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 Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 3/12/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5-17 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US Pub.: 2016/0367941) and in view of Liang et al. “Active oxygen-promoted NO catalytic on monolithic Pt-based diesel oxidation catalyst modified with Ce” and in view of Voss (US Pat.: 5491120) and further in view of Miyoshi (2006/0019824).
Gilbert describes a catalytic article having a flow-through substrate that has an inlet, an outlet and an axial length (abstract). Gilbert shows a number of different catalyst configurations and arrangements (see Fig. 1-23). In some, Gilbert shows the presence of an oxidation catalyst at the outlet and extending towards the inlet (see Fig. 1-23) and the presence of an SCR catalyst at the inlet and extending towards the outlet (Fig. 1-23). The SCR can extend at a length of 15-40% of the substrate (para. 61). The SCR can include a zeolite (para. 89). The oxidation catalyst is coated on the length of the substrate in an amount of 15-40% (para. 62-63). The oxidation catalyst can include a platinum group metal and a base metal (para. 102).
Gilbert describes a base metal in the oxidation catalyst, but does not describe that the base catalyst is an oxygen storage catalyst or inclusion of an inorganic oxide.
Liang describes a Pt-based oxidation catalyst (title). In the background, Liang describes that in the prior art, a Pt-based catalyst was known to be effective in DOC catalysts, but that they have issues around high cost, poor thermal stability and metal sintering (Introduction, para. 2, lines 1-2). Adding a method to strengthen the interaction between the noble metal and the support to stabilize the Pt species without reduction is also desirable (Introduction, right col, lines 6-7). Ceria can vary oxidation states between Ce(III) and Ce(IV) and can therefore promote NO conversion and also form strong Pt-O-Ce bonds, which result in formation of a durable catalyst (Introduction, right col, lines 7-13).
Additionally, Liang states that use of a non-reducible support, such as SiO2-Al2O3 along with a dopant is necessary to improve oxidation activity (Introduction, right col, lines 14-16). In one example, Liang shows that the ceria is impregnated onto the SiO2-Al2O3 support (see section 2.1, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ ceria and SiO2-Al2O3 in the oxidation catalyst of Gilbert, as taught by Liang because Liang explains that ceria can promote NO conversion and also form strong Pt-O-Ce bonds, which result in formation of a durable catalyst and that use of an inorganic support is necessary in improving the oxidation activity.
Liang describes use of ceria, but does not describe use of ceria-zirconia or alumina-ceria-zirconia.
Miyoshi teaches a catalyst for use of NOx reduction (abstract). The catalyst employs an oxygen storage component used for HC oxidation (para. 16) and can include cerium (para. 17). Miyoshi explains that when Ce is combined with Zr in a mixed oxide because the high heat resistance of Zr improves the capacity of the Ce-based catalyst (para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Ce as a mixed oxide with Zr, as taught by Miyoshi for use with the catalyst of Gilbert, Liang and Voss because Miyoshi explains that adding Zr to the Ce aids in the heat tolerance of the catalyst.
As to the ratio of ceria and the inorganic oxide, Liang does not describe this feature either.
Voss describes an oxidation catalyst that includes a Pt metal (title). In the background, Voss explains that a problem known in the field with oxidation catalysts is the effect sulfur oxides have on these catalysts (col. 1, lines 50-59) and that an attempt to improve the sulfur oxide resistance of the oxidation catalysts involves updating the refractory metal oxide support (col. 1, lines 61-63).
Therefore, as a solution of this, Voss teaches to combine the oxidation catalyst with a base metal oxide (col. 2, lines 23-25). The base metal oxide can include bulk ceria and then one or more of a second metal oxide, which can include a metal oxide such as: titania, zirconia, ceria-zirconia, silica, alumina-silica and alpha-alumina (col. 2, lines 26-28). The two base metal oxides, including ceria and the second metal oxide are in a ratio of 1:1 (col. 5, lines 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include ceria and a second metal oxide, such as titania, zirconia, ceria-zirconia, silica, alumina-silica and alpha-alumina in the metal oxide in an amount of 1:1, as taught by Voss for use with the oxidation catalyst of Gilbert and Liang because Voss explains that this ratio improves the sulfur oxide resistance in an oxidation catalyst.
As to the use feature, since the composition is the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would be useable in the same way.
As to Claims 5 and 6, Gilbert teaches that in some embodiments, an SCR can overlap the DOC (see Fig. 14, mixed ASC and DOC also includes DOC and Fig. 4) and in some, it doesn’t (Fig. 11 or 1).
As to Claims 7, 8, 9 and 10, Gilbert teaches that the SCR is modified with a metal, which includes Fe, Cu, Mn, Co and Ni (para. 86), particularly Fe or Cu (para. 97) in an amount of 0.1 to 10wt% (para. 98).
As to Claims 11 and 12, Gilbert teaches use of a molecular sieve shown in para. 92, 93 and 94, which includes AEI, BEA, CHA and FER sieves (para. 92, 93 and 94).
As to Claim 15, Gilbert shows that the catalyst system can include two regions or three (see Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 and also shown in some of the the other figures).
As to Claim 16, Gilbert teaches use of a flow-through substrate (abstract).
As to Claim 17, Gilbert teaches that the catalysts, which can include an SCR and/or a DOC are deposited on a substrate (para. 60, 61, 63).
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 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 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights