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
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 20190323401 A1 Miyairi et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to further require “wherein at least a portion of the magnetic material is dispersed within the ceramic material or contained within pores of the ceramic material.”. Applicant argues “the metal particles in Miyairi et al are placed within the open internal spaces of the cell passages, not within the ceramic material itself or within pores of the ceramic walls. Miyairi discloses metal particles or metal fragments introduced into "one or more internal spaces of one or more cells" of the ceramic base body.” [Remarks, Page 6, Paragraph 6]. This is unpersuasive. Miyairi et al. discloses that the magnetic material is microscopic (“the metal particles or metal fragments each may have an average particle size equal to or less than 100 µm” [0011]) and that the ceramic base body is porous (“The ceramic base body 90 may be a non-conductive porous body, for example” [0061]). Although Miyairi et al. does not explicitly disclose that a portion of the magnetic material resides within microscopic pores one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such an arrangement is inevitable when the microscopic magnetic material is coated on the outside of a porous body, and therefore it is considered implicitly disclosed. MPEP 2112. The rejection is MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 2020039007 A1 Kilmartin et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to further require “wherein at least a portion of the magnetic material is dispersed within the ceramic material or contained within pores of the ceramic material.”. Applicant argues “Kilmartin et al. further discloses that the magnetic particles are "applied as a washcoat on the walls 40" of the substrate. See Kilmartin et al., para. [0062]. A washcoat is a coating applied to the surface of the substrate walls, not dispersed within the ceramic material itself or contained within pores. Accordingly, Kilmartin et al. does not disclose or teach "at least a portion of the magnetic material is dispersed within the ceramic material or contained within pores of the ceramic material" as recited by claim 1 as amended.” [Page 8, Paragraph 1]. This is unpersuasive. Kilmartin et al. discloses “The non-metallic substrate comprises a plurality of catalytically-active transition-metal-doped iron oxide magnetic particles. These may be an integral part of the substrate, such as a coextruded ingredient, or provided as a washcoat. Preferably the plurality of catalytically–active magnetic particles are provided as a washcoat on the non-metallic substrate” [0019]. Although the washcoat is the preferred embodiment of Kilmartin et al. they do indeed disclose magnetic material dispersed within the ceramic material as an embodiment. A preferred embodiment does not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments, see MPEP 2123.II. The rejections are MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 20190323401 A1 Miyairi et al. Claim 1 requires “A catalyst substrate, comprising: a) a ceramic material”. Miyairi et al. discloses “A catalyst substrate according to an aspect of the present disclosure may include: a ceramic base body” [0005].
Claim 1 further requires “b) a magnetic material, and wherein the magnetic material is capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating magnetic field.”. Miyairi et al. discloses “a plurality of metal particles or metal fragments introduced into one or more internal spaces of one or more selected cells in the plurality of cells, wherein each of the plurality of metal particles or metal fragments has a size equal to or less than an opening width of the cell, and the plurality of metal particles or metal fragments is configured to generate heat in accordance with varying magnetic field.” [0005]. Furthermore Miyairi et al. discloses “The metal particles or metal fragments 82 for induction heating may present a magnetic property.” [0067].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein at least a portion of the magnetic material is dispersed within the ceramic material or contained within pores of the ceramic material.”. Miyairi et al. discloses that the magnetic material is microscopic “the metal particles or metal fragments each may have an average particle size equal to or less than 100 µm” [0011] and that the ceramic base body is porous “The ceramic base body 90 may be a non-conductive porous body, for example” [0061]. Although Miyairi et al. does not explicitly disclose that at least a portion of the magnetic material resides within microscopic pores one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such an arrangement is inevitable when the microscopic magnetic material is coated on the outside of a porous body, and therefore it is considered implicitly disclosed.
Claim 2 requires “the magnetic material is contained within the ceramic material.”. Miyairi et al. discloses “introducing a plurality of metal particles or metal fragments into one or more internal spaces of one or more selected cells in the plurality of cells of the ceramic base body” [0019].
Claim 3 requires “the magnetic material is contained within pores of the ceramic material.”. Miyairi et al. discloses forming pores in the ceramic body “If required, a pore-forming agent may be added to the clay.” [0064] and filling internal spaces with magnetic material “In the present embodiment, the metal particles or metal fragments 82 are introduced into one or more internal
spaces of one or more cells 93 selected in the plurality of cells 93 of the ceramic base body” [0065]. These internal spaces of the one or more cells are understood to be internal pores.
Claim 8 requires “the magnetic material is in particulate form.”. Miyairi et al. discloses “Note that, in a case in which diameter of each metal particle in the multiplicity of metal particles is small, it would be understood that a powder made of the multiplicity of metal particles is introduced into the cell 93.” [0071]. A powder is understood to be in particulate form.
Claim 9 requires “the ceramic material comprises one or more of cordierite, silicon carbide, or aluminum titanate.”. Miyairi et al. discloses cordierite “In a case, the ceramic base body 90
includes cordierite (2MgO.2Al2O3.5SiO2) or is made of cordierite (2MgO.2Al2O3.5SiO2).” [0061].
Claim 11 requires “the magnetic material is more concentrated within certain regions of the ceramic material.”. Miyairi et al. discloses “one or more cells 93 into which metal particles or metal fragments 82 have been introduced for induction heating will be referred to as "heating cell(s)". Cells 93 other than the "heating cells" are cells into which a catalyst will be introduced in future, and will be referred to as "catalyst cell(s)".” [0066]. In other words the magnetic material is more concentrated within the heating cells than within the catalyst cells.
Claim 13 requires “the catalyst substrate is cylindrical with a radial center and a radial edge, and wherein the magnetic material is more concentrated at the radial center than at the radial edge, or wherein the magnetic material is more concentrated at the radial edge than at the radial center.”. Miyairi et al. discloses a cylindrical shape “The ceramic base body 90 could take various shapes such as a
cylinder or a prism.” [0059]. Furthermore Figure 3 (below) shows a cross section of such a cylindrical substrate with shaded portions (93H) representing closed passages filled with magnetic material and unshaded portions (93C) representing open passages coated with a catalyst (no magnetic material). It can be seen that in the center each heating portion is surrounded by 8 non-heating portions, a ratio of 1:8 while on the outside the non-heating portions are cut off, making the concentration of magnetic material greater than 1:8 (see highlighted examples). Therefore Miyairi et al. discloses at least one embodiment wherein the magnetic material is more concentrated at the radial edge than at the radial center.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 requires “the catalyst substrate is in a form of a monolithic flow-through substrate having an inlet end and an outlet end, and having a plurality of parallel gas passages extending from the inlet end to the outlet end, that are open to fluid flow.”. See Figure 1 of Miyairi et al. (below). It is understood that this figure depicts a monolithic flow-through substrate having an inlet end and an outlet end and having a plurality of parallel gas passages.
PNG
media_image2.png
299
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 requires “the catalyst substrate is in a form of a wall-flow substrate having an inlet and an outlet end, and having a plurality of parallel gas passages extending from the inlet end to the outlet end”. See Figure 1 of Miyairi et al. (above). It is understood that this figure depicts a wall-flow substrate having an inlet end and an outlet end and having a plurality of parallel gas passages.
Claim 15 further requires “wherein a portion of the plurality of parallel gas passages are blocked at the inlet end and open at the outlet end and an alternate portion of the plurality of parallel gas passages are open at the inlet end and blocked at the outlet end.”. Miyairi et al. discloses sealing one or both of either ends “a sealing portion 96 that seals an open end of the cell 93 may be provided at one or both of the first end 91 and the second end 92 of the ceramic base body 90.” [0072], which is understood to encompass an embodiment with some passages sealed on the inlet and some passages sealed on the outlet.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 2020039007 A1 Kilmartin et al. Claim 1 requires “A catalyst substrate, comprising: a) a ceramic material and b) a magnetic material, and wherein the magnetic material is capable of inductive heating in response to an applied alternating magnetic field.”. Kilmartin et al. discloses “Accordingly in a first embodiment there is provided an exhaust gas treatment system comprising a catalyst article for the treatment of an exhaust gas, the catalyst article comprising a non-metallic substrate comprising a plurality of catalytically-active transition-metal-doped iron oxide magnetic particles, and an inductive heater for heating the plurality of catalytically-active magnetic particles by applying an alternating magnetic field.” [0012-0013]. Regarding the substrate Kilmartin et al. further discloses “Preferably the non-metallic substrate is a ceramic substrate, preferably comprising SiC, aluminium titanate or Cordierite.” [0017].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein at least a portion of the magnetic material is dispersed within the ceramic material or contained within pores of the ceramic material.”. Kilmartin et al. discloses “The non-metallic substrate comprises a plurality of catalytically-active transition-metal-doped iron oxide magnetic particles. These may be an integral part of the substrate, such as a coextruded ingredient, or provided as a washcoat.” [0019]. It is understood that when the magnetic particles are coextruded that they are dispersed within the ceramic material.
Claim 4 requires “the magnetic material comprises an electrically insulating material.”. While Kilmartin et al. is silent towards electrical insulators/conductors they do disclose iron oxide magnetic particles as the magnetic material (see Claim 1). Iron oxide is generally considered an electrical insulator. Furthermore the specification does not provide any guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art for howe to include an electrical insulator material other than the selection of iron oxide or other metallic oxides. Therefore it is understood in order to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the present invention metallic oxides must be considered electrical insulators.
Claim 5 requires “the magnetic material comprises one or more metal oxides selected from transition metal oxides and rare earth metal oxides.”. Kilmartin et al. discloses iron oxide (see Claim 1) which is a transition metal oxide.
Claim 7 requires “the one or more metal oxides comprise one or more of oxides of lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, gadolinium, yttrium, praseodymium, samarium, hafnium, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and zinc.”. Kilmartin et al. discloses iron oxide (see Claim 1).
Claim 10 requires “the magnetic material is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the ceramic material.”. Kilmartin et al. discloses “Preferably the plurality of catalytically-active magnetic particles are provided as a washcoat on the nonmetallic substrate. … This is effected, for example, by dipping the extruded support body into a suspension containing the catalytically-active transition-metal-doped iron oxide magnetic particles” [0019]. It is understood that a washcoat formed by dipping the substrate into a solution would lead to a uniform coating of particles throughout the substrate.
Claim 12 requires “the catalyst substrate comprises an inlet end and an outlet and, and wherein the magnetic material is more concentrated at the inlet end than at the outlet end, or is more concentrated at the outlet end than at the inlet end.”. Kilmartin et al discloses and inlet and outlet “An exhaust gas at room temperature (approximately 25° C.) from the exhaust gas supply 90 flowed into
the tube 80 via the inlet 85, contacted the plurality of particles 45 and flowed out of the tube 80 via the outlet 87 to the MKS MultiGasTM 2030 FTIR spectroscope 100 for analysis.” [0078]. Regarding the concentration of magnetic material Kilmartin et al. further discloses “Preferably the magnetic particles are provided only on a region extending from one end of the catalyst article. This allows efficiency use of energy to heat a leading (or upstream) edge of a catalyst article.” [0037].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights