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 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters (Pa and P2) which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/132612 to Hyundai Motor Co Ltd (Hyundai) (Machine translation provided by applicant has been used for translational purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Hyundai discloses a hydrocarbon adsorption device configured to circulate a fluid and adsorb hydrocarbons, the hydrocarbon adsorption device comprising:
a first hydrocarbon adsorption section (first region, figs. 1-5; [39]) containing zeolite ([22], [39]-[40]); and a second hydrocarbon adsorption section (second region, figs. 1-5; [39]) provided downstream of the first hydrocarbon adsorption section in a fluid flowing direction in which the fluid flows and containing zeolite ([22], [39]-[40]), wherein a pore diameter P1 of the zeolite contained in the first hydrocarbon adsorption section is smaller than a pore diameter P2 of the zeolite contained in the second hydrocarbon adsorption section ([22], [39]-[40], [47]-[58]).
Regarding claim 2, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein a difference (P2 - P1) between the pore diameter P1 and the pore diameter P2 is between 0.1 A to 4 A inclusive ([22]-[24], [39]).
Regarding claim 3, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the pore diameter P1 is between 3.5 A to 5.5 A inclusive ([22], [39]-[40]).
Regarding claim 4, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the pore diameter P2 is between 5 A to 8 A inclusive ([22], [39]-[40]).
Regarding claim 5, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, a silica-alumina ratio of the zeolite contained in the first hydrocarbon adsorption section is smaller than a silica-alumina ratio of the zeolite contained in the second hydrocarbon adsorption section (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that CHA structure for first adsorption section will have lower silica-alumina ratio that ZSM-5 structure for the second adsorption section as disclosed in [47]).
Regarding claim 7, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the zeolite contained in the first hydrocarbon adsorption section includes at least one framework type of CHA or FER ([47]).
Regarding claim 8, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the zeolite contained in the second hydrocarbon adsorption section includes at least one framework type of MFI ([47]; ZSM 5 is a type of MFI or FAU.
Regarding claim 9, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid is a gas ([8], [30]).
Regarding claim 10, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, wherein the fluid is exhaust gas ([8], [30]).
Regarding claim 11, Hyundai discloses an exhaust gas purification system disposed in an exhaust path of an internal combustion engine and configured to purify hydrocarbons in exhaust gas exhausted from the internal combustion engine, the exhaust gas purification system comprising: the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a catalyst metal portion containing a catalyst metal ([11]).
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.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyundai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0282166 to Lupescu et al (Lupescu).
Regarding claim 6, Hyundai discloses the hydrocarbon adsorption device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose which Lupescu discloses”
a silica-alumina ratio of the zeolite contained in the first hydrocarbon adsorption section is between 10 to 30 inclusive ([4]-[5], [9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a silica-alumina ratio of the zeolite contained in the first hydrocarbon adsorption section between 10 to 30 inclusive as taught by Lupescu in the device of Hyundai so as to achieve a catalyst that is able to release trapped hydrocarbons at a temperature of at least 225° C ([6]; Lupescu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,666,886 to Choi et al.
US 9,284,495 to Upson et al.
US 8,685,146 to Zhou et al.
US 2018/0324268 to Kang et al.
US 2017/0275171 to Ishihara et al.
US 2004/0094035 to Adamczyk et al.
All references above describe general state of art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAPINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAPINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746