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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I invention (claim 1-13 and 15) in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/19/2026.
Non-Compliant Claim Identifier
The identifier of claim 14 need be remarked as withdrawn since these claims are directed to a non-elected invention in the instant application. A correct status identifier (Withdrawn) has not been set forth for the amended claims. See MPEP § 714 and 37 CFR 1.121(c). Appropriate correction is required. A non-compliant form has not been sent out for advancing the prosecution and correction is required in next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Boll (WO2021/078429) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0387977 has been used hereof for citations).
Shi et al teaches a double efficacy knitted catalyst mesh (i.e. a catalyst system) for ammonia oxidation processes(see example 4) comprising: a primary reaction zone catalyst mesh (item 1, Fig. 1), a secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh (item 2, Fig. 1), and a supplemental reaction zone catalyst mesh (item 3, Fig. 1) divided by the direction of the flow of ammonia gas in the ammonia oxidizing furnace, wherein the main reaction zone catalyst mesh being a platinum alloy has a composition of 90-95% platinum, 4-8% rhodium, 1-5% palladium by weight; the secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh has a composition comprising 50-73% ( e.g. 65%) platinum, 5-7% (e.g. 6% rhodium), 20-45% (e.g. 29%) palladium, and 0.1-5% of a metal selected from cerium, cobalt, nickel or gold (e.g. 5% gold) added to the sum of the weight of platinum, rhodium and palladium; the supplementary reaction zone catalyst mesh has a weight percentage of 9-20% (e.g. 15%) platinum, 1-5% of (e.g. 2%) rhodium, 75-90% (e.g. 83%) palladium, (para. [0008], [0021], [0024], [0027], claim 1-3, example 4). Shi et al. further disclose the main reaction zone catalyst mesh, secondary zone catalyst, supplementary zone are all wired meshes, wherein the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the main reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 1.05-1.20:1, while the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the secondary reaction zone and the catalytic mesh in the supplementary reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 0.72-1.05:1 (claim 2, 4, para. [0013], [0017], Fig. 1, examples).
It is noted that Shi et al disclosed rhodium content noble metal wires of the catalyst mesh decreases in the flow direction and the palladium content of the noble metal wires of the catalyst mesh increases in the flow direction (para. [0009]-[0012], Fig. 1, claims 1-4, examples).
Regarding claim 1, Shi et al. does not expressly teach the platinum alloy of the second noble metal wire consisting of, in addition to impurities, 75-98 wt.% platinum, 1-16 wt.% rhodium, and 1-20 wt.% palladium.
Boll teaches a catalyst system for gas reaction such as oxidation of ammonia to nitrogen oxide for nitric acid production (para. [0005], [0006]), comprising at least one planar structure of noble metal having gas-permeable openings and the catalyst system comprising a plurality of different planar structure several different noble metal alloys ([0045], [0051]), wherein the noble metal alloy being selected from the group consisting of noble metal alloys of (para. [0012]- [0019], [0035]-[0045]):
platinum with 1-15 wt. % (percentage by weight) rhodium,
platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium (noted this alloy having platinum of 65 wt. % to 97.9 wt.%),
platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium, 0.1-20 wt. % palladium, and 0.1-2 wt. % ruthenium,
platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium, 0.1-20 wt. % palladium, and 0.1-5 wt. % iridium,
palladium with 3-15 wt. % platinum,
palladium with 1-20 wt. % platinum and 1-10 wt. % rhodium,
palladium with 1-25 wt. % tungsten, and
palladium with 1-15 wt. % nickel.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” such well-known noble alloy of platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium as shown by Boll to practice the second catalyst network of Shi et al. because choosing an alloy of platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium from a finite number of identified, predictable noble metal alloy solutions would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale E). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known noble alloy of platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium as shown by Boll to modify the second catalyst network group of Shi et al because adopting such well-known platinum alloy as shown by Boll to modify a well-known catalyst system comprising noble metal catalyst gauze used for ammonia oxidation with improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale D).
Regarding claim 2-3 and 15, Shi et al. further teaches the main catalyst mesh, the secondary catalyst mesh and the supplementary catalyst mesh are independently warp-knitted meshes (example 1-5), wherein such warped-knitted meshes are three-dimensional structures.
Regarding claim 4, Shi et al. disclosed warp knitted noble metal wired mesh apparently has wires as ridges while holes are grooves, therefore, such noble metal wires are corrugated.
Regarding 6, Shi et al does not expressly teach the first metal wire, or the second metal wire, or the third metal wire noble metal alloy comprising impurities, rather Shi et al. expressly teaches the main reaction zone catalyst mesh being a platinum alloy has a composition of 90-95% platinum, 4-8% rhodium, 1-5% palladium by weight, the secondary reaction zone catalyst mesh has a composition comprising 50-73% ( e.g. 65%) platinum, 5-7% (e.g. 6% rhodium), 20-45% (e.g. 29%) palladium, and the supplementary reaction zone catalyst mesh has a weight percentage of 9-20% (e.g. 15%) platinum, 1-5% of (e.g. 2%) rhodium, 75-90% (e.g. 83%) palladium, (para. [0008], [0021], [0024], [0027], claim 1-3, example 4), wherein the proportion of the impurities in the alloys of the noble metal no more than 1 wt.% is envisioned. Boll does not require any impurities in the noble metal alloy either (para. [0012]-[0019], [0035]-[0045]). Furthermore, impurities in the noble metal alloy catalyst is always un-desired, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize such impurities content (i.e. close to 0 wt.%) in the noble metal alloy catalyst for desired catalytic performance via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II).
Regarding claim 7-9, such limitations have been met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10-11, Shi et al already teaches a ternary palladium alloy as that of instantly claimed. Boll also teaches a palladium binary alloy as discussed above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known alloy of palladium with nickel or alloy of palladium with tungsten as shown by Boll to modify the third catalyst metal network group having high palladium content of Shi et al. because adopting such well-known palladium alloy as shown by Boll to modify a well-known catalyst system comprising palladium metal catalyst gauze used for ammonia oxidation with improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale D). It is noted that Boll disclosed palladium alloy with nickel or tungsten is rhodium free.
Regarding claim 12, Shi et al. already teaches more than 30 layers (or zone) of platinum meshes can be used (para. [0005]), therefore, the catalyst system comprising at least one further catalyst mesh composed of platinum (or Pd) containing wire is envisioned. Boll also teaches a plurality of planar noble metal alloy being used as well (para. [0035]-[0045], [0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt at least one further catalyst mesh composed of platinum and/or palladium wire for desired ammonia oxidation and platinum recovery as suggested by Shi et al (para. [0005]). Furthermore, adopting a further platinum or palladium wire mesh catalyst in the ammonia oxidation process for help improving ammonia oxidation efficiency just obvious choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Shi et al. further discloses a heat-resistant stainless steel
support mesh can be added below the catalyst mesh in the secondary reaction zone, wherein such heat-resistant stainless-steel support reads onto the instantly claimed separating element in light of the instant specification (see instantly filed specification page 15 line 31-page 16 line 10).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Boll (WO2021/078429) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0387977 has been used hereof for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Rjabchikov (RU2008125755) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations).
Regarding claim 4, in arguendo about Shi et al in view of Boll not expressly teach at least one of the catalyst networks being corrugated, Rjabchikov knitted noble meta wire in the ammonia oxidation reaction being corrugated (claim 1-4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known knitted noble metal wire being corrugated as shown by Rjabchikov for modify the at least one noble metal meshes of Shi et al in view of Boll because adopting such well-known knitted noble metal wire being corrugated to modify well-known noble metal meshes in ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN101554585) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Boll (WO2021/078429) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0387977 has been used hereof for citations) as applied above, and further in view of Boll’143 (WO2020/148143) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2022/0089439 has been provided hereof for citations).
Shi et al. already teaches the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the main reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 1.05-1.20:1, while the wire diameter ratio of the catalytic mesh in the secondary reaction zone and the catalytic mesh in the supplementary reaction zone to the standard platinum mesh is 0.72-1.05:1 (claim 2, 4, para. [0013], [0017], Fig. 1, examples).
Regarding claim 5, Shi et al in view of Boll does not expressly teach the noble metal wires diameter being from 40-250 µm.
Boll’143 expressly teaches it is well known in the art that standard platinum metal wire mesh having diameter of 76 µm is standard (para. [0008], [0048], [0062]).
Based on Boll’143 disclosed parameter size of standard platinum wire, Shi et al disclosed main reaction zone platinum wire, secondary reaction zone noble metal wire, and supplementary reaction zone noble metal wire are all within or overlapping with that of instant claimed diameter rang thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known standard platinum wire size of 76 µm as shown by Boll’143 for modify the noble metal wires of Shi et al in view of Boll because adopting such well-known platinum standard wire size to practice well-known noble metal wires diameter in ammonia oxidation catalyst system for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 KSR).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-13 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 18/319907 in view of Boll (WO2021/078429). Co-pending application’907 teaches a substantially the same catalyst system comprising a first catalyst gauze, second catalyst gauze, third catalyst gauze, wherein rhodium content noble metal wires of the catalyst mesh decreases in the flow direction and the palladium content of the noble metal wires of the catalyst mesh increases in the flow direction, except the second catalyst gauze comprising second noble metal wire of a platinum alloy consisting of, in addition to impurities, 75-98 wt.% platinum, 1-16 wt.% rhodium, and 1-20 wt.% palladium. Boll has been described as above and teaches such limitations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” such well-known noble alloy of platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium as shown by Boll to practice a second catalyst network of co-pending application’907 because choosing an alloy of platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium from a finite number of identified, predictable noble metal alloy solutions would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale E). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known noble alloy of platinum with 2-15 wt. % rhodium and 0.1-20 wt. % palladium as shown by Boll to modify the second catalyst network group of co-pending application’907 because adopting such well-known platinum alloy as shown by Boll to modify a well-known catalyst system comprising noble metal catalyst gauze used for ammonia oxidation with improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR Rationale D).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights