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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 8 of the reference argues the following:
First, Yavuz discloses an oxidation catalyst where the core function is to catalyze the oxidation of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic components in diesel engine exhaust, with the design goal of promoting the oxidation process. In contrast, claim 1 of the present application protects an ammonia adsorption catalyst with the core solution to selectively adsorb ammonia gas, requiring specific pore channel structures and strong acid sites to capture ammonia molecules.
Therefore, Yavuz does not disclose the distinguishing technical feature of "an ammonia adsorption catalyst" of the amended claim 1. It should be noted that the chemical processes, surface properties, and pore structure designs of the oxidation process and ammonia adsorption are completely different. An oxidation catalyst requires highly active sites to accelerate the reaction, whereas an adsorption catalyst requires a structure that matches ammonia molecules to achieve stable capture. These are technically mutually exclusive solutions, and a person skilled in the art would have no reason to use the oxidation catalyst of Yavuz as a basis for improving an ammonia adsorption catalyst.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The claims describe a catalyst composition. The references, particularly the Yavuz reference, describes a composition with the same components. 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 composition would be effective in the same way.
Pages 8-9, points II argues the following:
II. The Distinguishing Structure of the Noble Metal-Containing Zeolite
The aforementioned distinguishing technical features of amended claim 1 clearly define that the "noble metal-containing zeolite adsorption material [is] composed of a zeolite and a noble metal exchanged on the zeolite." This definition clarifies that the material is a single component consisting only of a zeolite and a noble metal. Consequently, claim 1 constitutes an organic combination where a mass-to-volume ratio of this single component to the substrate is from more than 50 g/L to 200 g/L.
Although Yavuz mentions preparing noble metal zeolites via ion exchange, that disclosure is limited to use for oxidation catalysis-never as a single functional component for ammonia adsorption, and certainly not in combination with the specific loading amount claimed. Moreover, the zeolitic material of Yavuz is not solely composed of a zeolite and a noble metal exchanged onto the zeolite. The outstanding Office Action has already acknowledged that the distinguishing technical feature regarding the mass-to-volume ratio (50 g/L to 200 g/L) is not disclosed by Yavuz.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The features argues in this section of the remarks respectfully argue intended use features, which are not limiting on the composition claims. This mass-to-volume ratio are taught by the other references, Patchett and Miebach.
Next, the remarks argue the following in section III of the remarks:
III. Patchett and Miebach Fail to Remedy the Deficiencies of Yavuz
Patchett and Miebach also fail to disclose or suggest the claimed features. The "12-305.11 g/L" loading disclosed by Patchett is based on the total mass of the entire coating of the first catalyst (DOC). This coating essentially consists of palladium supported on zirconia and does not contain a zeolite. Thus, Patchett never discloses a coating that includes "a noble metal-containing zeolite adsorption material composed of a zeolite and a noble metal exchanged on the zeolite." The loading defined by Patchett is fundamentally different in composition basis and functional attribute from the object measured by the distinguishing technical feature of the present application and cannot be directly compared.
Similarly, the "130 g/L" loading disclosed by Miebach is based on the total mass of the oxidation catalyst coating consisting of noble metal (Pt/Pd) and an alumina/aluminosilicate support. This coating does not contain a zeolite component as a support for the noble metal. Crucially, Miebach explicitly states that the zeolite only serves as a "use storage component" and is not the support for the noble metal-the noble metal is actually supported on oxides like alumina/aluminosilicate. Thus, Miebach never discloses or suggests an adsorption material composed of a zeolite and a noble metal exchanged onto it.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Patchett explains that their catalyst contains a platinum-based metal (para. 252, (i)) and a carrier, which can include an aluminsilicate (para. 255). Zeolites are typically aluminosilicates. Patchett explains this in para. 272 where it explains that zeolite materials contain Si, Al and O (para. 2720. Nonetheless, Patchett is used to describe the mass-to-volume ratio of the entire catalytic composition, comprising the noble metal in the noble metal-containing zeolite adsorption material to the substrate. That is, Patchett is merely relied upon to show that the total loading of the catalyst relative to the substrate is known.
Miebach teaches that the oxidation catalyst measurement is measured in terms of the substrate. The composition of the catalyst is not relied upon for the rejection.
Next, the remarks argue the following:
IV. Lack of Reasonable Motivation to Combine
There is no reasonable motivation to combine Yavuz, Patchett, and Miebach, as their core solutions, design concepts, and application scenarios are entirely heterogeneous. Yavuz focuses on hydrocarbon oxidation; Patchett concerns multi-component synergistic composite coatings for SCR; and Miebach utilizes zeolite only as an auxiliary HC storage agent.
Oxidation/reduction catalysts require exposed active sites and moderate pore channels to accelerate reactant contact, whereas ammonia adsorption catalysts require specific pore sizes and strong acid sites to stably capture ammonia molecules. These structural requirements are mutually exclusive. Faced with the need for "ammonia adsorption," a person of ordinary skill in the art would not seek technical inspiration from references directed to oxidation/reduction catalysts.
Furthermore, it is not clear from the record how the loading amounts of Patchett or Miebach could be incorporated into the Yavuz catalyst. the Yavuz catalyst would have to be redesigned to function as an ammonia adsorption catalyst rather than an oxidation catalyst. as discussed above, oxidation and adsorption require mutually exclusive structural parameters (e.g., active redox sites vs. specific ammonia-trapping pore sizes and acid sites).
Such modification would require a substantial reconstruction or redesign of the elements of the Yavuz catalyst, and/or would change its basic principle of operation from a redox-active oxidation component to a stable adsorption component. There is no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform such changes and redesign.2 Furthermore, it is not clear from the record whether such modification would actually achieve the ammonia adsorption efficiency required by the present invention.
In rejecting a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the USPTO must support its rejection by "substantial evidence" within the record,3 and by "clear and particular" evidence4 of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the teachings of different references. As discussed above, there is no substantial evidence, nor clear and particular evidence, within the record of motivation for modifying the Yavuz catalyst by incorporating Patchett's or Miebach's specific loading amounts
for non-zeolitic, multi-component oxidation coatings. Without such motivation and absent improper hindsight reconstruction,5 a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to perform the proposed modification, and claim 1 is believed to be non-obvious and patentable over the applied prior art.
As a result, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is patentable over Yavuz in view of Patchett and Miebach. As claims 2, 4-7, and 9 depend from independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2, 4-7, and 9 are likewise patentable over Yavuz in view of Patchett and Miebach.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The references describe other features, but the teaching relied upon in the rejection are narrow. Next, the remarks argue intended use features, but as mentioned above, since the claims are composition claims, the features described are intended use and 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 composition would be effective in the same way.
As to the loading, Yavuz describes a composition, but does not describe a total loading in terms of mass-to-volume with the substrate. Patchett describes an aluminosilicate support and explains that zeolites contain the same compositions of Al, Si and O. Further, the reference provides a loading amount of the catalyst relative to the substrate. The combination shows that it is known in the field how much of the catalyst to add to the substrate for effective use in treating exhaust gases.
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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz (US Pat.: 6248684) and in view of Patchett (EP 3708253) and in view of Miebach (CN 102449278).
As to Claims 1, 2 and 4, Yavuz describes an oxidation catalyst (abstract) that includes Fe-modified zeolite with alumina (col. 14, lines 1-4). The catalyst material can include a platinum metal (abstract). The composition includes a honeycomb monolith (col. 14, lines 1-5) and Pt is loaded on the support in an amount of 2.4 g/ft3 (which includes the support) (col. 14, lines 8-10). In some embodiments, the Pt is modified in the zeolite by ion-exchange (col. 2, lines 25-28 and example B). The catalyst is support on the support (col. 14, lines 1-15). This can be considered the “surface of the substrate”.
Although Yavuz does not specifically teach that this catalyst is an ammonia adsorption catalyst, since it has the same composition, 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 composition can be effective in the same way for the same use.
As to the mass-to-volume ratio of the noble metal-containing zeolite material to the substrate, Yavuz does not disclose this feature.
Patchett describes an exhaust gas treatment system (title) used for the reduction of pollutants from exhaust emissions (abstract), including NOx and HC (para. 1 and abstract). The system includes a first oxidation catalyst (para. 252) that can comprise a platinum group metal (Pd) on an oxidic material (para. 252) and a substrate that can include an aluminosilicate (para. 255). The oxidation catalyst is coated on the substrate in an amount of 20% to 100% (para. 258). The total loading of the oxidation catalyst is from 12-305.11 g/L (para. 260).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to load the oxidation catalyst in an amount of oxidation catalyst is from 12-305.11 g/L, as taught by Patchett for use with the oxidation component of the catalyst in Yavuz because this loading amount is known to produce expected and predictable results.
Patchett does not specifically teach that the oxidation catalyst loading is measured in terms of the underlying substrate.
Miebach describes an exhaust treatment system used to oxidized combustion exhaust, such as hydrocarbons (abstract). As to the amount, Miebach teaches that the oxidation catalyst may be deposited on the substrate in an amount of 130 g/L (see catalyst A, catalyst C, catalyst D and catalyst E and pages 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the oxidation catalyst in an amount of 130 g/L relative to the substrate, as taugtht by Miebach for use with the oxidation catalyst portion of Yavuz because Patchett explains that oxidation catalysts coatings can be adjusted and this loading amount is known to have predictable and expected oxidation efficiency.
As to the catalyst being an ammonia adsorption catalyst, 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 composition would be effective if used in the same way.
As to Claims 5 and 6, Yuvuz teaches that the zeolite can be a beta (col. 14, lines 55-56). The rejection above is reiterated here.
As to Claim 7, Yavuz teaches in example B that the mixture can include Pt-Fe and zeolite (example B). Iron is in the mixture 1.6wt% (example B). Therefore, the weight of the entire composite is 0.54 grams Pt, 100 grams zeolite and 17 grams iron (example B). This falls within the range of 90-100% being just Pt and zeolite.
As to Claim 9, Yavuz teaches that the filter can be cordierite (col. 3, line 61).
As to Claim 10, Yavuz teaches that the filter can be cordierite (col. 3, line 61).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights