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 to put the “vanadium-free” feature in the body of the Claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 6/1/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
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, 4, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 110694640) and in view of Zhang (CN 110756217).
As to Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4, Yang describes a denitration catalyst (title) that is made up of a titania-containing carrier (Claim 9). This is considered the substrate. Metals in oxide form that amount to 2-10wt% of the whole catalyst (Claim 9). The amounts of each include: ceria, niobium and tungsten oxides in a mass ratio of (1-5): (1-5): (1-2) (Claim 9). Assuming a mass ratio of 1 for all three and a total mass of 7 (including the other metals listed in Claim 9) and assuming a total weight of the whole catalyst to be 10wt%, the mass of each metal is about 1.4mass % except for ceria. Ceria, assuming a ratio of about 1.5, the mass of ceria when assuming the total ratio of metal catalyst is 10wt% is about 2%. The mass of the other metals would then be about 1.3%. A ratio of Nb:Ce of 1.3:2 would then be about 1:1.5.
Zhang describe a denitration catalyst (title). The catalyst includes a titania support (abstract) and 1-10wt% of metal catalysts that can include cerium oxide, tungsten oxide and tin oxide (abstract). As to the filler, Zhang explains that the catalyst can include glass fibers that serve as strengthening reinforcing agents in an amount of 5-20wt% (page 3, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include filler in an amount of 5-20wt%, as taught by Zhang for use with the catalyst of Yang because these are known to serve as strengthening reinforcing agents.
As to Claim 7, Yang teaches a range of 2-10wt% of the total catalyst and the range of the active components can include a range of Mn, Ce, Fe, Mo, Nb, W in an amount of (1-5):(1-5): (2-5): (1-2) : (1-5) : (1-2) (Claim 9). Ceria can be in the mixture in a ratio of about 2, amount to a total mass ratio of 2.5% and Nb in an amount of 1, amounting to a total mass ratio of 1.25%.
As to 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 Yang 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.
As to Claim 9, Yang teaches that the titania is modified with silica (page 3, line 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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: Yang discloses other metals, such as Mn, Fe, Mo in the catalyst (abstract) and therefore would not meet he “consists of” feature of Claim 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
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 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights