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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority as a 35 U.S.C. §371 national stage entry of
PCT/CN2022/076833 filed Feb. 18, 2022, which in turn claims priority to WIPO application PCT/CN2021/076917 filed Feb. 19, 2021, is hereby acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Group I (claims 1-3 and 5-16) in the reply filed March 30, 2026, to the restriction requirement dated Feb. 4, 2026, is hereby acknowledged. The traversal is apparently based on that that the two sets of claims should be examined together because that are linked by the special technical feature of the SCR catalytic article of present independent claim 1. These arguments are unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, claims 18-21 and 23 do not depend from independent claim 1. Therefore, the SCR catalytic article of claim 18 need not be the same, and contain the special features, of that recited in present claim 1. Further, as discussed, infra, present claim 1 possesses indefiniteness issues which makes it difficult to ascertain as to how the SCR catalytic article of claim 1 is obtained, or what features it possesses.
More importantly, Applicant’s traversal based upon the two groups of claims (Group I and Group II) allegedly not lacking unity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.475(b) are not persuasive because this rule is drawn to the a priori analysis before considering the prior art. Although these groups of claims may not lack unity a priori, they do have lack of unity a posteriori upon application of prior art (and indefiniteness analysis) as shown previously in item 6 on page 4 of the requirement, and, infra, in the present action. The prior art cited therein was the Yang reference (US 2019/0115375 A1 to Yang et al.) discloses the special technical feature of the present claims, which is a SCR catalytic as recited in present claim 1. See MPEP §1850; see also, Chapter 10 of PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination (ISPE) Guidelines, particularly, paragraphs 10.06 and 10.21, which is available on the USPTO website.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-16 have been examined in the instant Office action, whereas claims 18-21 and 23 have been withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a nonelected invention but remain pending with the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14, and claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15 and 16 that depend therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, in particular, is drawn to a SCR catalytic article that comprises a substrate and a copper-containing small pore zeolite “having a crystal structure characterized by a decrease of unit cell volume upon sulfurization and desulfurization of less than 10 angstroms, as determined by an X-ray powder diffraction,” wherein claim 1 (and claim 14) further recite a sulfurization process “through the SCR catalytic article” wherein the SCR catalytic article has been hydrothermally aged prior to the sulfurization; followed by a desulfurization process.
The claims are indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the SCR catalytic article recited in claims 1 and 14 are prepared using this sulfurization and desulfurization process, or, alternatively, a known catalytic SCR article undergoes these two processes. It is confusing as to why a person skilled in the art would sulfurize a SCR catalytic article followed by subsequently desulfurizing the same SCR catalytic article prior to its usage.
Correction/clarification by Applicant of these issues in a subsequent reply to action is respectfully requested. For purposes of this action, claims 1 and 14 have been examined as a product-by-process claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 14, and claims 2, 3, 5-13, 15 and 16 that depend therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Yang (US 2019/0115375 A1 to Yang et al., published March 21, 2019) and discussed, supra.
As discussed above, present independent claims 1 and 14 have been examined as a product-by-process claim. A product by process claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP 2113:
Yang discloses an SCR catalyst and an emission control system (exhaust treatment system) and a method of preparing thereof, wherein the method provides for low temperature de-sulfating sulfur-poisoned SCR catalysts to regenerate catalytic nitroxide conversion activity, wherein the methods is adapted for treating an SCR catalyst to desorb sulfur from the surface of the SCR catalyst and increase nitroxide conversion activity of the SCR catalyst, wherein the treating step including treating the SCR catalyst with a gaseous stream, and wherein the molar ratio of reductant to nitroxide gas during the treating step is about 1.05:1 or higher (abstract; [0002]; [0009] to [0015]). The SCR catalyst composition is exposed to a reductant for a time and temperature sufficient for desorption of the sulfur species from the catalyst composition. Which desorb sulfur at lower temperatures than in usual processes, in the presence of a reductant, wherein the reductant can be ammonia or any precursor thereof ([0010]).
Yang further discloses that the SCR catalyst composition can includes at least one metal ion-exchanged on a porous refractory oxide support, such as a molecular sieve, that provides an effect on NOx conversion activity, wherein the gaseous sulfur oxides (SOx) can combine with the metal ion-exchanged on the molecular sieve and form a metal sulfate species, wherein the crystal structure can be an aluminosilicate zeolite and the catalyst comprises a copper-promoted molecular sieve or an iron-promoted molecular sieve wherein the copper promoter metal in present in an amount an amount of from about 0.01% to about 15.0% by weight, of the molecular sieve, calculated as copper oxide (CuO) or iron oxide ([0011]; [0012]).
In an embodiment, Yang discloses the molecular sieve comprises an 8-ring small pore aluminosilicate zeolite with pore openings which are smaller than about 5 angstroms, wherein the zeolites are comprised of secondary building units (cell units) and appear in many different framework structures ([0094]). The zeolitic structure types that have a secondary building unit include AEI, AFT, AFX, CHA, EAB, EMT, ERI, FAU, GME, JSR, KFI, LEV, LTL, LTN, MOZ, MSO, MWW, OFF, SAS, SAT, SAV, SBS, SBT, SFW, SSF, SZR, TSC, and WEN ([0094]; present claim 3). The ratio of silica to alumina molar ratio of an aluminosilicate molecular sieve can vary over a wide range, such as in the range of 2 to 300 ([0102]; [0103]). The substrate for the SCR catalyst can comprise a metal, such as steel/metal alloy, or a ceramic honeycomb structure, and possess a plurality of wall surfaces upon which the catalyst article (i.e., SCR catalyst) coat composition is applied and adhered, thereby acting as a carrier for the catalyst composition ([0109] to [0111]
Yang may not disclose all the molar and recovery ratios recited in the preset claims. However, it would have been within the purview of one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the present application to select materials/ratios for producing the SCR catalytic article to optimize the nitroxide oxide recovery ratio to provide a more environmentally-friendly catalytic article/treatment system. Thus, these resultant enhanced properties of the resultant SCR catalytic article can be arrived by routine optimization of the selected substrate, metal/zeolites and/or molar ratios thereof . See MPEP §2144.05 II A.
Thus, the instant claims are unpatentable over Yang .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8916. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am -6:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN J FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights