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 2/3/26 arguments vis-a-vis 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections over the Kwon et al. Chemical Engineering Journal article (available online on 8/28/21) (“CEJ”), simply stating that CEJ is not prior art due to the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) exception, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copies of the foreign priority applications (“FPAs”) to overcome these rejections because translations of said FPAs have not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English-language FPA is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP 215-216. Since no English translations of the (Korean-language) FPAs have been filed, an evaluation as to whether or not said FPAs provide the requisite enablement support for the claims per 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st par. cannot be made. As such, the FPAs’ priority dates cannot currently be applied, the instant application’s effective filing date remains the actual US filing date of 3/30/23, and CEJ remains prior art as of its 8/28/21 public availability date. Said rejections are re-asserted as proper.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1’s recitation “used… exhaust gases,” is considered a statement of intended use for the claimed composition and has thus not been given patentable weight. See MPEP 2103 I. C.
Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article’s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987); MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See also In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969) (stating that “a mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable”). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, In re Zierden).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Kwon et al. Chemical Engineering Journal article (listed in and attached to applicant’s 3/30/23 IDS) (available online on 8/28/21) (“CEJ”). Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copies of the FPAs to overcome this rejection because translations of said FPAs have not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English-language FPA is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP 215-216. Regarding claims 1 and 4, CEJ discloses particles of VMoSbTi (defined as having 2 wt% V, 2 wt% Mo, and 2 wt% Sb), V1MoSbTi (1 wt% V, 2 wt% Mo, 2 wt% Sb), V3MoSbTi (3 wt% V, 2 wt% Mo, 2 wt% Sb), and 10V15MoSbTi (10 wt% V, 15 wt% Mo, and 2 wt% Sb), which comprises V2MoO8 and Sb, supported/carried on TiO2. See CEJ at, e.g., pp. 2 (§2.1, esp. last eight lines), 7 (R col.) and 16 (Concl.); Figs. 4 & 5(c,d); Table 1. Notwithstanding the non-accordance of patentable weight to the intended-use recitation, as CEJ’s particles are used in selective catalytic reduction using NH3 to remove NOx, they are considered to be quaternary (i.e. comprising V, Mo, Sb, and Ti) denitrification catalyst particles as claimed. See id. at, e.g., abstr.; pp. 1 (§1, 1st par.); Figs. 1, 3, & 10 (e.g. V3MoSbTi entries).
Regarding claims 2-3, V1MoSbTi and V3MoSbTi both meet the claimed ranges. See id. at, e.g., Table 1.
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 Examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ February 25, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736