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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7-8 and 12 are currently under examination. Claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2-6 and 9-11 have been cancelled. Claim 1 is amended.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goffe et al. (US 2017/0128913 A1, applicants submitted in IDS), and evidenced by evidenced by Kamal et al. (WO 2017/046680 A1) with respect to claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12 is amended as set forth below. Among the, claims 2-4 and 9-10 have been cancelled.
Amended Grounds of Rejections
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 1, 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goffe et al. (US 2017/0128913 A1, applicants submitted in IDS), and evidenced by Kamal et al. (WO 2017/046680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Goffe et al. teach a method of reduction for nitrogen oxides (NOx) from an exhaust gas with ammonia (the instant claimed a source of ammonia) in the presence of a Selected Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalyst to convert the NOx gases into N2 and water (the instant claim 1 step (ii)) as shown below [0006]):
PNG
media_image1.png
178
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An engine aftertreatment catalyst taught by Goffe et al. comprises a high durability SCR catalyst, obtained from the reaction of a niobium ethoxide [Nb(OEt)5]2 (applicant’s elected and the instant claimed Group 5 compound) as a surface modifier of cerium oxide (CeO2) (the applicant’s elected and claimed support material), wherein the surface of cerium oxide modified obtained via mixing cerium oxide with an organic solution of niobium ethoxide [Nb(OEt)5]2, the resulting mixture is dried from 20 0C to 110 0C, and calcining at 550 0C for a periodic time of 1 to 2 hours ([0006]-[0046], Equations (1)-(3), [0083]-[0089], Table 1, claims 1-28). The one or more metal elements Nb are covalently bonded (chemical bond) to the underlying metal oxide CeO2 surface ([0028]). The method includes providing an organic solvent (Abstract).
As we see above, the ammonia contacts NOx gases stream to produce the reduction product N2 catalyzed by the selective catalytic catalyst.
Goffe et al. states “it is believed that a solvent having an optimal process temperature can allow the amalgamation of the surface modifier into the lattice structure of the upper atomic layers of substrate material, and/or achieve a coating of the surface modifier on the substrate material.”([0036]).
Although Goffe et al. do not specifically disclose hydrocarbon solvent as per applicant claim 1, Goffe et al. in fact indicate that selecting a hydrocarbon solvent is a result-effective variable for achieving a coating of the surface modifier on the substrate material. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) states that “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
It is known a support such as cerium dioxide is free of adsorbed water and have a surface hydroxy content preferably 0.5 mmol/g of support after heated at a temperature of 500 0C (Kamal et al., pages 11-12) which is the same process of the instant examples of the pre-treatment of cerium oxide.
The process of making an ammonia Selected Catalytic Reduction catalyst material is the same or similar as the instant examples described in the instant Specification.
Regarding claims 7-8, as discussed above, the calcining step taught by Goffe et al. includes 550 0C for a duration of 5 hours as the instant claims ([0032], claims 1-28).
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, the process of Goffe et al. comprises the niobium ethoxide grafted on Cerium oxide as the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/30/2026 with respect to claims 1, 7-8 and 12have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner would like to take this opportunity to address the Applicant's arguments.
Applicant argued the instant application describes and demonstrates in the Examples hydration of an oxide support material using moisture followed by dehydroxylation through heating under reduced pressure.
In contrast to the absence of any combined teaching in Kamal, the present specification describes that the type of oxide (specifically of an oxide as defined in the present application's claim 2) has an impact on "the concentration of OH groups". See specification at paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11. Kamal, however, describes at page 12 that the amounts of the hydroxyl groups are measured on silica as the oxide type. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider that the lower the heating temperature is, the higher the remaining surface hydroxy content will be, and thus, tuples (sequences) of surface hydroxy amounts and heating temperatures may be expected for the ranges of 0.5 to 3 mmol/g and 500°C to 800°C mentioned in Kamal (Remarks, pages 4-10).
The office respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Goffe et al. teach a method of reduction for nitrogen oxides (NOx) from an exhaust gas with ammonia (the instant claimed a source of ammonia) in the presence of a Selected Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalyst to convert the NOx gases into N2 and water (the instant claim 1 step (ii)) as shown below [0006]):
PNG
media_image1.png
178
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An engine aftertreatment catalyst taught by Goffe et al. comprises a high durability SCR catalyst, obtained from the reaction of a niobium ethoxide [Nb(OEt)5]2 (applicant’s elected and the instant claimed Group 5 compound) as a surface modifier of cerium oxide (CeO2) (the applicant’s elected and claimed support material), wherein the surface of cerium oxide modified obtained via mixing cerium oxide with an organic solution of niobium ethoxide [Nb(OEt)5]2, the resulting mixture is dried from 20 0C to 110 0C, and calcining at 550 0C for a periodic time of 1 to 2 hours ([0006]-[0046], Equations (1)-(3), [0083]-[0089], Table 1, claims 1-28). The one or more metal elements Nb are covalently bonded (chemical bond) to the underlying metal oxide CeO2 surface ([0028]). The method includes providing an organic solvent (Abstract).
As we see above, the ammonia contacts NOx gases stream to produce the reduction product N2 catalyzed by the selective catalytic catalyst.
Goffe et al. states “it is believed that a solvent having an optimal process temperature can allow the amalgamation of the surface modifier into the lattice structure of the upper atomic layers of substrate material, and/or achieve a coating of the surface modifier on the substrate material.”([0036]).
Although Goffe et al. do not specifically disclose hydrocarbon solvent as per applicant claim 1, Goffe et al. in fact indicate that selecting a hydrocarbon solvent is a result-effective variable for allowing the amalgamation of the surface modifier into the lattice structure of the upper atomic layers of substrate material, and/or achieve a coating of the surface modifier on the substrate material. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) states that “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
It is known a support such as cerium dioxide is free of adsorbed water and have a surface hydroxy content preferably 0.5 mmol/g of support after heated at a temperature of 500 0C (Kamal et al., pages 11-12) which is the same process of the instant examples of the pre-treatment of cerium oxide.
The process of making an ammonia Selected Catalytic Reduction catalyst material is the same or similar as the instant examples described in the instant Specification.
Applicant's explanation of what they intend to claims (i.e., hydration and dehydroxylation, type of oxide) does not change what is actually recited in the claims and to what extent it is enabling. Therefore, the rejection stands.
Applicant’s arguments against the reference of Kamal et al. are not found persuasive.
Because, note that while Goffe et al. do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kamal et al. is used as an evidence reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely cerium dioxide having a surface hydroxy content preferably 0.5 mmol/g of support after heated at a temperature of 500 0C, and in combination with the reference of Goffe et al, discloses the presently claimed invention as set forth above.
As such, the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in the office action above is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.
Prosecution Insights