can be in the mixture from 0.5 to 5 g/inch3 (para. 70). Copper can be in the mixture from 0.05 to 20% (para. 53). Assuming a 1% loading of the CHA, where CHA and BEA can each be about 0.5 g/inch3, the loading of the SCR overlaps can be as low as 1.0005 g/inch3, which overlaps the claims range in Claim 19 of the current application.
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 SCR in an amount of 1.0005 g/inch3, as taught by Stiebels for use with the SCR of JP ‘093, JP ‘113 and Voss or Takahashi, JP ‘113 and Voss because this concentration is known to be effective for use in SCR catalysts.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘093 or Takahashi and in view of JP 2017/523113 and in view of Voss (WO 2016/138418) and further in view of Gorczynski (WO 2018/078513).
The rejection to Claim 1 over JP ‘093, JP ‘113 and Voss or Takahashi, JP ‘113 and Voss are incorporated here.
The references do not specifically disclose the features of Claim 21, 22 and 23.
As to Claims 21, 22, 23 and 25, Gorczynski describes a SCR catalyst (abstract). The reference explains in the background that SCR catalysts are known to reduce emissions from lean burn (diesel) engines (pg. 1, lines 6-10, 14-16). The reference explains that their catalyst is deposited on a substrate, which can be a flow-through monolith (pg. 3, line 25 and pg. 4, line 36). The engine is upstream from the catalyst downstream of the engine (pg. 6, lines 15-20). The SCR can include a copper-SSZ-13 sieve (pg. 8, line 12, 33, 36).
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 catalyst in the form of a flow-through monolith (Claim 21), downstream from a diesel or lean burn engine (Claim 22 and 23), as taught by Gorczynski in view of JP ‘093, JP ‘113 and Voss or Takahashi, JP ‘113 and Voss because this arrangement is an effective means to reduce NOx pollutants in an exhaust gas stream.
As to Claim 24, Gorczynski teaches that upstream of the SCR is a DOC and CSF (see Fig. 7). Therefore, the SCR is downstream of both of these. The rest of Claim 24 is optional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a DOC and a CSF upstream of the SCR, as taught by Gorczynski for use with the SCR of Lee because Gorczynski explains that the SCR is known to be used with engine exhaust for pollution reduction in this way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: JP ‘093 teaches that the slurry is milled prior to loading (page 14, para. 5), but does not teach that the slurry containing the first metal-promoted zeolite is milled prior to adding it with the unpromoted zeolite. JP ‘093 teaches that the slurry is milled prior to loading (page 14, para. 5).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.