DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claims 10-17 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/21/26.
On page 2 of the response to the restriction requirement, Applicant argues that WO 2020/088531 (“Peter”) fails to teach that 90-100% of the first non-zeolitic material consists of zirconium. Applicant argues that even though Peter teaches that the non-zeolitic oxidic material can be zirconia, the component is preferably alumina, silica, or titania. Examiner notes that even the section of Peter cited by Applicant shows that the non-zeolitic material can be zirconia, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Further, the cited portion is merely a single embodiment taught by Peter. In an alternative embodiment, Peter is clear that the preferred oxidic component is zirconia (see e.g. page 15, lines 1-6).
On pages 2-3, Applicant argues that all of the invention groups fall within the categories described in 37 CFR 1.475(b). However, this section is only one requirement for unity of invention to be found. Separate categories of invention must still include at least one special technical feature in order to have unity. As described in the restriction requirement and detailed herein, all of the limitations of claim 1 are known in the prior art, and therefore Group I does not share any special technical features with any other group.
Because Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At various locations throughout the claims, dashes in the middle of words appear. As an example in line 3 of claim 1, “internal” is incorrectly recited as “inter-nal”. In line 4, “comprises” is incorrectly recited as “com-prises”. Most, if not all, of the claims include extraneous dashes that must be removed.
Claims 1-2 and 4 each include chemical formulas that have non-subscript coefficients, such as “SiO2” or “Al2O3”. All coefficients in in these chemical formulas should be subscript. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being 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.
Each of claims 2-9 include limitations of a composition or range followed by narrower limitations of the same parameter that are described as “preferably” or “more preferably”. This language is indefinite because it is not clear whether the preferable narrow limitations are required to meet the limitation. For the purposes of examination, whenever a claim recites a limitation, followed by a narrower “preferable” composition or range, the “preferable” limitation is interpreted as optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020088531 (“Peter”, cited in IDS of 1/24/24).
Regarding claim 1, Peter teaches a wall flow honeycomb catalyst filter (see e.g. page 10, lines 21-26). The wall flow honeycomb filter substrate has an inlet end, an outlet end, an axial length extending from the inlet to the outlet and a plurality of passages defined by internal walls of the substrate extending therethrough (see e.g. page 11, lines 6-9). It is understood that, in a wall flow honeycomb filter substrate, the inlet passages have an open inlet end and closed outlet end, while the outlet passages have an open outlet end and a closed inlet end. Peter teaches that the walls of the substrate comprise a coating (see e.g. page 15, lines 8-13). The coating comprises a zeolitic material and copper (see e.g. page 14, lines 14-16). The catalyst also comprises an oxidic material that is preferably zirconia, which constitutes a first non-zeolitic oxidic material (see e.g. page 14, line 41 – page 15, line 3). The loading L(z) of the zeolitic material is preferably 1.5-2.2 g/in3 (see e.g. page 14, lines 30-33). The loading L1 of the zirconia is 0.2 – 0.26 g/in3 (see e.g. page 15, lines 1-4). This gives an L(z)/L1 ratio that is nearly entirely within the claimed range. As Peter teaches that the first non-zeolitic oxidic material is preferably zirconia, it is understood that the zirconia consists of zirconium oxide without any other materials included, and is thus between 90-100% zirconium oxide.
Regarding claim 2, Peter teaches that greater than 95% of the framework structure of the zeolitic material consists of Si, Al, and O (see e.g. page 17, lines 25-27). The ratio of Si to Al in the material is preferably between 16:1 and 28:1, the entirety of which is within the claimed range (see e.g. page 17, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 3, Peter teaches that the amount of copper included is 2-10% by weight, which is the same as the claimed range (see e.g. page 36, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 4, Peter teaches that the first oxidic non-zeolitic material is zirconia, which is therefore consists of greater than 95% zirconia.
Regarding claim 5, Peter teaches that the loading L(z) of the zeolitic material is preferably 1.5-2.2 g/in3 (see e.g. page 14, lines 30-33). The loading L1 of the zirconia is 0.2 – 0.26 g/in3 (see e.g. page 15, lines 1-4). This gives an L(z)/L1 ratio that is nearly entirely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Peter teaches that the catalyst can include a second non-zeolitic material that is either Al, Si, Ce, or Ti, or mixtures thereof (see e.g. page 15, line 36 to page 16, line 3). Examiner notes that the limitation regarding the proportions of alumina and silica in the second non-zeolitic material are recited as “preferable” and therefore not required to be part of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Peter teaches that the second non-zeolitic oxidic material is present in an amount of 2-20%, which is identical to the recited range (see e.g. page 14, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 8, it appears from Peter that all or nearly all of the catalyst ends up in the porous walls of the substrate, in that Peter does not describe including the catalyst outside of the porous walls (see e.g. page 50, lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 9, Peter teaches that the substrate can be a cordierite wall-flow filter, a silicon carbide wall-flow filter, or an aluminum titanate wall-flow filter (see e.g. page 10, lines 15-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 10471413 (“Mohanan”) teaches an SCR catalyst composition for use with a wall-flow honeycomb catalyst (see e.g. col. 3, lines 20-30). The composition includes a zeolitic material, copper, and zirconia in amounts that appear to meet the limitations of claim 1 (see e.g. col. 24, lines 8-13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights