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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 1/21/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-13 under the 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 references 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse (US Pub.: 2011/0271664) and in view of Rivas-Cardona (US Pub.: 20150151288) and in view of Lv (CN 110582342).
Boorse describes a method and system for use in treating emissions from an exhaust stream (para. 1, 8). The system includes exhaust from diesel engines (para. 68, 69, 73) and is shown in Fig. 4. Here, exhaust from engine 41 is fed to a catalyst at 43 and 45 (Fig. 4). The catalyst at 45 describes a first catalyst coating, whi8ch includes a platinum group metal, which extends from the outlet end towards the inlet end over less than the entire axial length of the substrate (para. 68). The substrate at 45 also includes a second catalyst coating, which includes a SCR catalyst, which extends from the inlet end towards the outlet end over less than the entire axial length of the substrate and overlapping a portion of the first catalyst coating layer (para. 68).
More specifically, Boorse teaches that the catalyst includes a substrate 12 with an inlet end 22, an outlet end 24 and an axial length L (para. 27). The substrate is then coated with a first catalyst coating 16 that includes a platinum group metal and the SCR (para. 27). Each of these catalysts can occupy from 10-80% of the axial length of the substrate (para. 9). 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.”
The composition of the SCR can include a metal modifying a molecular sieve (para. 40), the metal preferably being iron or copper (para. 40). The molecular sieve can be a zeolite (para. 42) from which the metal modifies the sieve (para. 41). Since is some embodiments, the SCR can include just Cu or Fe modifying a zeolite (para. 43) and the other potential additives added are not precious metals (para. 46), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in some embodiments, the SCR does not have a platinum-group metal in that catalyst component.
The other catalyst is an ammonia oxidation composition (para. 47) that includes a platinum group component, which can include palladium (para. 48). This catalyst composition can include zeolite (para. 51). This layer is described at layer 16 in Boorse, which is deposited on the substrate (see Fig. 1 and para. 59). Adjacent to and partially overlapping layer 16 is layer 18 (Fig. 1). This layer 18 is the SCR layer (para. 59).
The SAR is greater than 15 (para. 43), but Boorse does not describe an SAR in the molecular sieve to be at least 2,000.
As to the arrangement of the layers, the SCR is the overcoat layer and the ammonia catalyst layer is the undercoat (para. 63). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention these layers are arranged such that the exhaust would contact the overcoat layer, the SCR layer, first before contacting the undercoat layer, the ammonia oxidation layer, because the exhaust would contact the outer layer prior the inner layer.
Boorse does not specifically teach that the exhaust treatment system is from a diesel engine, but does not state that the engine is a natural gas combustion engine.
As to the use of natural gas, Rivas-Cardona describes a SCR catalyst for use in NOx reduction (abstract) from exhaust gas (para. 9). Rivas-Cardona explains that the method for treating exhaust gas as described herein can be performed on an exhaust gas derived from a combustion process, such as from an internal combustion engine (whether mobile or stationary), a gas turbine and coal or oil fired power plants (para. 73). The method may also be used to treat gas from industrial processes such as refining, from refinery heaters and boilers, furnaces, the chemical processing industry, coke ovens, municipal waste plants and incinerators, etc. In a particular embodiment, the method is used for treating exhaust gas from a vehicular lean burn internal combustion engine, such as a diesel engine, a lean-burn gasoline engine or an engine powered by liquid petroleum gas or natural gas (para. 73).
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 the system of Boorse with exhaust gas from a natural gas source instead of with exhaust from an engine source, as taught by Rivas-Cardona because treating exhaust gases catalytically from these sources are known to be effective and predictable.
Boorse teaches inclusion of a zeolite in the ammonia oxidation catalyst, but does not describe that the SAR is at least 2,000.
Lv describes an ASC or an ammonia slip catalyst that uses a zeolite (page 6, para. 1) that can have a SAR of 5-200, but can also employ a higher SAR of 2100 (page 6, para. 3).
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 zeolite for use in an ammonia slip catalyst that has an SAR of 2100, as taught by Lv for use with the ammonia catalyst of Boorse and Rivas- Cardona because this range would have predictable and expected ammonia reduction treatment.
As to Claim 3, Boorse explains that the SAR is at least 15 and can include a range of 10-200 in the SCR (see para. 42) and that the Cu added ranges from 0.2-5% (para. 41).
As to Claim 4, Boorse teaches that the SCR is upstream of the ammonia oxidation catalyst (see para. 63, 64 and Fig. 1).
As to Claim 5, Boorse teaches that the substrate has an inlet end, an outlet end and an axial length and that the catalysts are coated on this substate (para. 27).
As to Claim 6, Boorse teaches that the coating layers range from 10-80% of the length of the substrate (para. 31).
As to Claim 7, Boorse teaches that the the substrate includes an SCR zone, a ammonia oxidation zone (para. 63) and that the overlapped portion forms the third zone (para. 70). This middle zone is described as the AMOx zone (para. 63), which can range from 5-50% (para. 63).
As to Claim 8, Boorse teaches that the first coating is partly layered on the second coating (see Fig. 1).
As to Claim 9, Boorse teaches that the substrate is a flow-through substrate (para. 32).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong (CN 109261200) and in view of Yamajuchi (EP 2324904).
Dong describes a catalyst system (title) that includes an SCR and a platinum-containing component that includes ammonia oxidation capabilities (abstract).
The system includes a bottom oxide layer that contains a platinum metal (page 3, lines 2-7). On top of this layer is an SCR catalyst (page 3, lines 2-7). The loading of the SCR catalyst can be 40 g/L (example 5).
As to the ammonia oxidation catalyst, this feature is not taught by the references.
Yamaguchi describes a catalyst used for exhaust gas purification (title). The system explains that there is not particularly limitation on the load amount of an ammonia slip catalyst, but that it can range from 0.5 to 50 g/L (para. 0165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the SCR at a loading of 40 g/L, as taught by Dong for use with the system of over Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv because this loading is known to predictable treat NOx gases from an exhaust gas stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the ammonia slip catalyst at a loading of 0.5 to 50 g/L, as taught by Yamaguchi for use with the system of Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv because this loading is known to be effective and predictable in oxidizing ammonia slip from the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nunn (WO 2009/106849).
The references do not describe the SOx content of the exhaust.
Nunn explains that depending upon the characteristics of the particular engine and the emission regulations in force, the emission control system may include SCR as well as other components used to reduce the pollution levels (page 4, para. 3). In one example, Nunn describes that the gas from a natural gas engine is treated with a desulfurizer to reach a SOx content of about 2ppm (example 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the exhaust gas with a desulfurizing step, as taught by Nunn for use with Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv to achieve a SOx content of about 2ppm because Nunn explains that emission control systems may be treated to adjust the SOx content from a natural gas fuelled engine.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenham (US Pub.: 2018/0280945).
The references do not teach use of an additional SCR downstream of the layered structure of Claim 1.
Greenham describes a method of treating exhaust gases (para. 1, 2) using washcoats of catalysts on a substrate (para. 4). The reference describes, in one embodiment, a layer of SCR (see Fig. 7a, 7b) that is then followed by two layers of an ASC and an SCR blend (see Fig. 7a, 7b). Downstream of the layered system includes an additional SCR (Fig. 7a, 7b).
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 additional SCR, as taught by Greenham for use with the SCR/ammonia catalyst of Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv because this configuration is known to be a predictable means to reduce NOx in an exhaust gas stream.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arulraj (US Pub.: 2019/0301334).
The references do not teach that the exhaust comes from a stationary engine using natural gas.
Arulraj describes a system for treating emissions catalytically (para. 41) that comprises an SCR and an ammonia slip catalyst (para. 42). The exhaust can be derived from natural gas engines, power plant, stationary engine (para. 20) or combustion engines (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the system of Boorse, Rivas-Cardona and Lv for use with natural gas stationary engine, as taught by Arulraj because use of these catalyst to treat exhaust from these sources are known to reduce pollutants from these streams.
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 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights