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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/26has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 1/12/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under the final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse (US Pub.: 2011/0271664) and in view of Lee (GB 2543600).
As to Claims 1 and 3, Boorse describes an exhaust gas system (para. 8) that includes catalysts, one of which includes an ammonia (NH3) oxidation catalyst (para. 25). This catalyst is described as the first catalyst coating (see para. 27, described as 16 in Fig. 1). The NH3 oxidation catalyst may comprise a platinum group metal (para. 48). The catalyst may be a first substantially unsupported platinum group metal on the porous walls of a honeycomb substrate (para. 14). More specifically, in some embodiments, Boorse explains that the platinum group metal is coated on the support “without an intervening particulate refractory oxide support” (para. 57).
The catalyst solids are commuted to a size of 0.1 to 8 microns (para. 55). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
Boorse does not specifically teach what the noble metal particle loading relative to the substrate is.
Lee describes an ammonia slip catalyst (page 21, line 1) used for ammonia oxidation (page 21, lines 7-8). The catalyst comprises a platinum group metal (page 21, line 3) that is loaded in an amount of 0.0185 g/L to about 0.270 g/L (page 21, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to load platinum group metal in the ammonia oxidation catalyst in an amount of 0.0185 g/L to about 0.270 g/L, as taught by Lee for use with the device of Boorse because this loading is known to be effective for use in ammonia oxidation for predictable and expected ammonia oxidation.
As to Claim 2, Boorse describes use of a platinum group metal, which can include other platinum metals in addition to platinum metal (para. 48). In some embodiments, the metal used is just platinum (para. 53). Therefore, the amount of noble metal used in the catalyst can be less than 10% (and close to zero).
As to Claims 4 and 5, Boorse teaches that the catalyst can include an SCR component that includes a metal modified in a molecular sieve (para. 40). The metal can be Fe or Cu (para. 40) and modify the molecular sieve (para. 41). The molecular sieve can be a zeolite (para. 42) with a framework such as CHA, FAU, BEA and others (para. 42). The SCR is in the form of a washcoat (para. 39).
As to Claims 7 and 12, Boorse teaches use of Pt for the ammonia oxidation catalyst component (para. 53). The SCR catalyst can include a metal (para. 54). Of these metals, Boorse teaches use of Cu (para. 54). Therefore, in some embodiments, the catalyst system does not include other noble metals other than the catalytic noble metal particles of the ammonia oxidation catalyst, which are the noble metal particles supported directly on the substrate.
As to Claim 17, Boorse teaches a system used for reducing NOx gases (abstract) using ammonia (para. 26) for use with a diesel exhaust (para. 10, 23).
Claim(s) 6, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse and Lee applied to claims 1 or 4 above, and further in view of Larsson (US Pub.: 2016/0367973).
Boorse describes use of platinum group metals, which include all the platinum group metals in the group, but does not describe inclusion of Pd along with Pt.
Larsson describes an ammonia slip catalyst that includes platinum group metals, which can include Pt, Pd or mixtures thereof (para. 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Pd along with Pt in the ammonia oxidation catalyst component, as taught by Larsson for use with the catalyst of Boorse and Lee because it is known to include Pd along with Pt for effective oxidation of ammonia in a catalyst.
As to Claim 14, Boorse teaches use of Pt for the ammonia oxidation catalyst component (para. 53). The SCR catalyst can include a metal (para. 54). Of these metals, Boorse teaches use of Cu (para. 54). Therefore, in some embodiments, the catalyst system does not include other noble metals other than the catalytic noble metal particles of the ammonia oxidation catalyst, which are the noble metal particles supported directly on the substrate.
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse and Lee as applied to claims 1 or 4 above, and further in view of Fisher (US Pub.: 2015/0182912).
Boorse and Lee teach an ammonia oxidation catalyst, but does not describe use of an addition OSC layer comprising ceria.
Fisher describes an ammonia oxidation catalyst (para. 74). Doping the catalyst with ceria favors the oxidation of ammonia with oxygen, particularly when it is downstream of the SCR catalyst (para. 74). The ceria is disposed as a top layer over the oxidation catalyst layer (para. 74). The oxidation layer can contain a platinum group metals and disposed on a support, such as alumina (para. 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ceria layer over the oxidation catalyst layer, as taught by Fisher for use with the oxidation catalyst of Boorse and Lee because ceria favors the oxidation of ammonia with oxygen.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse, Lee and Fischer as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Voss (US Pub.: 2004/0219077).
Fischer describes adding a ceria layer to facilitate the oxidation of ammonia with oxygen, but the reference does not describe including zirconia with the ceria.
Voss describes a catalyst material (abstract) comprising ceria (para. 38). Voss explains that zirconia can be used to stabilize ceria against thermal degradation (para. 39) because ceria is known to lose surface area and a reduction in catalytic efficiency upon prolonged exposure to high temperatures (para. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stabilize ceria with zirconia, as taught by Voss for use with the ceria of Boorse, Lee and Fischer because zirconia is known to stabilize ceria from thermal degradation.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse, Lee and Larrson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fisher (US Pub.: 2015/0182912).
Boorse and Lee teach an ammonia oxidation catalyst, but does not describe use of an addition OSC layer comprising ceria.
Fisher describes an ammonia oxidation catalyst (para. 74). Doping the catalyst with ceria favors the oxidation of ammonia with oxygen, particularly when it is downstream of the SCR catalyst (para. 74). The ceria is disposed as a top layer over the oxidation catalyst layer (para. 74). The oxidation layer can contain a platinum group metals and disposed on a support, such as alumina (para. 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ceria layer over the oxidation catalyst layer, as taught by Fisher for use with the oxidation catalyst of Boorse, Lee and Larrson because ceria favors the oxidation of ammonia with oxygen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights