DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-18, 20-28, and 30-31 are pending, of which claims 30-31 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant argues that EP 2323762 (“Birdsall”) teaches a catalyst body without a central hole. Applicant further argues that US 2008/0277315 (“Ringer”) teaches a catalyst body with a large number of flutes and holes. Applicant concludes that applying the teachings of Ringer to Birdsall by providing a central hole would require replacing the entire catalyst body of Birdsall with the catalyst body of Ringer.
This argument is unpersuasive because Ringer is not cited for providing the number of flutes or the number of holes. Ringer is cited as teaching the advantages of including a separate central hole, which increases catalyst surface area without reducing stability (see e.g. Ringer at paragraph [0020]). Based on this teaching of Ringer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the catalyst body of Birdsall to include a central hole. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 6, Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not replace the catalyst body of Birdsall with that of Ringer without hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, as described above, the rejection is not predicated upon replacing the entire catalyst body of Birdsall with that of Ringer. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the central hole of Ringer in the catalyst body of Birdsall based on the teachings of Ringer that a central hole increases surface area without reducing stability.
Further on page 6, Applicant argues that Birdsall teaches away from using a catalyst body with 7-10 holes. Examiner agrees with this statement, but the statement does not address the actual rejection. As noted, the rejection is not predicated upon changing the catalyst body of Birdsall to that of Ringer. Ringer teaches the advantages of including a central hole in the catalyst body, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Birdsall to include the central hole, without the need to increase the number of holes to 7-10.
Claim Objections
Each of claims 20 and 22-24 depend from claim 19. However, claim 19 has been cancelled and the limitations of claim 19 have been incorporated into claim 16. As such, the dependency of each of claims 20 and 22-24 must be changed. Examiner believes that each claim depending from claim 19 is now intended to depend from claim 16, and has examined the claims accordingly.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-18, 20, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2323762 (“Birdsall”) in view of 20080277315 (“Ringer”).
Regarding claim 16, Birdsall teaches a solid shaped body having a generally cylindrical form with a first base area, second base area, and lateral area (see e.g. FIG. 1, wherein the top and bottoms are the first and second base area and the side of the body is the lateral area. Birdsall teaches that the lateral area comprises four flutes extending from the first base area to the second base area (see e.g. flutes 20 in FIG. 2). Birdsall also teaches four openings extending from the first base area to the second base area (see e.g. openings 14 in FIG.’s 1-2). Each of the flutes in Birdsall appear to be equidistant to adjacent flutes and to a central axis of the body (see e.g. location of flutes 20 in FIG. 2). Birdsall teaches that the flutes have a diameter of 0.25D, while the openings have a diameter of 0.18D, meaning that the ratio of the radius of the flute to the radius of the opening is 1.39, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0039]). Birdsall teaches that the diameter of the flute is 0.25D, where D is defined as the diameter of the body, meaning that the ratio of the diameter of the flute to the diameter of the body is 0.25, which is within the claimed range (Id.).
Birdsall teaches that the body includes one opening positioned between each flute (see e.g. FIG. 2). Birdsall does not teach that the number of openings is larger than the number of flutes or that the number of openings comprises one central opening and at least one peripheral opening. However, Ringer teaches a similar shaped catalyst body that is generally cylindrical and has both openings and flutes, with one opening between each of the flutes (see e.g. FIG. 1). Ringer further teaches a central opening in the center of the shaped body (see e.g. opening 8 in FIG. 1). Ringer teaches that, with the central opening, the surface of the catalyst body can be further enlarged and the density or weight of the catalyst body further lowered, without any appreciable loss of stability of the catalyst body (see e.g. paragraph [0020]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an additional central opening in the catalyst body as taught by Ringer in order to increase the surface area of the catalyst body and reduce the density without losing stability. Doing so would result in one more opening than flutes as well as one central opening and at least one peripheral opening.
Regarding claim 17, Birdsall teaches that the catalyst can have two to twelve flutes, which would include an embodiment with three flutes (see e.g. paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, Birdsall teaches that the ratio of the height, or length, to the diameter of the shaped body is between 0.5 and 2.0, which is the same as the claimed ratio (see e.g. paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, the peripheral openings of Birdsall can all be the same diameter (see e.g. paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, Birdsall teaches four flutes and four peripheral openings, which would not be affected by including a central opening as taught by Ringer (see Birdsall at FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Birdsall teaches that each of the peripheral openings is arranged between two flutes (see position of openings in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 24, the openings of Birdsall are roughly half-way between the central axis of the body and the outer perimeter of the body (see e.g. FIG. 2). This would put the ratio of the distance between the central axis and the opening to the diameter of the body at about 0.25, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 25, Birdsall teaches that the first and second base areas can be domed (see e.g. paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 26, Birdsall teaches that the ratio of the sum of the sum of the two dome heights over the length of the catalyst is 0.5 to 2.5 (see e.g. paragraph [0014]). Because Birdsall teaches that the domes can have the same height, the ratio of a single dome height to the length of the catalyst would therefore be 0.25 – 1.25, which overlaps with the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 27, Birdsall teaches that the body can comprise metal oxides (see e.g. paragraph [0024]). Exemplary metals to use in the mixed oxide include aluminum, nickel and alkali earth metals, such as magnesium, calcium, and barium (see e.g. paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 28, Birdsall teaches that the body can comprise metal oxides (see e.g. paragraph [0024]). Exemplary metals to use in the mixed oxide include aluminum, cobalt, and rare earth metals, such as lanthanum or hafnium (see e.g. paragraph [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21 recites that the central opening of the catalyst body has a smaller diameter than the peripheral openings. This is a different arrangement than that of Ringer, which teaches a central opening that is larger than the peripheral openings (see e.g. FIG. 1). Ringer teaches that the diameter of the central duct is preferably larger relative to the peripheral ducts in order to take advantage of the decrease in pressure drop without a reduction in stability (see e.g. paragraph [0027]). Based on this teaching it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the diameter of the central duct to a size smaller than the peripheral ducts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736