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 with traverse of group I claims 1, 2, and 15 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the cited reference is not prior art to the claims at issue. This is not found persuasive because it does not address the independence or distinctness of the inventions or all sources of burden imposed by the inventions. A serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search. Arguments of convenience or coextensiveness are insufficient, showing to demonstrate that there is no undue burden. Additionally, although the original reference does not qualify as prior art, the present office action makes a rejection with a reference that does qualify as prior art and thus is sufficient to uphold the lack of unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 2, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. The claim recites an observation that the NOx removal efficiency is lowered after a hydrothermal treatment of the catalyst. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing more than the observation is recited. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is nothing concluded from the observation.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected for their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (US 9278343 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Green et al. discloses a catalyst composition for treating exhaust gas comprising a blend of a transition metal exchanged first zeolite having a first framework selected from CHA, AEI, AFX, LEV, and SFW, and a second zeolite having a second framework selected from the same list wherein the first and second framework types are the same and the second zeolite is primarily in at least one of H+ form, NH4+ form, alkali form, or alkaline-earth form (col 2, lines 18-26). The metal-promoted zeolite component of the catalyst blend (first framework) is preferably promoted with a transition metal and a particularly preferred transition metal is copper (col 3, lines 27-36).
The fresh, un-aged NOx conversion performance of the copper-exchanged zeolite was tested at 600 °C (col 12, lines 65-67). The performance was also tested for the copper-exchanged zeolite after hydrothermal aging at 900 °C for 1 hour (col 12, line 67 – col 13, lines 1-2). The data can be seen in Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the NOx conversion for the fresh sample is above 80% at a temperature greater than 300 °C, and the NOx conversion for the hydrothermally aged sample is above 60% at a temperature greater than 600 °C.
The examiner notes that the time the sample is hydrothermally aged is outside the claimed range, but the disclosed SCR catalyst of Green et al. and the instantly claimed product appear to be essentially the same, comprised of the same components and amounts (see claim 2 and 15 rejection), and used in the same manner. When the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process of making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Regarding claim 2, Green et al. discloses the ratio of un-promoted zeolite to the metal-promoted zeolite is about 0.1 to about 1 (col 3, lines 14-15). When taking the reciprocal to get the ratio of metal-promoted zeolite to un-promoted zeolite, a range of 1-10 is obtained which is the same range as the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Green et al. discloses the ratio of un-promoted zeolite to the metal-promoted zeolite is about 0.3 to about 0.5 (col 3, lines 14-16). When taking the reciprocal to get the ratio of metal-promoted zeolite to un-promoted zeolite, a range of 2-3.33 is obtained which is within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bull et al.
US 7601662 B2
Qi et al.
US 20240116038 A1
Wang et al.
CN 114275795 A
Kim et al.
KR 20210087743 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights