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 .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-16, in the reply filed on June 3, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “Malmberg fails to disclose all limitations of claim 1, particularly ‘no part of the second region is located upstream of the first region or downstream of the third region.’” Applicant goes on to cite paragraph 0082 of Malmberg. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner cited a different embodiment of Malmberg (Paragraph 0081) which the Examiner contends meets the limitation. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 3, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 9, lines 9-10, and page 15, line 40 of the specification, “platinum group metals such as Ru, Rh, Pd, In and Pt” is objected to because In is not a platinum group metal. The reference to In should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, line 3, the limitation “platinum group metals such as Ru, Rh, Pd, In and Pt” is objected to because In is not a platinum group metal. The reference to In should be removed.
In Claim 10, lines 2-3, “in form of” should read “in the form of”.
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 6-8, 11, and 13-14 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “among which AEI, BEA, CHA, AFT, AFX, FAU, FER, KFI, MOR, MFI, MOR, MEL or any combinations thereof are preferred”. The phrase "preferred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations preceding the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “precious metals such as Au and Ag, platinum group metals such as Ru, Rh, Pd, In and Pt, base metals such as Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Fe, Mn, W, V, Ti, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Sb, Sn and Bi, alkali earth metals such as Ca and Mg”. 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).
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “for example monolithic flow-through structure or wall-flow structure”. The phrase "for example" 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).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “preferably 1 to 75% by volume, more preferably 5 to 65% by volume, for example 10 to 60 % by volume or 15 to 50 % by volume”. The phrases “preferably”, “more preferably”, and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “preferably 15 to 55% by volume, more preferably 25 to 50% by volume”. The phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malmberg et al. (US 2019/0314801 A1).
With regard to Claims 1 and 15-16, Malmberg teaches a catalytic article for purifying an exhaust gas containing nitrogen oxides (Abstract, a catalyst device for purifying exhaust gases containing nitrogen oxide by means of selective catalytic reduction (SCR)).
Malmberg teaches the catalytic article comprising a first region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst, a second region containing a metal-promoted molecular sieve catalyst, and a third region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst (Abstract, a catalyst device for purifying exhaust gases containing nitrogen oxide by means of selective catalytic reduction (SCR), comprising at least two catalytic regions, the first region containing vanadium oxide and cerium oxide, and the second region containing a molecular sieve containing iron; Paragraph 0090, In a preferred embodiment, the catalyst device comprises at least one further third region comprising a vanadium oxide catalyst without cerium oxide. The third region can be selected as described above for the first region, with the difference that no cerium oxide is present).
Malmberg teaches the catalytic article wherein the second region is located downstream of the first region and upstream of the third region in the exhaust gas flow direction, provided that no part of the second region is located upstream of the first region or downstream of the third region (Claim 11; Paragraph 0081, the first region is a first zone and the second region is a second zone, with the first zone upstream of the second zone in the direction of flow of the exhaust gas; Paragraph 0080, the first and second regions are arranged one after the other in the direction of flow of the exhaust gas… the catalyst device may have a plurality of successive zones, such as 2, 3 or 4). Malmberg further discloses that the addition of a third region serves to post-treat the exhaust gas, and is thus located downstream of the second region (Paragraph 0090).
With regard to Claims 2-5, Malmberg teaches the vanadium-based SCR catalyst in the first and third regions containing a vanadium oxide calculated as V2O5, from 1 to 5% by weight (Paragraph 0045, The first region preferably contains vanadium oxide, calculated as V2O5 and based on the weight of the first region… in particular from 1 to 5% by weight), and wherein the vanadium contents of the catalysts are the same or different (Paragraph 0090, The third region can be selected as described above for the first region, with the difference that no cerium oxide is present).
Malmberg teaches the vanadium-based SCR catalyst containing tungsten oxide as a promoter, and titanium and/or silicon oxide as support (Paragraphs 0040-0042; Example 1, Paragraph 0126, a catalyst of composition 87.4% by weight TiO2, 4.6% by weight SiO2, 5.0% by weight WO3 and 3.0% by weight V2O5).
With regard to Claims 6-9, Malmberg teaches an iron-promoted molecular sieve catalyst with zeolite framework type BEA (Paragraphs 0067-0068; The molecular sieve in the second region contains iron and is preferably an iron-containing zeolite… The zeolite is preferably of the BEA type. A zeolite of the BEA type with a SAR ratio of 5:1 to 50:1 exchanged with iron is particularly preferred).
Malmberg teaches the iron present in the molecular sieve catalyst of 4.5% by weight (Example 1, Paragraph 0128; an iron content, calculated as Fe2O3, of 4.5% by weight results).
With regard to Claim 10, Malmberg teaches the catalytic article wherein the first, second, and third regions are present in the form of an extrudate (Paragraph 0072, a catalytic region simultaneously serves as the substrate. This is particularly possible if the first or second catalytic region is provided as an extrudate).
Malmberg alternatively teaches the catalytic article wherein the first, second, and third regions are present in the form of a washcoat on a substrate (Paragraph 0094, Example 2).
With regard to Claim 11, Malmberg teaches the extrudate and/or substrate having a honeycomb structure (Paragraphs 0094 and 0097; Example 2, Paragraph 0130, Various catalyst devices were produced by coating ceramic substrates with the coating suspensions A to D. Customary ceramic monoliths with parallel flow channels open on both sides were used as substrates).
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Malmberg.
With regard to Claims 13 and 14, Malmberg teaches a ratio of the first region to the second region by volume (Paragraph 0080, the catalyst device may have a plurality of successive zones, such as 2, 3 or 4. The length of the zones is selected according to thickness and desired catalytic efficiency. For example, a zone can amount to between 20 and 80%, or between 30 and 70%, of the length of the device; Paragraph 0095, the ratio of the weight (per catalyst volume) of the first region to the second region in the catalyst device is greater than 0.2, in particular between 0.2 and 15, and particularly preferably between 1 and 6). Using this disclosure, the first zone reads as 20-80% by volume, the second zone reads as one-sixth of 20-80% to 20-80% (3.33% - 80%), and the third zone reads as the balance of volume.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonntag et al. (US 2016/0045868 A1) in view of Malmberg.
With regard to Claims 1 and 15-16, Sonntag teaches a catalytic article for purifying an exhaust gas containing nitrogen oxides comprising a first region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst and a second region containing a metal-promoted molecular sieve catalyst (Paragraph 0028).
Sonntag teaches the catalytic article wherein the second region is located downstream of the first region in the exhaust gas flow direction, provided that no part of the second region is located upstream of the first region (Fig. 6, Paragraph 0028, the first SCR catalyst zone is disposed upstream of the second SCR catalyst zone with respect to normal exhaust gas flow through the system; Paragraph 0036).
Sonntag is silent to a third region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst, wherein the second region is upstream of the third region in the exhaust gas flow direction.
Malmberg, in a catalyst device for purifying exhaust gases containing nitrogen oxide, teaches a third region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst (Paragraph 0090, In a preferred embodiment, the catalyst device comprises at least one further third region comprising a vanadium oxide catalyst without cerium oxide. The third region can be selected as described above for the first region, with the difference that no cerium oxide is present).
Malmberg teaches the catalytic article wherein the second region is located downstream of the first region and upstream of the third region in the exhaust gas flow direction, provided that no part of the second region is located upstream of the first region or downstream of the third region (Claim 11; Paragraph 0081, the first region is a first zone and the second region is a second zone, with the first zone upstream of the second zone in the direction of flow of the exhaust gas; Paragraph 0080, the first and second regions are arranged one after the other in the direction of flow of the exhaust gas… the catalyst device may have a plurality of successive zones, such as 2, 3 or 4).
Malmberg notes that the addition of a third region serves to post-treat the exhaust gas (Paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Sonntag to teach a third region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst, wherein the second region is upstream of the third region in the exhaust gas flow direction, as taught in Malmberg, as the addition of a third region serves to post-treat the exhaust gas.
With regard to Claims 2-5, Sonntag teaches the vanadium-based SCR catalyst in the first region containing a vanadium oxide calculated as V2O5, from 0.5 to 4% by weight or 1 to 2% by weight (Paragraph 0040, The vanadium based catalyst is preferably loaded on a metal oxide at a concentration of about 0.5 to about 4 weight percent, or about 1 to 2 weight percent, based on the total weight of the metal oxide support. Preferred vanadium components include oxides of vanadium, such as vanadia (V2O5)).
