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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 16
Lines 24-25 recite the language “the DOC according to (ii), and wherein the DOC according to (ii) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine” (emphasis added). The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –the DOC
Regarding Claim 17
Lines 2-3 recite the language “between the means for injecting hydrocarbons according to (i) and the DOC according to (ii)” (emphasis added). The “according to (i)” and “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –between the means for injecting hydrocarbons
Regarding Claim 18
Lines 2-3 recite the language “located upstream of the DOC according to (ii)” (emphasis added). The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –located upstream of the DOC
Regarding Claim 19
Lines 1-2 recite the language “the DOC according to (ii) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine” (emphasis added). The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads – the DOC
Regarding Claim 20
Lines 1-3 recite the language “the means for injecting hydrocarbons into an exhaust gas stream according to (i) is located between the lean burn engine and the DOC according to (ii)” (emphasis added). The “according to (i)” and “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads – the means for injecting hydrocarbons into an exhaust gas stream
Regarding Claim 21
Lines 1-2 recite the language “wherein according to (ii), the catalyst coating is divided”. The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –wherein
Regarding Claim 22
Lines 1-2 recite the language “wherein according to (ii), the loading”. The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –wherein
Regarding Claim 23
Lines 1-2 recite the language “wherein according to (ii), the inlet coating”. The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –wherein
Regarding Claim 24
Lines 1-2 recite the language “wherein according to (ii), the loading”. The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –wherein
Regarding Claim 25
Lines 1-2 recite the language “wherein according to (ii), the outlet coating”. The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –wherein
Regarding Claim 26
Lines 1-2 recite the language “wherein according to (ii), the inlet coating”. The “according to (ii)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –wherein
Regarding Claim 27
Lines 1-2 recite the language “the catalyst coating of the MFC according to (iv)”. The “according to (iv)” language is not conventional language. The claim language should be amended to remove the unconventional language such that the claim reads –the catalyst coating of the MFC .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 18
Line 2 recites the limitation “a lean burn engine”. However, claim 16 previously disclosed “a lean burn engine”. Therefore, it is unclear if the lean burn engine of claim 18 is the same limitation as recited in claim 16 or if it is a new limitation. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as the same limitation as in claim 16.
Regarding Claims 19-20
Claims 19-20 are rejected insofar as it is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding Claim 18
Lines 1-3 recite the limitation “the exhaust gas treatment system further comprises a lean burn engine located upstream of the DOC according to (ii)”. This exact language was added to independent claim 16, from which claim 18 depends. Therefore, claim 18 fails to further limit claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the DOC according to (ii) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine”. This exact language was added to independent claim 16, from which claim 19 depends. Therefore, claim 19 fails to further limit claim 16.
Regarding Claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected insofar as it is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 16-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorner, WO 2019/159151 A1, in view of Fedeyko et al., US 9,579,638.
Regarding Claim 16
Dorner discloses an exhaust gas treatment system for treating exhaust gas from a lean burn combustion engine (Dorner, Page 3, Lines 16-17), wherein the exhaust gas comprises hydrocarbons and NOx (Dorner, Page 1, Lines 5-7 and Page 24, Lines 4-6, Abstract), the exhaust gas treatment system comprising:
a means for injecting hydrocarbons (fuel) into an exhaust gas stream (Dorner, Figure 5A);
a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) comprising a substrate (flow-thru substrate) and a catalyst coating (flow-thru DOC) provided on the substrate (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 34-35), wherein the catalyst coating comprises one or more platinum group metals (Pt and Pd), wherein the one or more platinum group metals comprise platinum (Pt) (Dorner, Page 24, Line 34-35, Figure 5A);
a means for injecting a nitrogenous reducing agent (urea) into an exhaust gas stream (Dorner, Figure 5A); and
a multifunctional catalyst (MFC) (SCR/AMOX) comprising an oxidation catalyst (AMOX), and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst for the selective catalytic reduction of NOx (Dorner, Page 11, Lines 35-37), wherein the MFC (SCR/AMOX) comprises a substrate (flow-thru substrate) and a catalyst coating provided on the substrate (Dorner, Page 25, Lines 5-8, Figure 5A), wherein the catalyst coating comprises the oxidation catalyst (AMOX) and the SCR catalyst (SCR), and the catalyst coating comprises the oxidation catalyst and the SCR catalyst (the catalyst coating of Dorner contains both the oxidation catalyst and the SCR catalyst on the substrate (Dorner, Page 18, Lines 18-29 and Page 25, Lines 5-8)), wherein the oxidation catalyst (AMOX) comprises one or more platinum group metals (Pt, Pd, Rh) (Dorner, Page 16, Lines 19-21 and Page 18, Lines 30-33), wherein the one or more platinum group metals comprise palladium (Pd) (Dorner, Page 16, Lines 12-21), and wherein the SCR catalyst (SCR) comprises a zeolitic material (chabazite) loaded with copper (Cu) (Dorner, Page 25, Lines 5-8, Figure 5A);
wherein the means for injecting hydrocarbons (fuel), the DOC (DOC), the means for injecting a nitrogenous reducing agent (urea), and the MFC (SCR/AMOX) are located in sequential order in a conduit for exhaust gas (Dorner, Figures 5A), and
wherein the means for injecting hydrocarbons (fuel) into the exhaust gas stream is located upstream of the DOC (DOC) (Dorner, Figure 5A), wherein the DOC (DOC) is located upstream of the MFC (SCR/AMOX) (Dorner, Figure 5A), and wherein the means for injecting the nitrogenous reducing agent (urea) into the exhaust gas stream is located between the DOC (DOC) and the MFC (SCR/AMOX) (Dorner, Figure 5A), and
wherein the exhaust gas treatment system further comprises a lean burn engine located upstream of the DOC (DOC) according to (ii) (Dorner, Page 5, Lines 16-17, Figure 5A), and wherein the DOC (DOC) according to (II) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 32-35, Figure 5A).
However, Dorner does not disclose that the catalyst coating comprises a mixture of the oxidation catalyst and the SCR catalyst.
Fedeyko teaches a multifunctional catalyst in which a catalyst coating (25) comprises a mixture of an oxidation catalyst and an SCR catalyst (Fedeyko, Column 10, Lines 7-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the multifunctional catalyst coating configuration of Dorner for the multifunctional catalyst coating configuration of Fedeyko such that the catalyst coating comprises a mixture of an oxidation catalyst and an SCR catalyst, since an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 17
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claim 16 above. Dorner further discloses that no further component is located in the exhaust gas treatment system between the means for injecting hydrocarbons according to (i) and the DOC according to (ii) (Dorner, Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 18
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claim 16 above. Dorner further disclosed that the exhaust gas treatment system further comprises a lean burn engine located upstream of the DOC according to (ii) (Dorner, Page 5, Lines 16-17).
Regarding Claim 19
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claims 16 and 18 above. Dorner further discloses that the DOC according to (ii) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 32-35, Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 20
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claims 16 and 18 above. Dorner further discloses that the means for injecting hydrocarbons (fuel injector) into an exhaust gas stream according to (i) is located between the lean burn engine and the DOC according to (ii) (Dorner, Figure 5A).
Regarding Claim 21
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claim 16 above. Dorner further discloses wherein according to (ii), the catalyst coating is divided into a catalytic inlet coating defining an upstream zone and a catalytic outlet coating defining a downstream zone (Dorner, Page 17, Lines 14-18);
wherein the substrate of the DOC has an inlet end, an outlet end, a substrate axial length extending between the inlet end and the outlet end, and a plurality of passages defined by internal walls of the substrate (Dorner, Page 2, Lines 32-38, Figure 4);
wherein the internal walls of the plurality of passages of the substrate of the DOC comprise the catalytic inlet coating extending from the inlet end to an inlet coating end and defining an inlet coating length (Dorner, Page 2, Lines 34-36 and Page 24, Lines 35-36);
wherein the inlet coating length is x % of the substrate axial length, with 0 < x < 100 (upstream zone, where x =33) (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 35-36);
wherein the internal walls of the plurality of passages of the substrate of the DOC comprise the outlet coating extending from the outlet end to an outlet coating end and defining an outlet coating length (Dorner, Page 24, Line 37- Page 25, Line 1);
wherein the outlet coating length is (100-x)% [67%, Dorner, Page 24, Line 37- Page 25, Line 1] of the substrate axial length (downstream zone) (Dorner, Page 17, Lines 14-22 and Page 24, Line 37- Page 25, Line 1);
wherein the inlet coating length defines an upstream zone of the DOC and the outlet coating length defines a downstream zone of the DOC (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 35-38);
wherein the inlet coating comprises one or more platinum group metals (Pt and Pd), wherein the one or more platinum group metals comprise platinum (Pt) (Dorner, Page 24, Line 37); and
wherein the outlet coating comprises one or more platinum group metals (Pt and Pd), wherein the one or more platinum group metals comprise platinum (Pt) (Dorner, Page 24, Line 38).
Regarding Claim 22
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claims 16 and 21 above. Dorner further discloses wherein according to (ii), the loading of the total amount of platinum group metals contained in the inlet coating of the DOC ranges from 0.18 g/L to 2.83 g/L (5 g/ft3 to 80 g/ft3) [Dorner teaches 50 g/ft3] (Dorner, Page 17, Lines 18-22).
Regarding Claim 23
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in claims 16 and 21 above. Dorner further discloses wherein according to (ii), the inlet coating of the DOC has a Pt/Pd weight ratio ranging from 5:1 to 1:5 [Dorner teaches a 5:1 ratio) (Dorner, Page 17, Lines 21).
Regarding Claim 24
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claims 16 and 21 above. Dorner further discloses wherein according to (ii), the loading of the total amount of platinum group metals, calculated as elemental platinum group metal, contained in the outlet coating of the DOC ranges from 0.035g/L to 2.47 g/L (1 g/ft3 to 70 g/ft3) [Dorner teaches 20-24 g/ft3] (Dorner, Page 17, Lines 18-22).
Regarding Claim 25
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claims 16 and 21 above. Dorner further discloses wherein according to (ii), the outlet coating of the DOC has a Pt/Pd weight ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:0 [Dorner teaches a 5:1 ratio] (Dorner, Page 17, Lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 27
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claim 16 above. Dorner further discloses wherein the catalyst coating of the MFC according to (iv) comprises a copper (Cu) containing zeolitic material (chabazite) (Dorner, Page 25, Lines 5-8, Figure 5A) having a framework structure of the type CHA and the one or more platinum group metals are supported on a refractory metal oxide comprising one or more of zirconia, alumina and titania (Dorner, Page 18, Lines 18-29), and the catalyst coating consists of an overcoat (topcoat), wherein the copper containing zeolitic material having a framework structure of the type CHA is comprised (SCR topcoat of Cu-chabazite) (Dorner, Page 25, Lines 5-7), and an undercoat (bottom zone coat), wherein the platinum group metal supported on an refractory metal oxide is comprised (AMOX on alumina), wherein the undercoat is disposed on at least a portion of the surface of the internal walls of the substrate of the MFC according to (iv) and the overcoat is disposed on the undercoat (Dorner, Page 18, Lines 18-29 and Page 25, Lines 5-8).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorner, WO 2019/159151 A1, in view of Fedeyko et al., US 9,579,638, and further in view of Feaviour, US 2018/0085707.
Regarding Claim 26
Dorner and Fedeyko teach the system as rejected in Claim 21 above. However, Dorner does not explicitly disclose wherein according to (ii), the inlet coating and/or outlet coating of the DOC do not contain platinum group metals other than Pt and/or Pd beyond contaminants less than 2% by weight of the total sum weight of Pt and Pd.
Feaviour teaches an oxidation catalyst that comprises a platinum group metal selected from the group consisting of (i) platinum, (ii) palladium and (iii) platinum and palladium; wherein the platinum group metal may comprise platinum as the only platinum group metal (Feaviour, Abstract, [0054]). [Therefore, the oxidation catalyst does not contain platinum group metals other than Pt, and as Pt is the only platinum group metal, the platinum group metal contaminants (other than Pt and/or Pd) are 0% by weight of the total sum weight of Pt and Pd (less than 2%).]
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine platinum group metal component (platinum only) of the DOC as taught by Feaviour with the platinum group metal component (platinum and/or palladium) of the oxidation catalyst taught by Dorner since this would provide advantageous oxidation activity toward carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons (Feaviour, [0054]-[0055]).
Therefore, the combination of Dorner, Fedeyko, and Feaviour teaches the inlet coating and/or outlet coating of the DOC do not contain platinum group metals other than Pt and/or Pd beyond contaminants less than 2% by weight of the total sum weight of Pt and Pd.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the Applicant’s argument that the cited prior references fail to disclose the amended claim 16, which recites “wherein the exhaust gas treatment system further comprises a lean burn engine located upstream of the DOC according to (ii), and wherein the DOC according to (ii) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine” the Examiner is unconvinced. Dorner discloses that the exhaust gas treatment system further comprises a lean burn engine located upstream of the DOC (DOC) according to (ii) (Dorner, Page 5, Lines 16-17, Figure 5A), and wherein the DOC (DOC) according to (II) is close-coupled to the lean burn engine (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 32-35, Figure 5A). The Applicant further argues that Dorner teaches a system configuration that is opposite to the claimed invention, a close-coupled SCR and a DOC located downstream thereof. The Examiner is unconvinced. Dorner teaches a configuration (Figure 5A of Dorner) that teaches a close-coupled DOC and a SCR downstream thereof (Dorner, Page 24, Lines 32-35, Figure 5A). The Applicant further argues that Fedeyko does not cure the deficiency of claim 16. Dorner teaches the amended limitations of claim 16, and therefore Fedeyko does not need to cure any deficiency with regard to the amended limitations. Claims 16-27 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s amendments made to claim 16 have initiated new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights