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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/9/25 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 12/9/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-26 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 references newly cited.
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) 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulraj (US Pub.: 2019/0301334) and in view of Andersen (US Pub.: 2019/0383174), provisional filed 12/2016 and in view of Szczepanski (US Pub.: 20150306543) and in view of Spreitzer (WO 2012/166833) and in view of Yamashita (JP 2020/000982), EPO translation.
As to Claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 25 and 26, Arulraj describes a catalyst article for treating combustion exhaust gas (abstract). The invention describes several embodiments. In one embodiment, the system includes an SCR material that include iron or copper ion-exchanged in the zeolite and is combined with vanadium as a co-extrusion (para. 18). Alternatively, the SCR is a washcoat disposed on the surface of one or more substrate channels as a layer (para. 21).
In another embodiment, Arulray explains that the SCR-containing layer is a second layer, which is disposed on a portion of the first layer (para. 21). The reference then explains that the first layer may comprise an ammonia slip catalyst (para. 28). The ammonia slip catalyst can include a platinum-group metal modified by a metal oxide support, such as alumina and other oxides (para. 28). The catalyst has a loading that can be considered a first loading, L1.
The second layer can be provided over the first layer, the second layer being an SCR catalyst composition (para. 33).
As to the substrate feature, Arulraj teaches that the catalyst is coated on a substrate (abstract), the substrate can be a honeycomb flow through monolith that include parallel channels that are open on both ends and have an inlet and outlet end (para. 25). The channels have internal walls with a thickness (para. 25). Although Arulraj does not teach that the interface between the passages and the internal walls is defined by the surface of the internal walls, since the passages make up internal walls and the walls have a surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the surface of the internal walls interfaces between the passages and internal walls.
As to the total loading of the second coating, the total amount of platinum group metal and metal oxide contained in the second coating of the ammonia slip catalyst can be considered the total loading of this catalytic component.
As to the second coating, the ammonia slip catalyst, further comprising zeolite and one or more of Cu and Fe, Arulray explains that the ammonia slip can include a platinum group metal, an inorganic oxide and a zeolite that can include a mixture of these (para. 28).
As to the coating order, Arulraj explains that the first layer can be provided on the inside walls of the substrate (para. 26) and that first layer can be the ammonia slip catalyst (para. 28). Next, the second catalyst layer, which is an SCR catalyst, can be positioned over the first layer (para. 33).
Arulraj teaches that the platinum loading on the ammonia slip catalyst is about 3/gft3 (para. 62).
As to the loading of the Pt metal in the second layer, Andersen describes a NOx reduction system (title and abstract) that employs an SCR (para. 14) with an ammonia slip catalyst (ASC) (para. 16). The SCR include a metal promoted molecular sieve, where the metal can be copper and/or iron (para. 44). The ASC contains platinum group metals in an amount of 1-40 g/ft3 (para. 39).
As to the amount of platinum metal in the ACR, although Arulraj describes adding the platinum group metal into the ASC in an amount of 3 g/ft3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the effective range of platinum-group metal into the ASC catalyst is 1-40 g/ft3, as taught by Andersen for use with the ASC of Arulraj because this range is effective for operating a ASC catalyst for reducing ammonia in an exhaust gas stream.
As to the coating being on the internal walls, Arulraj does not specifically state this.
Szczepanski describes catalytic coating on substrates for use in exhaust treatment from engines (abstract). The reference explains in the background that catalytic substrates are typically a ceramic block that is extruded to form a plurality of channels through which exhaust gases flow (para. 4). Furthermore, the internal channels of these ceramic blocks are typically coated with a catalyst material that catalyzes the chemical reactions necessary to achieve the more desirable emission products (para. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the catalytic coating on the internal walls of the substrate, as taught by Szczepanski, for use with the catalyst coating of Arulraj because Szczepanski explains that it is typical in the prior art to coat the catalyst material in this way.
As to the loading amount, Arulraj and Gilbert does not describe the loading amounts of ASC and SCR.
Spreitzer describes an exhaust treatment system that includes an SCR upstream of an ASC (abstract and Fig. 3). The catalysts are effective to reduce NOx (page 17, lines 9-13). The SCR loading on the substrate (page 10, last para) is from 0.1 to 15 g/inch3 (page 10, lines 3-5) and the ASC loading of the catalyst on the substrate (page 17, lines 1-5) is from 0.3 to 2.3 g/inch3 (page 17, lines 5-7). This ranges from 6 g/l to 915 g/l (SCR) and 18 g/l to 140 g/l (ASC).
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.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to load the SCR and the ASC in an amount of from 6 g/l to 915 g/l (SCR) and 18 g/l to 140 g/l (ASC), as taught by Spreitzer for use with the SCR and ASC of Arulraj and Andersen because these concentrations are effective to reduce NOx in an exhaust gas stream.
As to the second coating layer disposed on the substate ranging from 60-90, the references do not disclose this feature.
Yamashita describes an exhaust gas purification catalyst (title) that includes SCR (para. 2) and an ammonia slip catalyst (para. 5, 6). The reference explains that unreacted ammonia will slip through the SCR (para. 5). A downstream ammonia catalyst reacts ammonia not reacted from the SCR (para. 6). Yamashita explains that when the ammonia catalyst covers the SCR, some ammonia reduction is suppressed (para. 14). As a solution to this, Yamashita explains that having some exposed area not covered by the SCR catalyst layer on the ammonia catalyst promotes oxidation reaction of ammonia (para. 15). As a solution to this, Yamashita explains that the second layer (the ammonia catalyst) is coated on the substrate from the outlet end to towards the inlet end in an amount that is about 40-100% of the substrate (para. 20). In one embodiment, the reference states that the SCR is coated across the entire region of the substate (see comparative example 1, citing to Fig. 5D) and tha the ASC is only partly covering the substrate (see Comparative example 1, and Fig. 5D).
Although this is a comparative example, Yamashita shows that this knowledge was known in the art at the time.
See MPEP section: 2131.05 Nonanalogous or Disparaging Prior Art [R-08.2012] "Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the inventors in Arulraj, Andersen, Szczepanski and Spreitzer would known to alter the length of the coated ASC layer ranging from 40-100% and coating the SCR at about 100% of the substrate, as disclosed by Yamashita because this configuration is known in the prior art and that some exposed ASC can facilitate ammonia oxidation.
As to Claims 18 and 24, Arulraj teaches that the SCR can be made up of zeolites with the frameworks: CHA, FAU, BEA, MFI, MOR (para. 35).
As to Claim 20, Arulraj teaches that the platinum group metal can be chosen from the group Ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, platinum and mixtures of two or more (para. 28). Since in some embodiments, the ammonia slip catalyst can include a metal besides platinum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in some embodiments, the ASC can include a metal that is not platinum and that the amount of platinum used can be zero or close to zero.
As to Claim 22, Arulraj teaches that the ammonia slip catalyst contains a platinum metal support, such as ceria, titania, silica, zirconia and a zeolite or mixtures of any two or more (para. 28). The mixture can include two or more of these, which includes at least three of these metal oxides, which falls under both interpretations of Claim 22.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulraj, Andersen, Szczepanski, Spreitzer and Yamashita as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gilbert (US Pub.: 2016/0367941).
Arulray teaches that the catalyst can contain copper (para. 34), but does not describe an amount of copper.
Gilbert describes a SCR catalyst (para. 82) and explains that the catalyst can include a molecular sieve (para. 91, 92, 93 and 94) modified with a metal, such as one of those in para. 86, which include copper and iron. In specific examples, Gilbert explains that copper is added in an amount of 0.1 to 20wt% (para. 99).
The copper can be in the form of copper oxide (para. 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add copper in an amount of 0.1 to 20wt%, as taught by Gilbert for use with the copper-modified zeolite in Arulraj because this amount of copper for use in SCR catalysts are known to be effective for use in NOx reduction in exhaust streams.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulraj, Andersen, Szczepanski, Spreitzer and Yamashita as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kumar (WO 2008/036908).
Arulraj teaches that the ammonia slip catalyst can include silica (para. 28), but the references do not specifically describe the non-zeolitic oxidic material loading.
Kumar describes an emission treatment method used for NOx reduction (abstract). Kumar describes an ammonia oxide catalyst containing a precious metal, a zeolite and a base metal oxide (para. 11). The catalyst is deposited on a layer of the substrate (para. 11). The precious metal can be a platinum component (para. 11). As to the concentration, Kumar explains that the silica component is in the ammonia oxidation catalyst from 0.1 to 1.5 g/inch3 (para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the silica in an amount of 0.1 to 1.5 g/inch3, as taught by Kumar for use with the ammonia catalyst of Arulraj, Andersen, Szczepanski, Spreitzer and Yamashita because this concentration of silica is effective for use in an ammonia reduction catalyst.
In the case where the claimed ranges “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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05
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 February 20, 2026