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 filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks at Page 9 that the reason why Examples of Abe use the metallic honeycomb as a zeolite adsorbent loading substrate is that electrodes 11 are attached to it so as to turn it into a heater. This argument is unpersuasive since Abe’s disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from the broader disclosure of an upstream zeolite adsorbent on a metal honeycomb substrate without being made into a heater. Abe discloses that zeolite adsorbent may employ a ceramic or metallic honeycomb structure because it is heat-resistant and thermal shock resistant. Furthermore, Abe also discloses examples where the zeolite adsorbent is not being used as a heater since it is loaded on a cordierite honeycomb carrier (see Examples 6-9 ab d Table 2).
Regarding delaying the warm-up of the adsorbent by coating on a metallic substrate which has a higher heat capacity, Abe et al (US 5,5538,697) is presently cited as prior art evidence teaching using a material such as metal of larger heat capacity for the absorption portion of absorbent-catalyst systems to improve the capture of hydrocarbon during cold starts.
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) 12-18 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al (US 5,296,198) and in further view of Hu et al (5,597,771) and in further view of Abe et al (US 5,538,697 hereinafter referred to as Abe-2).
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses an arrangement of a honeycomb heater in an exhaust gas system, the arrangement comprising a zeolite absorbent 1 which absorbs hydrocarbons (HC) located most upstream followed by a heater 2 and the heater followed by the main monolith catalyst 3. (see Col 4, Ln 6-59 and Figure 1(a)).
Abe discloses where the zeolite absorbent comprises a honeycomb structure composed of zeolite loaded on a metallic substrate (see Col 9, Ln 44-52). Abe further discloses the zeolite absorbent comprising a catalyst (see Col 4, Ln 10-11). Abe discloses that the main monolith catalyst is a conventional type but preferably a three-way catalyst (see Col 9, Ln 41-43). Abe discloses an example where the main monolith catalyst comprises a three-way catalyst carried on a ceramic honeycomb structure (see Col 12, LN 60-64).
Abe therefore discloses an exhaust gas purification comprising in this order from an upstream side of an exhaust gas flow, a first exhaust gas purification device comprising a metal honeycomb substrate and a first catalytic coating layer comprising an adsorbent capable of adsorbing HC (i.e., the zeolite adsorbent with catalyst coated on a metal honeycomb); a heater; and a second exhaust gas purification catalytic device comprising a ceramic honeycomb structure and a second catalytic coating layer on the ceramic honeycomb substrate.
Abe does not disclose where the main monolith catalyst comprising a cordierite honeycomb substrate and second catalytic coating layer comprises inorganic particles and catalytic noble metals supported by the inorganic oxide particles. Abe also does not disclose where the heat capacity of the metal honeycomb substrate is greater than a heat capacity of the cordierite honeycomb substrate.
Hu discloses a three-way conversion catalyst comprising a layered catalyst composite comprising a first layer composition and a second layer composition supported on a carrier preferably a honeycomb substrate (see Col 10, Ln 7-15). Hu discloses the catalytic materials coated as a washcoat in the channels of a carrier comprising a ceramic carrier where the ceramic carrier maybe any suitable refractory material including cordierite (see Col 18, Ln 24-40). Hu discloses the first and second coating composition comprising palladium and optionally a second useful platinum group metal component each supported on a high surface area refractory oxide support which are applied as a thin coating on the monolithic carrier substrate (see Col 12, Ln 15 to Col 13, LN 60). Hu further discloses that the catalyst is useful as a three-way conversion catalyst and improves the effective reduction of NOx and HC over wide temperature range (see Col 11, Ln 44-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the exhaust gas system as disclosed by Abe to comprise as the main monolith catalyst a cordierite honeycomb structure supporting a first and second layer composition each comprising palladium supported on refractory oxide supports as disclosed by Hu since it is useful as a three-way catalyst and improves reduction of NOx and HC over a wide temperature range as suggested by Hu.
Regarding the heat capacity of the metal honeycomb substrate greater than the heat capacity of the cordierite honeycomb substrate, Abe-2 discloses an absorbent-catalyst for exhaust gas purification comprising an absorbent portion upstream of a catalyst portion, where the absorbent portion is less susceptible to temperature elevation by making the heat capacity of the absorbent portion larger than that of the catalyst portion (see Col 3, Ln 3-65). Abe-2 further discloses an absorbent-catalyst the absorbent portion has a larger heat capacity than the catalyst portion by using a material (e.g. metal) of larger heat capacity for the absorption portion of the honeycomb structure (see Col 4, Ln 59 to Col 5, Ln 2). Abe-2 discloses that the absorbent-catalyst made with this approach improves the absorption of the HC from the cold start while allowing the catalyst system to more quickly reach the ignition temperature for purifying desorbed HC (see Col 3, Ln 66 to Col 4, Ln 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the exhaust gas system as suggested by Abe and Hu to comprise an absorbent portion on a metal honeycomb support having a larger heat capacity than the main monolith catalyst as taught by Abe-2 to reduce emission of unpurified hydrocarbon during cold starts as suggested by Abe-2.
Regarding claim 13, Abe discloses the heater in the form of a disk (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Abe discloses a heater fixed to an exhaust gas flow downstream end of the zeolite absorbent (i.e., the metal honeycomb substrate).
Regarding claim 15, it has been held that making use of a one-piece construction instead of what is separately fixed is a merely a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.V.B.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to make the exhaust gas system as disclosed by Abe and Hu where the heater is formed integrally with an exhaust gas flow downstream side of the metal honeycomb as a mere matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 16-17, Abe discloses where the absorbent comprises zeolite.
Regarding claim 18, Abe discloses the where the zeolite comprises H-ZSM-5 (i.e., an MFI zeolite).
Regarding claims 26-28, Hu discloses a catalyst comprising two-layer configuration in which a lower layer and an upper layer comprising inorganic oxide particles and catalytic noble metal particles supported by the inorganic oxide particles are laminated in order on the substrate.
Claim(s) 19 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 as applied to claim 12 and in further view of JPH0256247 where citations are from the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
As applied to claim 12, Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 disclose the catalyst comprising all of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Abe further discloses a zeolite HC absorbent/catalyst device comprising a coating layer comprising platinum supported on the zeolite and platinum and rhodium impregnated on gamma-alumina/CeO2 coated onto the honeycomb structure (see Col 10, Ln 65 to Col 11, Ln 21).
Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 do not disclose an upper layer comprising inorganic oxide particles other than the adsorbent and catalytic noble metal particles and the catalytic noble metal particles are supported by the inorganic oxide particles other than the adsorbent.
JPH0256247 discloses a catalyst for exhaust air purification comprising a monolith carrier such as cordierite or a laminate of heat resistant thin metal plates, a first catalyst layer comprising zeolite as the main component for selectively absorbing on the zeolite when cold, heat-resistant oxides such as alumina, zirconia, and rare earth oxides in addition to zeolite, and a noble metal catalyst Pt, Pd, Rh supported on the first catalyst layer, and a second catalyst layer by forming a coat layer of alumina or the like on the first catalyst layer and then supporting a precious such as Pt, Pd, Rh, or the like on this coat layer (see [Means for Solving the Problem[). JPH0256247 discloses that the catalyst provides particularly high hydrocarbon purification activity in a cold state (See [Problem to be solved by the invention]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the exhaust gas purification system as disclosed by Abe, Hu, and Abe-2, where the first catalyst layer comprising the HC absorbent comprises a lower first catalyst layer comprising zeolite as the main component for selectively absorbing on the zeolite when cold, heat-resistant oxides such as alumina, zirconia, and rare earth oxides in addition to zeolite, and a noble metal catalyst Pt, Pd, Rh supported on the first catalyst layer, and a second catalyst layer by forming a coat layer of alumina or the like on the first catalyst layer and then supporting a precious such as Pt, Pd, Rh, or the like on this coat layer, as disclosed by JPH0256247 to provide particularly high hydrocarbon purification activity in a cold state as suggested by JPH0256247.
Regarding claim 29, Hu discloses a catalyst comprising two-layer configuration in which a lower layer and an upper layer comprising inorganic oxide particles and catalytic noble metal particles supported by the inorganic oxide particles are laminated in order on the substrate.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 as applied to claim 12 or 17-18 and in further view of Dalla Betta et al (US 5,248,251).
As applied to claims 12 or 17-18, Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 disclose the catalyst comprising all of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 20-22, Abe and Hu do not disclose wherein in the second catalytic coating layer a mass of the catalytic noble metal particles in an upstream have of an exhaust gas flow is greater than a mass of the catalytic noble metal particles in a downstream half of the exhaust gas flow.
Dalla Betta discloses a graded catalyst comprising palladium where the catalyst is situated on the support so that the flowing gas stream in a leading portion of the support has a higher combustion activity, such as by a higher concentration of catalytic metal than has the trailing portion. Dalla Betta discloses that the combination of graded catalyst and support provides a low “light off” temperature (needs only a low preheat temperature to begin) (see Col 1, LN 10-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the engine exhaust system as disclosed by Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 to have a second catalytic coating layer where a mass of the catalytic noble metal particles in an upstream is greater than the downstream half to improve the light off temperature of the three-way catalyst.
Regarding claim 24, Dalla Betta discloses embodiments where the leading half of the catalyst has between more than 50% by mass to 90% by mass or less than the trailing half (see Figure 1b to 2d).
Regarding claim 30, Hu discloses a catalyst comprising two-layer configuration in which a lower layer and an upper layer comprising inorganic oxide particles and catalytic noble metal particles supported by the inorganic oxide particles are laminated in order on the substrate.
Claim(s) 23, 25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, Hu, Abe-2 and JPH025247 as applied to claim 19 and in further view of Dalla Betta et al (US 5,248,251).
As applied to claim 19, Abe, Hu, Abe-2 and JPH025247 disclose the catalyst comprising all of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Abe, Hu, Abe-2 and JPH025247 do not disclose wherein in the second catalytic coating layer a mass of the catalytic noble metal particles in an upstream have of an exhaust gas flow is greater than a mass of the catalytic noble metal particles in a downstream half of the exhaust gas flow.
Dalla Betta discloses a graded catalyst comprising palladium where the catalyst is situated on the support so that the flowing gas stream in a leading portion of the support has a higher combustion activity, such as by a higher concentration of catalytic metal than has the trailing portion. Dalla Betta discloses that the combination of graded catalyst and support provides a low “light off” temperature (needs only a low preheat temperature to begin) (see Col 1, LN 10-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the engine exhaust system as disclosed by Abe, Hu, Abe-2 and JPH025247 to have a second catalytic coating layer where a mass of the catalytic noble metal particles in an upstream is greater than the downstream half to improve the light off temperature of the three-way catalyst.
Regarding claim 25, Dalla Betta discloses embodiments where the leading half of the catalyst has between more than 50% by mass to 90% by mass or less than the trailing half (see Figure 1b to 2d).
Regarding claim 31, Hu discloses a catalyst comprising two-layer configuration in which a lower layer and an upper layer comprising inorganic oxide particles and catalytic noble metal particles supported by the inorganic oxide particles are laminated in order on the substrate.
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 as applied to claim 12 and in further view of Ohmori et al (US 2001/0054285).
As applied to claim 12, Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 teach all of the limitations of claim 12.
Abe and Abe-2 disclose zeolite HC absorbent supported on a metal honeycomb structure but do not specifically disclose stainless steel.
Ohmori teaches an exhaust gas purification apparatus comprising an HC absorbent comprised of a honeycomb core made of a metal (for example, stainless steel), which carries zeolite on its surface (see [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the exhaust gas system as suggested by Abe, Hu, and Abe-2 where the metal honeycomb supporting the zeolite comprises a stainless-steel honeycomb as taught by Ohmori as the mere combination of prior art elements with the predictable result that it would properly form an effective HC absorbent since Ohmori also discloses an HC absorbent.
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 MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738