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 .
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 3 and 4 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “0.05 to 3.5 wt %,” and the claim also recites “preferably 0.05 to 2 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claim 4 recites the broad limitation “comprises Cu and/or Fe” and the claim also recites “preferably in a total amount of 0.1 to 6 wt%” and also “more preferably in a total amount of 1 to 3 wt %,” which is the narrower statement of the limitation.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2022/0134320) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2019/0240648) and Zones et al. (“Conversion of Faujasites to High-silica Chabazite SSZ-13 in the Presence of N,N,N-Trimethy-1-adamantammoium iodide.”)
Regarding claim 1 and 6, Yoon et al. (US 2022/0134320) discloses a method for preparing a catalyst composition comprising preparing a synthetic mother liquid including a large pore zeolite raw material as a source of silica and alumina and a structure inducing material, and converting the mother liquid to a small pore CHA zeolite having an SAR of 5 to about 30 ([0034], [0036], [0045], and [0048]).
The difference between the reference and the claims is that Yoon et al does not disclose the large pore precursor zeolite is a rare earth ion exchanged zeolite, although the reference does desire the addition of a rare earth metal as a promoter material ([0016]).
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2019/0240648) discloses the preparation of CHA zeolite can be prepared by the FAU conversion method and further teaches that any conventionally known Y type zeolite could be used as the precursor zeolite, including rare earth ion exchanged zeolite ([0048]). The reference further teaches that conventional ion exchange process include the ion exchange of metal into the zeolite followed by calcination ([0049]).
Zones et al. teaches that rare earth exchanged zeolites can be converted to CHA in th presence of a structure directing agent (Abstract, Table 1, Scheme 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the method taught by Yoon et al. to substitute conventional large pore precursor zeolite for the rare earth exchanged large pore precursor zeolite taught by the secondary reference since the secondary references establish that the use of such a zeolite is known and conventional in the art. Because all of the zeolite precursor materials are known to be useful in the conversion of FAU type zeolite to CHA type zeolites, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Yoon et al. teaches that the synthesis mixture is heated to form the small pore zeolite ([0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoon et al. teaches that the rare earth metal as a promoter may be contained in the amount of 1-30 wt% ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon et al. teaches that the small pore zeolite may further comprising a transition metal such as Cu or Fe in the amount of about 1-10 wt% ([0038], [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon et al. teaches that the zeolite may have a USY structure type ([0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon et al. teaches that the structure directing agent may be trimethyladamantylammonium hydroxide ([0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon et al. teaches that suitable rare earth metals include Ce ([0040]).
Regarding claims 9-10, the combined teachings of Yoon et al. as modified by Yamaguchi et al. and Zones et al. result in a catalytic composition comprising a small pore zeolite with an SAR of 5-30 containing a rare earth ([0035], [0036], and [0038]). Yoon et al. further teach the use of the catalyst for the purification of NOx gas ([0007]).
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 CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights