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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 13, 15 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavataio et al. (U.S. Pub. 2016/0367963) in view Bergeal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0360213).
Regarding claim 1, Cavataio et al. teaches a hydrocarbon trap is provided for reducing cold-start hydrocarbon emissions which meets the preamble of a hydrocarbon adsorbent structure (abstract). Cavataio et al. teaches monolithic flow-through substrate is preferably selected from the group consisting of cordierite, silicon carbide, and mullite which meets the limitation of a substrate comprising a ceramic monolith (paragraph 11). Cavataio et al. teaches hydrocarbon trap preferably has a zeolite content wherein zeolite washcoat slurry to become impregnated into the substrate walls which meets the limitation of a hydrocarbon adsorbent formed on the ceramic monolith (paragraphs 27 and 35). Cavataio et al. teaches zeolite in the substrate preferably has a Si/Al2 ratio of from about 20 to about 500 which meets the limitation of the hydrocarbon adsorbent comprising a zeolite having a silica-to-alumina ratio of at least 20 (paragraph 9). Cavataio et al. teaches beta-zeolite materials are preferred for use as they have a larger average pore size of about 5.6 to 7.5 Å which meets the limitation the average pore width of the zeolite is between 2.0 and 6.7 A (paragraph 29). Cavataio et al. does not teach the zeolite is in the form of milled particles characterized by an average d90 particle size from 20 micrometers to about 50 micrometers.
Bergeal et al. teaches washcoat region consists essentially of a hydrocarbon adsorbent (paragraph 109). Bergeal et al. teaches hydrocarbon adsorbent is a zeolite (paragraph 111). Bergeal et al. teaches the second support material and a zeolite (paragraph 105). Bergeal et al. teaches support material may have a d90 particle size of ≦20 μm which overlaps with the zeolite is in the form of milled particles characterized by an average d90 particle size from 20 micrometers to about 50 micrometers (paragraph 116). Bergeal et al. teaches the particle size distribution of the support material is selected to aid adhesion to the substrate and the particles are generally obtained by milling (paragraph 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mill the zeolite taught by Cavataio et al. to the desired particle size because it optimizes the adhesion to the substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Cavataio et al. teaches zeolite in the substrate preferably has a Si/Al2 ratio of from about 20 to about 500 which overlaps with wherein the silica to alumina ratio is in the range of from 20 to 600 (paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 8, Cavataio et al. teaches zeolite is selected from zeolites having the structure BEA, FAU, MOR, MFI, FER, CHA, LTL, LTA, or mixtures thereof which meets the limitation of wherein the zeolite comprises a zeolite selected from a group consisting of: AEI, BEA, BEC, CHA, EMT, FAU, FER, MFI, and combinations thereof (paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 13, Cavataio et al. teaches 300/12 high porosity substrate had a zeolite content of about 1.8 g/in3 in the substrate walls which meets the limitation of wherein the a loading of the hydrocarbon adsorbent coating on the substrate ranges from about 0.5 g/in3 to about 2.0 g/in3 (paragraph 45).
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavataio et al. in view of Bergeal et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoke et al. (EP 2063098).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Cavataio et al. in view of Bergeal et al. teaches a hydrocarbon adsorbent comprising zeolite. Cavataio et al. in view of Bergeal et al. does not teach a polymer binder or activated carbon.
Hoke et al. teaches an adsorbent material may contain other adsorbing substances such as activated carbon, while the zeolite should be present in an amount of up to 50% (paragraph 37).
Hoke et al. teaches organic polymer used in the amounts of 0.5 to 20 such as polystyrene and polyacrylate (paragaphs 51 ad 52). Hoke et al. teaches it has been found that compatibility of the components of a slurry comprising a hydrocarbon adsorbent and a polymeric binder is important for maintaining slurry stability. It would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success to use activated carbon and a polymeric binder for the hydrocarbon adsorbent taught by Sumiyama et al. in view of Bergeal et al. because it improves adsorption and stability.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiyama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,652,429) in view of Bergeal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0360213).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, Sumiyama et al. teaches ceramic monolith substrate (column 2, lines 40-65). Sumiyama et al. teaches medium pore aluminosilicate zeolites having a silica/alumina ratio of from at least about 25/1 which is encompassed by the hydrocarbon adsorbent comprising a zeolite having a silica-to-alumina ratio of at least 20 (column 14, lines 10-30). Sumiyama et al. teaches small, medium or large pore size being 8 tetrahedreal atoms, 10 tetrahedrals atoms, 12 tetrahedral atoms which converts to 4, 5.5 7.5 angstroms respectively and therefore meets the limitation the average pore width of the zeolite is between 2.0 and 6.7 A (column 15, lines 50-65). Sumiyama et al. does not teach the zeolite is in the form of milled particles characterized by an average d90 particle size from 20 micrometers to about 50 micrometers.
Bergeal et al. teaches washcoat region consists essentially of a hydrocarbon adsorbent (paragraph 109). Bergeal et al. teaches hydrocarbon adsorbent is a zeolite (paragraph 111). Bergeal et al. teaches the second support material and a zeolite (paragraph 105). Bergeal et al. teaches support material may have a d90 particle size of ≦20 μm which overlaps with the zeolite is in the form of milled particles characterized by an average d90 particle size from 20 micrometers to about 50 micrometers (paragraph 116). Bergeal et al. teaches the particle size distribution of the support material is selected to aid adhesion to the substrate and the particles are generally obtained by milling (paragraph 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mill the zeolite taught by Sumiyama et al. to the desired particle size because it optimizes the adhesion to the substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Sumiyama et al. teaches wash coating has a mean thickness of from 25 to 200 microns which is encompassed by and wherein a thickness of the hydrocarbon adsorbent coating is less than about 500 micrometers (column 9, lines 65-67). Sumiyama et al. teaches washcoat loading in each of the first washcoat coating and the second washcoat coating is individually selected from the range 0.1-3.5 g/in3 which encompasses wherein the loading of the hydrocarbon adsorbent coating on the substrate ranges from about 0.5 g/in3 to about 2.0 g/in3 (column 13, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 18, Sumiyama et al. teaches hydrocarbon adsorbent such as a active charcoal which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of activated carbon (column 10, lines 30-40).
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumiyama et al. in view of Bergeal et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoke et al. (EP 2063098).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Sumiyama et al. in view of Bergeal et al. teaches a hydrocarbon adsorbent comprising zeolite. Sumiyama et al. in view of Bergeal et al. does not teach a polymer binder or activated carbon.
Hoke et al. teaches an adsorbent material may contain other adsorbing substances such as activated carbon, while the zeolite should be present in an amount of up to 50% (paragraph 37).
Hoke et al. teaches organic polymer used in the amounts of 0.5 to 20 such as polystyrene and polyacrylate (paragaphs 51 ad 52). Hoke et al. teaches it has been found that compatibility of the components of a slurry comprising a hydrocarbon adsorbent and a polymeric binder is important for maintaining slurry stability. It would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success to use activated carbon and a polymeric binder for the hydrocarbon adsorbent taught by Sumiyama et al. in view of Bergeal et al. because it improves adsorption and stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 03/04/2026
Prosecution Insights