Sonntag teaches the vanadium-based SCR catalyst containing tungsten oxide as a promoter, and a metal oxide support of an element selected from Ti, Zr, Si, Ce, and Al (Paragraphs 0040, the vanadium component comprises up to about 25 weight percent oxides of tungsten; Paragraph 0042, The type of metal oxide support is not particularly limited. Useful metal oxides include TiO2, ZrO2, SiO2, CeO2, and Al2O3).
Sonntag is silent to a third region containing a vanadium-based SCR catalyst, wherein the vanadium contents of the vanadium-based SCR catalysts in the two regions are same or different.
Malmberg teaches the vanadium-based SCR catalyst in the first and third regions containing a vanadium oxide calculated as V2O5, from 1 to 5% by weight (Paragraph 0045, The first region preferably contains vanadium oxide, calculated as V2O5 and based on the weight of the first region… in particular from 1 to 5% by weight).
Malmberg further teaches the article wherein the vanadium contents of the catalysts are the same or different (Paragraph 0090, The third region can be selected as described above for the first region, with the difference that no cerium oxide is present).
Malmberg further teaches the vanadium-based SCR catalyst containing tungsten oxide as a promoter, and titanium and/or silicon oxide as support (Paragraphs 0040-0042; Example 1, Paragraph 0126, a catalyst of composition 87.4% by weight TiO2, 4.6% by weight SiO2, 5.0% by weight WO3 and 3.0% by weight V2O5).
With regard to Claims 6-7 and 9, Sonntag teaches the second region wherein the molecular sieve is selected from zeolites have a framework type AEI, AFT, AFX, and CHA (Paragraph 0056, For certain applications, preferred zeolite frameworks are selected from AEI, AFT, and AFX particularly AEI. In certain application, a preferred zeolite framework is CHA).
Sonntag teaches the second region wherein the metal for promoting the molecular sieve is copper, wherein the copper is present at a concentration of 3 to 3.5% by weight (Paragraph 0061).
With regard to Claim 8, Malmberg teaches an iron-promoted molecular sieve catalyst with zeolite framework type BEA (Paragraphs 0067-0068; The molecular sieve in the second region contains iron and is preferably an iron-containing zeolite… The zeolite is preferably of the BEA type. A zeolite of the BEA type with a SAR ratio of 5:1 to 50:1 exchanged with iron is particularly preferred).
Malmberg teaches the iron present in the molecular sieve catalyst of 4.5% by weight (Example 1, Paragraph 0128; an iron content, calculated as Fe2O3, of 4.5% by weight results).
With regard to Claims 10 and 11, Sonntag teaches the catalytic article wherein the regions are present in the form of a washcoat on a substrate, wherein the substrate has a honeycomb structure (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0036).
With regard to Claim 12, Sonntag teaches an embodiment wherein the catalyst regions are carried on two separate substrates (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0036, the first and second SCR catalyst zones are coated or otherwise incorporated on separate substrates).
With regard to Claims 13 and 14, Malmberg teaches a ratio of the first region to the second region by volume (Paragraph 0080, the catalyst device may have a plurality of successive zones, such as 2, 3 or 4. The length of the zones is selected according to thickness and desired catalytic efficiency. For example, a zone can amount to between 20 and 80%, or between 30 and 70%, of the length of the device; Paragraph 0095, the ratio of the weight (per catalyst volume) of the first region to the second region in the catalyst device is greater than 0.2, in particular between 0.2 and 15, and particularly preferably between 1 and 6). Using this disclosure, the first zone reads as 20-80% by volume, the second zone reads as one-sixth of 20-80% to 20-80% (3.33% - 80%), and the third zone reads as the balance of volume.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Larsson et al. (US 2016/0367938 A1) teaches a catalyst article comprising three SCR catalysts with a layered structure, wherein the regions can comprise vanadium-based or metal-promoted molecular sieve catalysts. The reference does not disclose the positioning of the catalyst regions as claimed.
Bauer et al. (US 2019/0299198 A1) teaches a catalyst for treating exhaust gas comprising a blend of iron-promoted molecular sieve and vanadium oxide supported on a metal oxide support. The reference does not disclose the catalyst comprising three separate regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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.
/A.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights