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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, directed to claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20, in the reply filed on 12 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 May 2026.
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, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, and 18 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.
Indefinite terminology
In claims 4 and 5, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of “about” in defining the ranges of copper and manganese loading renders said limitations indefinite, as it is unclear what loadings, in wt% with respect to the zeolite used, are encompassed by the claim language.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Antecedent basis
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first catalyst composition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purposes of examination, claim 12 has been examined as if it depended from claim 9, wherein, “first catalyst composition” is first mentioned and where the surrounding claims depend from.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second catalyst composition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purposes of examination, claim 13 has been examined as if it depended from claim 9, wherein, “second catalyst composition” is first mentioned and where the surrounding claims depend from.
Trademarks
Claim 8 contains the trademarks/trade names Natrasol and Dispex.
Claim 18 contains the trademarks/trade names Natrasol, Arbocel, and Vivapur.
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a specific type of hydroxylethyl cellulose (Natrosol), dispersing agent (Dispex), cellulose filler (Arbocel), and microcrystalline cellulose (Vivapur) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bidal et al. (US-20200070133A1, published 03 May 2020).
In regard to claims 1-6, Bidal et al. teaches bimetallic Cu/Mn catalyst comprising a CHA-type zeolite, with silica-alumina ratios (SARs) of 22 and 13, impregnated with 1.5 wt% copper and 1.5 wt% manganese ([0218]-[0219], wt% with respect to the zeolite weight) which were calcined at 550C for 4 hours [0217]. The taught SARs are within the instantly claimed range of 10-30, the loading percentages of copper and manganese are within the instantly claimed ranges of 0.5-5 and 0.1-3 wt% respectively, and as zeolites are known in the art to be porous materials, the limitation that the catalyst composition is porous is considered to be met.
In regard to claim 19, Bidal et al. teaches a catalyst with all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore the catalyst of Bidal et al. would be capable of the intended use disclosed by claim 19.
In regard to claim 20, Bidal et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and thus claim 20, which does not contain any further structural features, is also anticipated by Bidal et al. as described above in regard to claims 1-6.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of International Publication No. WO-2021126685A1 (published 24 June 2021, herein referred to as WO ‘685).
In regard to claim 7, Bidal et al. does not disclose the mean pore size of its calcined catalyst compositions. However, WO ‘685 teaches a catalyst washcoat comprising pores of which 50-100% have a pore size ranging from 0.1-5.0 µm, which is encompassed by the instantly claimed range of 0.1-10 µm [0009]. WO ‘685 further discloses pore structure in terms of mean pore size and distribution has a significant impact on filter efficiency as compared to other physical properties and fine-tuning the porosity of the catalyst article can effectively capture particulate matter in the exhaust gas [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Bidal et al. as to contain a mean pore size after calcination between 0.1-5 µm, as suggested by WO ‘685, in order to provide better filtration efficacy via particulate matter capture in macropores.
In regard to claim 8, Bidal et al. teaches in addition to a catalyst composition comprising a zeolite, copper, and manganese, the formation of a wash coat comprising said zeolite, copper, and manganese, with an alumina binder and hydroxyethyl cellulose rheology modifier [0220]-[0224]. Bidal et al. does not teach the inclusion of a pore former in the composition. However, WO ‘685 teaches a calcined porous washcoat comprising at least one platinum group metal, at least one non-platinum group metal on a support, and at least one pore-forming agent (e.g. carbon nano-tubes, carbon nano-fibers, activated carbon, resins, cellulose powder, polymer spheres) [0009]. WO ‘685 teaches that in catalyst compositions used for diesel exhaust filtration, such as a combined filter for hazardous chemicals and particulate matter, entrapment of exhaust gas particulates in the catalyst component can lead to decreased capacity over time [0005]. In response, WO ‘685 teaches that the inclusion of a pore-forming agent that generates pores between 0.1-5 µm can promote the effective capture of particulate matter and improve filtration efficiency [0005]-[0007]. Both Bidal et al. and WO ‘685 are directed to wall-flow diesel engine exhaust gas filters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pore-forming agent of WO ‘685 is responsible for the favorable pore distribution described. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the composition of Bidal et al. to further include the pore-forming agent of WO ‘685 in order to create a bimodal pore distribution which can effectively diffuse gas over the catalytic components while also capturing gas-borne particulates and avoiding the necessity of periodically burning off collected particulate matter.
In regard to claim 9, Bidal et al. teaches multiple embodiments of a catalyst article which employs multiple layers or zones of SCR catalysts, including combining the taught bimetallic Cu/Mn molecular sieve as one layer in combination with another SCR catalyst as a second layer [0099]. The embodiments provided include a layer or zone of the Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve and other molecular sieve-supported transition metals [0100]. However, Bidal et al. does suggest that multiple Cu/Mn catalysts may be combined to form a singular article. Bidal et al. teaches a catalyst article may include a Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve extruded article further coated with one or more additional SCR catalysts, which could include a second Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve [0063]. Considering that the Cu-Mn bimetallic molecular sieve taught is demonstrated to be an effective SCR catalyst for ammonia [0144], a person of ordinary skill in the art could substitute the second SCR catalyst component of any of the layered/zoned embodiments taught in Bidal et al. [0102]–[0142] with a variation of a Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve catalyst and predictably achieve a successful exhaust gas filter. Bidal et al. further teaches in forming a practical washcoat slurry of the Cu/Mn molecular sieve, an alumina binder and hydroxyethyl cellulose rheology modifier are added [0220]-[0224]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to substitute a second SCR catalyst in a filter taught by Bidal et al. with a second Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve to achieve a filter coated with two catalyst compositions which each comprise a zeolite, copper, manganese, a binder, and a rheology modifier (as part of the washcoat slurry).
As noted above in regards to claim 8, Bidal et al. does not teach the addition of a pore former as part of the catalyst composition. However, WO ‘685 teaches that the inclusion of a pore-forming agent [0009] which generates pores between 0.1-5 µm, and that it can promote the effective capture of particulate matter and improve filtration efficiency [0005]-[0007]. As cited above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to include the pore-forming agent of WO ‘685 in one or both of the catalytic compositions in order to create a bimodal pore distribution which can effectively diffuse gas over the catalytic components and capture gas-borne particulates that disrupt gas flow/increase back pressure over time.
In regard to claim 10, Bidal et al. teaches that the bimetallic Cu/Mn catalyst composition and a second SCR catalyst (which could be another bimetallic Cu/Mn catalyst composition as discussed above w/r to claim 9) may be coated on a substrate in a layered configuration wherein a first catalyst composition (Cu/Mn composition) and a second catalyst composition (another SCR formulation) form a bilayer coating along 100% of the length of the substrate ([0115] and Fig. 13 as an example). The first catalyst composition would therefore cover 100% of the length of substrate as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 11, Bidal et al. teaches that the Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve composition may be added to a wall flow filter substrate monolith [0071] by a washcoat method [0070], and that a highly porous flow-through substrate may be employed in order for the catalyst to effectively penetrate into the substrate walls [0068] and that the catalyst composition can be disposed within the walls of a wall-flow filter substrate monolith [0077]. A first catalyst composition coated onto such a substrate would be an in-wall coating, as it is understood that the majority of the catalyst composition would be coated onto the inner pores of the flow-through substrate.
In regard to claim 13, Bidal et al. teaches that the bimetallic Cu/Mn catalyst composition and a second SCR catalyst (which could be another bimetallic Cu/Mn catalyst composition as discussed above w/r to claim 9) may be coated on a substrate in a layered configuration wherein a first catalyst composition (Cu/Mn molecular sieve) and a second catalyst composition (another SCR formulation) form a bilayer coating along 100% of the length of the substrate ([0115] and Fig. 13 as an example). The second catalyst composition would therefore cover 100% of the length of substrate as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 14, Bidal et al teaches that a Cu-Mn bimetallic molecular sieve catalyst composition may be disposed or supported on a substrate via washcoating. Alternatively, a Cu/Mn catalyst article coated in a second layer comprising a SCR catalyst [0063]. Bidal et al. further teaches that the catalyst composition may be disposed into the walls of the substrate and additionally may be disposed on the walls of the substrate channels [0077]. When a second Cu-Mn bimetallic molecular sieve catalyst composition is used as a secondary SCR catalyst, as discussed above with regard to claim 9, and coats a substrate with an in-wall catalyst or first coating layer, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time that the second catalyst composition would form an on-wall coating, as the pores of the substrate would already be occupied/filled/coated by the first catalyst composition.
In regard to claim 18, Bidal et al. teaches the use of a hydroxyethyl cellulose binder [0224], which reads to a generic form of Natrasol®. Bidal et al. does not teach the use of inert cellulose (Arbocel®) or inert microcrystalline cellulose (Vivapur®) as a pore former. However, WO ‘685 suggests cellulose powder as an acceptable pore former in catalyst washcoats, and that the particle size of the pore former should be 0.1-5 µm in order to provide the appropriate mean pore size after calcination [0009]. Vivapur® microcrystalline cellulose products range in particle sizes, but the instant claim does not specify a particle size or specific product. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the cellulose powder taught by WO ‘685 reads to the instantly claimed use of Vivapur® as a pore former. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the 0.1-5 µm cellulose powder pore forming agent taught by WO ‘685 to the catalyst composition taught by Bidal et al. as it is was demonstrated to effectively create pores of the appropriate size after calcination and was one of a finite number of options disclosed by WO ‘685 as a pore forming agent applicable to diesel engine filter catalyst coatings.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. and WO ‘685 as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Zamaro et al. (Catalysis Today, 2005, 107-108, pp. 86-93).
In regard to claim 12, Bidal et al. does not teach a catalyst composition with a viscosity of 2-20 cPs. However, Zamaro et al. teaches the importance of washcoat viscosity in the loading of a zeolite catalyst onto a cordierite honeycomb monolith for use in SCR reactions (pp. 88, right column, lines 2-7). Zamaro et al. teaches in the application of a zeolite-containing aqueous washcoat, the viscosity is directly related to the deposition of the zeolite particles onto the substrate (pp. 88, right column, lines 19-23). When water was used as a solvent, as was done in Bidal et al., zeolite loading was shown to linearly increase with increasing viscosity (pp. 83, Fig. 1). Specifically, Zamaro et al. taught that a water-based washcoat with a calculated viscosity of 6.6 cPs was effective at depositing zeolites directly into a porous cordierite honeycomb monolith substrate (Table 1), which is the preferred substrate disclosed by Bidal et al. [0068]-[0069]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the taught washcoat viscosity for the catalyst composition taught in Bidal et al. as it was demonstrated to effectively deposit the catalytic particles without major particle loss after washcoat drying. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have found it obvious to use a first catalyst composition with a viscosity of 6.6 cPs, which is within the claimed range of 2-20 cPs, to effectively deposit the catalyst composition onto a honeycomb monolith substrate.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. and WO ‘685 as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of
In regard to claim 15, Bidal et al. does not teach that a second catalyst composition applied to a substrate has a viscosity of 10-1800 cPs. However, Agrafiotis et al. discusses the optimal viscosity of a catalyst composition in order to form an on-wall layer of γ-alumina via washcoating as between 50-150 cPs (reported in mPa s, 1:1 equivalent to cPs; pp. 956, Fig. 6, pp. 960, Conclusions). Viscosity was observed to increase linearly for coarse particles (d90 = 6 µm) and exponentially for finer particles (d90 = 2 µm), which informed the general acceptable range of washcoat viscosity to achieve the highest loading and reproducibility (pp. 953, right column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, to modify a second catalyst composition with the specification disclosed in Bidal et al. to have a viscosity between 50-150 cPs, which is within the instantly claimed range of 10-1800 cPs, in order to most effectively load the composition onto honeycomb substrates as taught by Agrafiotis et al. Even though Agrafiotis et al. is directed to γ-alumina and not CHA-type zeolites, the discussion of the effect of physical properties, particle size, and viscosity would still have applied as both Bidal et al. and Agrafiotis et al. are directed to honeycomb substrates used in automobile exhaust gas assemblies.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal et al. and WO ‘685 as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Metkar et al. (Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2012, 111-112, pp. 67-80).
In regard to claim 16, Bidal et al. does not teach a filter wherein a first catalyst composition and second catalyst composition are present in a 1:1 to 5:1 mass ratio with respect to each other. However, Metkar et al. teach a dual layer monolithic catalyst comprising a Cu-zeolite catalyst layer and a Fe-zeolite catalyst layer wherein the first layer (Cu-zeolite, on the surface of the monolith substrate) and second layer (Fe-zeolite, on top of the first layer) were added as 16 wt% and 8 wt% respectively (pp. 74, left column) and lead to an improved overall efficiency because a thinner second catalyst layer allowed more exhaust gas to penetrate to the first catalyst composition layer. The taught loading is equivalent to a 2:1 weight ratio of a first and second catalyst composition, which is within the instantly claimed range of 1-5:1. Both Bidal et al. and Metkar et al. are directed to catalysis for the SCR of NOx with ammonia in an engine system, and discuss zeolite catalysts disposed onto a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to adopt a 2:1 ratio of the first Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve catalyst composition to the second Cu/Mn bimetallic molecular sieve catalyst composition, as taught in Bidal et al., in order to maximize the gas permeability of the second catalyst composition and achieve a higher filter efficiency as a result of improved gas flow over the first catalyst composition, as suggested by the findings of Metkar et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights