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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-12 (group) and Claims 5 and 14 (species) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/20/25.
The remarks argue the following:
Applicant respectfully submits that unity of invention exists between different groups because there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions. Namely, each requires the method of Group I. Further, as noted by the Office, PCT Rule 13.2 Annex B, Part 1(e) indicates that, where, as here, there are certain combinations of different categories of claims, there is unity of invention.
Here, Group I is directed to a method for adsorbing and desorbing nitrogen oxides (NOx) from a catalyst article, and II is directed to a system for treating an exhaust gas stream comprising that catalyst article (‘an apparatus or means specially designed for carrying out said process”.) These fall squarely in the categories of 37 CFR 1.475 (b) as noted by the office: “(3)A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.” Office Action, page 3, 4" paragraph.
Applicant respectfully requests rejoinder of Group II with elected Group I Applicant reserves the right to file one or more divisional applications corresponding to any cancelled, non- joined, or non-elected claims.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive for the following reasons. Point (5) of page 3, 4th paragraph of the restriction requirement describes unity of invention, but it is respectfully submitted that these features are known in the art cited (see restriction.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, line 7 states “effective for”, which makes the features following not limiting because the same composition would be capable of performing the same method steps. Similarly, the use of the words “capable of” in Claim 1, line 9 (and in other areas) are not further limiting of the method steps that follow these words because the same composition would be effective to perform the same steps. Claim 1, line 11 “associated therewith” is broad and any means the two devices are associated will be treated as reading on this feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 2-9, 13, 15 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.
Claim 1, line 15 “by passing current” should be amended to “by passing the current” to maintain the antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 15-16 “to generate an alternating” should be amended to “to generate the alternating” to maintain the antecedent basis.
Claim 11, line 1 “the NCR adsorber” lacks antecedent basis. In light of Claim 10, the office interprets the term as “the NOx adsorber”. Clarification is requested.
Claims 2-9, 13, 15 are indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2017/195107) and in view of Brown (US Pub.: 2017/0314438).
Yang describes a method for treating engine exhaust (page 1, lines 2-4) that can derive from either a gasoline or diesel engine (page 2, lines 7-9) to treat various pollutants, such as NOx gases (page 2, lines 27-29) using catalysts (page 2, lines 29-36). In their process, Yang teach use of a catalyst composition that is made up a mixture of catalytic material with a magnetic material (page 6, lines 33-35). An applied alternating electromagnetic field is applied to the magnetic material, which then produces an inductive heat response (page 6, lines 33-36).
In one embodiment, Yang shows an electric coil 66 used to surround an SCR catalyst 60 and an optional second catalyst 62 that provides an alternating magnetic field for heating (page 15, lines 16-28). The electric coil 66 is electrically connected to a power source 70 that provides an alternating electric current to the coil (page 15, lines 18-20). The electric coil can be considered the same as the conductor of Claim 1. The magnetic material can be positioned in several different ways, one of which can include dispersing the magnetic material with or in intimate contact with the catalyst material (page 6, lines 35-37).
The conductor is intermittently energized by passing current through to generate an alternating an electromagnetic field and then inductively heats the magnetic material to heat the catalyst (page 5, lines 12-14).
In Figure 4, Yang teaches that this embodiment is not limited to just an SCR (page 15, lines 33-35), but can be used with “any catalyst composition for which inductive heating would be useful to maintain the catalyst composition in an optimal temperature range for catalytic activity” (page 15, lines 34-36). Yang explains that one of the catalyst useable here can include a lean NOx trap (LNT) operated at a temperature of at least about 200 degrees C for NOx storage and at least 300 degrees C for regeneration (page 16, lines 3-5).
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.”
Yang does not specifically describe the NOx adsorber composition.
Brown describes a LNT used for treating exhaust gas from an engine (abstract). As to the composition, Brown describes use of a LNT that is made up of a platinum group metal loaded on a first support (Claim 1) and that the composition is then loaded on substrate (para. 19). Use of certain support, such as a base metal oxide, can facilitate H2S removal (para. 21), while the platinum group metal can be used for the NOx storage and reduction (para. 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a LNT that is made up of a platinum group metal, a support and a substrate, as taught by Brown for use with the LNT of Yang because this ia an effective LNT for use in reduction and storage of NOx as well as in removing H2S in exhaust gas streams.
As to Claim 2, Yang teaches that the system includes a temperature sensor 72 used to measure the engine gases entering the catalyst, which are connected to a controller 74, used to control the power source after receiving signals from the temperature sensor (page 15, lines 24-30). The controller provides instructions to the power source used to energize the electric coil used to heat the magnetic material (page 15, lines 27-30). The controller can select a time for heating based on a variety of factors, to include a particulate temperature set point (page 15, lines 28-30). Yang explains that the desired temperature range will vary depending on the catalyst chosen (page 15, lines 37-38). If a LNT trap is needed, the range is at least 200 degrees C for NOx storage and at least 300 degrees C for regeneration (page 16, lines 4-6).
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.”
Claim(s) 3, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Brown as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theis (US Pub.: 2010/0229535).
The references describe use of an SCR with the option of combining it with or replacing it with other catalysts, to include a LNT, but they do not describe include a LNT/SCR system, where the SCR is downstream from the LNT (Claim 3).
Theis describes treatment of exhaust gas from diesel engines of trucks and describes the challenges with treating the exhaust gases from these vehicles (para. 5, 6). One of these challenges includes that the lean NOx trap may reach capacity (para. 7). As a solution to this, Theis describes providing an LNT/SCR catalyst system where desorbed NOx from the LNT may be remediated in the SCR (para. 11). In this system, desorbed NOx diesel emission from a LNT (second LNT) is treated by the downstream SCR (para. 11, last line). LNT 91 is welded to the upstream side of the SCR 93 (para. 27) and housed together in a case (para. 27 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an SCR downstream to the LNT, as taught by Theis for use with the system of Yang and Brown because Theis explains that by having a downstream SCR from the LNT, desorbed NOx can be remediated in the SCR.
As to Claims 2 and 6, Yang teaches that the system includes a temperature sensor 72 used to measure the engine gases entering the catalyst, which are connected to a controller 74, used to control the power source after receiving signals from the temperature sensor (page 15, lines 24-30). The controller provides instructions to the power source used to energize the electric coil used to heat the magnetic material (page 15, lines 27-30). The controller can select a time for heating based on a variety of factors, to include a particulate temperature set point (page 15, lines 28-30). Yang explains that the desired temperature range will vary depending on the catalyst chosen (page 15, lines 37-38). If a LNT trap is needed, the range is at least 200 degrees C for NOx storage and at least 300 degrees C for regeneration (page 16, lines 4-6). In the case of the current application, Yang teaches heating an SCR and monitoring the SCR catalyst (page 15, lines 15-17).
Yang teaches that the catalyst can include other catalyst components (see page 15, lines 33-37 to page 16, lines 1-5).
Theis describes treatment of exhaust gas from diesel engines of trucks and describes the challenges with treating the exhaust gases from these vehicles (para. 5, 6). One of these challenges includes that the lean NOx trap may reach capacity (para. 7). As a solution to this, Theis describes providing an LNT/SCR catalyst system (para. 11). In this system, desorbed NOx diesel emission from a LNT (second LNT) is treated by the downstream SCR (para. 11, last line). LNT 91 is welded to the upstream side of the SCR 93 (para. 27) and housed together in a case (para. 27 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a LNT with the SCR of Yang, as taught by Theis because Theis explains that desorbed NOx from the LNT can then be treated by the downstream SCR.
As to Claim 7, Theis teaches that the predetermined temperature when the catalyst analyzed is an SCR is from 100-450 degrees C (page 15, lines 36-37).
As to Claim 8, Theis teaches that the LNT operating temperature is from 150-400 degrees C (Claim 18), but the LNT can be designed to provide maximum NOx storage capacity in the range of 350-600 degrees C (para. 67).
As to Claim 9, Theis explains that the catalyst system operates at different temperature ranges. For example, at lower ranges of 180-200, the catalysts are predominantly used for remediation purposes (para. 51). At elevated temperatures, of 400-550 degrees C, the system relies more heavily on NOx storage (para. 55). Finally, at temperature ranges even higher, such as 550 to 600 degrees C, the SCR/LNT system may be used to both store and purge NOx (para. 56).
Furthermore, Yang explains that the conductor is only intermittently energized based on the controller’s communication with the temperature sensor (page 3, lines 14-15, 20-22).
Therefore, since the process of Theis performs NOx reduction differently based on the exhaust temperature and Yang explains that their heating is intermittent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn off the current when more NOx is to be remediated in the lower temperature ranges of 180-200 degrees C.
As to Claim 15, Theis teaches that the NOx storage efficiency is shows in Table 1. It shows that the average NOx storage between 200-250 degrees C is low, but the NOx storage efficiency is improved starting at 250 degrees C (see table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the temperature of the LNT at 250 degrees C, as taught by Theis for use with the LNT of Yang because Theis shows that the NOx storage efficiency is improved starting at this temperature.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Brown as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoard (US Pub.: 2010/0050604).
The references do not teach that the catalyst system includes an SCR downstream of the NOx adsorber (Claim 3) and that they are on the same substrate (Claim 4).
Hoard describes a system for the treatment of exhaust from an engine using a SCR catalyst and a LNT catalyst (abstract). In the background, Hoard explains that NOx conversion using just LNT is usually low (para. 4) and that as a means of solving this problem, a downstream SCR is used (para. 5, followed by SCR catalysts). Therefore, in their system, Hoard uses a LNT that is followed by an SCR (para. 13). The reference explains that various configurations can be used with this arrangement, to include putting the SCR and the LNT either on separate substrate or in a single substrate (para. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an SCR downstream of the LNT on either the same substrate or on different substrates, as taught by Hoard for use with the catalyst system of Yang and Brown because Hoard explains that NOx conversion is improved.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Brown and Hoard as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yasui (DE 102016200464).
The references do not teach that that when the temperature of the SCR is found to rise above a pre-determined temperature, that the intermittent energizing occurs.
Yasui describes an emission control system for an internal combustion engine (title). The system includes two catalysts for use in NOx reduction (abstract). The system includes a LNT and a SCR catalyst (abstract). Yasui explains that the SCR catalyst achieves particularly high NOx reduction rates (page 9, last para). The catalyst shows NOx reduction beginning at about 130 degrees C (page 9, last para). Yasui then explains that “however, the temperature must rise above about 180 degrees C in order for the hydrolysis of the urea/water mixture to proceed adequately and produce NH3”. If the temperatures remain below about 180 degrees C, deposits form through the urea/water mixture”. (page 9, last para.). As a solution to this, Yasui explains that for the reliable prevention of deposits, a higher temperature of over 200 degrees C is preferred (page 9, last para).
Therefore, in determining whether to heat the system (page 15, para. 3), the reference explains that changes in the SCR temperature are monitored (Page 15, para. 4) and set for 200 degrees C (page 15, para.4). More particularly, when the temperature of the SCR is determined to be equal to or lower than the switching temperature, then the system is ordered to heat (page 15, lines 3-9). Since the temperature can be equal to the switching temperature, this is considered to meet the feature “when the temperature of the SCR catalyst composition rises above a pre-determined temperature”, where the pre-determined temperature can be a temperature right below the switching temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further heat the SCR after it reaches a certain temperature, as taught by Yasui for use with Yang, Brown and Hoard because Yasui explains that heating the SCR above 180 degrees C will remove deposits in the catalyst.
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 December 19, 2025