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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/25 has been entered.
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, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinet (CA 3082500).
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
As to Claims 1 and 5, Quinet describes an SCR catalyst (title) that can include cerium oxide in an amount of 2-4 wt%, niobium oxide in amount of 1-7wt% (page 2, lines 35-37), tungsten oxide in an amount of 0.001-2wt% (page 3, lines 14-15). The balance of the composition can contain titania (page 3, lines 1-2 and lines 22-23). Other metals that can be added to the catalyst mixture can include silica (page 4, lines 30-31) in an amount of 4.53% (page 8, line 24). This can be considered a filter portion as claimed by Claim 1. The amount of titania is the remainder, which in one example is about 85% (page 8, line 24), which is above 64wt%.
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.”
As to Claim 7, Quinet explains that the catalyst can include cerium oxide in an amount of 2-4 wt%, niobium oxide in amount of 1-7wt% (page 2, lines 35-37). 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.”
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 107233880) and in view of Quinet (CA 3082500).
As to Claims 1 and 5, Wu describes a deNOx catalyst (title), which includes tungsten, titania, silica, ceria, tungsten oxide and niobium oxide (abstract). In the background, Wu explains that use of vanadium-tungsten oxide with titania is widely used (Background, para. 2). However, use of the vanadia component is undesirable because at higher temperatures, vanadia activity at reduced and can promote SO2 oxidation and form N2O (Background, para. 2). Also, at high temperatures, vanadia can easily volatize and cause loss in the catalyst and has biological toxicity and harm humans and the environment (Background, para. 2). As a solution to this, Wu proposes making a NOx catalyst that is non-vanadium-based and includes tungsten oxide, titania, silica, cerium, and niobium (Summary of the invention, lines 10-16).
Therefore, in their catalyst, Wu teaches use of titania from 70-90wt%, WO3 from 0.1-10wt%, silica from 0.1-10wt% (page 3, lines 13-15). Additionally, the catalyst contains ceria and niobium oxide in an amount (Claim 2).
Wu does not specifically describe how much ceria and niobium are used in terms of weight %.
Quinet describes an SCR catalyst (title). Quinet explains in their background that mixed oxides that contain mixed vanadiuma, titanium and tungsten oxide are known in the art (page 2, lines 1-2). In some cases, Qunet explains that there is no need for vanadia (page 2, lines 11-14). Quinet explains that use of niobium oxide and cerium oxide are known to be additives in SCR catalysts (page 2, lines 16-18). Use of these additives are known to to improve activity for NO2 and NO removal as well as improving thermal stability (page 2, lines 11-14). As a result, Quinet describes including ceria in an amount of 2-4wt% and niobium oxide in an amount of 1-7wt% (page 2, lines 26-27).
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 ceria in an amount of 2-4wt% and niobia in an amount of 1-7wt%, as taught by Quinet for use with the catalyst of Wu because the addition of these metals are known to improve NO2 and NO removal and improve thermal stability.
As to Claim 7, Quinet explains that the catalyst can include cerium oxide in an amount of 2-4 wt%, niobium oxide in amount of 1-7wt% (page 2, lines 35-37). 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.”
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinet or Wu and Quinet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 110756217).
The references do not describe use of filler in amount amount of 5-15wt%, which can include glass fibers and/or clay.
Zhang describes a denitration catalyst and preparation method (title). The catalyst can include titania (page 3, line 1) and niobia (page 3, lines 5-6) as well as ceria (page 3, lines3-4) and tungsten (page 3, lines 5-6). Zhang explains that glass fibers function as reinforcing agent, which gives catalysts strength (page 3, lines 21-22). Zhang explains that an amount of glass fibers of 5-20wt% is effective to perform this (page 3, lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ glass fibers in the SCR of over Quinet or Wu and Quinet in an amount of 5-20wt%, as taught by Zhang because glass fibers are known to improve the strength of an SCR due to its reinforcing qualities.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinet or Wu and Quinet, and further in view of Hancu (US Pub.: 2015/0151291) and in view of Zhang (CN 110756217).
The rejection of Claim 1 is re-iterated here.
Quinet teaches coating the catalyst, but not the method steps of Claim 8.
Hancu describes a catalyst and method of manufacturing the catalyst (title). Harcu explains that NOx catalysts (para. 5, 6, 35, 61) can be formed into washcoats or extruded monoliths (para. 61).
Hancu does not describe the specific features of Claim 8.
Zhang describes a denitration catalyst and preparation method (title). The catalyst is made up of 30-60wt% titania (abstract) and 5-20wt% glass fibers (pg 3, lines 20-22). The catalyst also includes an element (d) that is from 1-10wt% of at least one oxide that can be cerium (pg 3, line 3-4) and another element (e) that is from 1-10wt% that is an oxide of at least one element that can include niobium (pg. 3, lines 5-6). This overlaps the claimed ratio.
As to the method of making steps, Zhang teaches making an aqueous mixture of the catalyst compounds (see page 5, lines 22-38) that includes cerium and a second element, which can be at least one element of niobium, tungsten and others (see page 3, 3-6) and titania (page 3, line 1), as well as glass fibers (see the rection to claim 1 above, incorporated here by reference). The mixture is then dried and kneaded (pg 5, lines 25, 28-29, 33-34, 37), followed by extruding the product into a honeycomb molding (pg 5, last lines). The product is then heated to 600 degrees C (pg 6, lines 1-2). This is a calcination temperature. Zhang does not specifically teach that the catalyst precursor mixture is made into a paste prior to kneading. However, since the final product is kneaded, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the product made by combining the aqueous solution with catalyst precursor, filler, filtered and dried is a kneadable product and that kneadable product can be considered a paste substance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the SCR of Quinet or Wu and Quinet using the process of Zhang, which produces an extruded monolith because Hancu teaches that SCR catalyst can be made into either washcoat catalyst or extruded monoliths.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinet or Wu and Quinet as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gao (CN 105478103).
The reference does not describe a titania doped silica.
Gao describes an SCR denitration catalyst (title). In the background, Gao cites to CN103623808A, which describes use of TiO2-SiO2 (see pg 3, para. 1). The reference explains that SiO2 added can inhibit the phase transition of TiO2 at high temperatures (see pg. 3, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add SiO2 to the TiO2 support, as taught by Gao for use with the titania catalyst support of Quinet or Wu and Quinet because Gao explains that SiO2 added to TiO2 can inhibit the phase transition of TiO2.
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 March 6, 2026