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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicants’ arguments are not found persuasive because the office action as discussed below did point out the special technical feature linking the inventions, such as a Pt and/or Pd, CeO2, MnO2, and a Cu or Fe substituted zeolite taught by Qi et al (US 2012/0167553 A1), and Chen et al. (WO 2015/172000 A1), does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concept exists. Therefore, restriction is appropriate.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore is made FINAL.
The claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 15 has been previously canceled.
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 1-2, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qi et al. (US 2012/0167553 A1, applicants substituted in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Qi et al. teach a catalyst comprising
(a) Pt/Pd/Rh (1 to about 7 g/L, about 28.3-198.2 g/ft3) ([0031]),
(b) Pr6O11-CeO2 ([0034]),
(c) MnOx-CeO2 ([0034]) (1.0≤X≤3.5), and
(d) a Cu or Fe substituted Chabazite zeolite ([0011] and [0034]) as the instant claim (claims 1-11).
The phrase of " A catalyst for the oxidation of ammonia (AMOX catalyst) recites in claim 1 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Qi et al. teach the same composition as the instant claims, the catalyst would expect to be capable of performing the specific chemical oxidation of ammonia reactions as per applicant claim 1. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Qi et al. comprises Pt ([0004], [0010], [0031] and claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Qi et al. comprises MnOx-CeO2 as the instant claim ([0034]).
Regarding claim 10 , as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Qi et al. comprises Cu or Fe substituted Chabazite zeolite as the instant claim ([0011], [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, the catalyst taught by Qi et al. comprises a support substrate as the instant claim ([0004]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Qi et al. comprises Pt/Pd/Rh (1 to about 7 g/L, about 28.3-198.2 g/ft3) ([0031]) which overlaps the instant claimed ranges of 0.1 to 30 g/ft3.
The references differ from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 7 and 9 , as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Qi et al. comprises MnOx-CeO2 ([0034]) (1.0≤X≤3.5), wherein x value encompasses the instant claimed range (x=2). It is known MnO2 is a common stable form for manganese oxide.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2015/172000 A1, applicants substituted in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. teach a catalyst comprising a supported platinum and/or palladium on a high porosity substrate (page 10, lines 16-page 11, line 30), at least one of oxides selected from neodymium (Nd), cerium (Ce), Manganese (Mn), tantalum (Ta) page 12, lines 6-20), and a Cu substituted zeolite (page 8, line 16-Page 9, line 21) as the instant claim (claims 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine metal oxides of Nd, Ce, Mn and Ta to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1, in particular view MPEP 2144.06, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (in this case used as metal promoters).... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”
The phrase of " A catalyst for the oxidation of ammonia (AMOX catalyst) recites in claim 1 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Chen et al. teach the same composition as the instant claims, the catalyst would expect to be capable of performing the specific chemical oxidation of ammonia reactions as per applicant claim 1. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Chen et al. is loaded about 0.1-1%wt of Pt or 0.1-1%wt of Pd as the instant claims (page 13).
Regarding claim 4, the catalyst taught by Chen et al. do not describe the use of Rh metal. Therefore, the concentration of Rh in the catalyst taught by Chen et al. is considered les than 1%wt. as the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6-9, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Chen et al. comprises metal oxides of neodymium (Nd), cerium (Ce), Manganese (Mn), tantalum (Ta) as the instant claims Page 13, lines 6-19).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Chen et al. comprises zeolite including CHA, AEI, etc. as the instant claim (page 7, line 23-page 12,line 31).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Chen et al. comprises a high porosity substrate as the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights