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 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 18 and 19 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 18 contains the trademark/trade name “SCRT ®”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe SCRT® configuration and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettireddy et al. (US 2016/0032803 A1) in view of Quinet et al. (US 2020/0276561 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ettireddy et al. reference discloses an exhaust gas treatment system comprising, in order:
an intake for receiving an exhaust gas from a lean burn combustion engine (Figure 4, numerals 12 – engine, 16 – turbo-charger as intake);
an injector for the provision of a nitrogenous reductant (Figure 4, numeral 324 – injector);
a close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition (Figure 4, numeral 326);
one or more downstream oxidation catalyst compositions (Figure 4, numerals 328 – DOC and 330 – DPF).
However, Ettireddy et al. reference does not disclose that the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition comprises cerium in a Ce:V molar ratio of greater than 0.3 and the one or more downstream oxidation catalyst compositions are PGM-containing oxidation catalyst compositions.
Quinet et al. reference discloses a SCR catalyst comprising at least one oxide of vanadium in an amount of 2 to 6 wt %, at least one oxide of tungsten in an amount of 0.5 to 2 wt %, at least one oxide of cerium in an amount of 2 to 4 wt %, at least one oxide of antimony in an amount of 1 to 7 wt %, and at least one oxide of titanium in an amount measured so as to result in a total of 100 wt %, in each case based on the total weight of the catalyst and calculated as V2O5, WO3, CeO2, Sb2O5, or TiO2 (Paragraphs [0016]-[0020] – or Ce:V ratio of 0.4-1.2). Quinet et al. reference also discloses an oxidation catalyst downstream from the SCR catalyst wherein the oxidation catalyst comprising platinum, palladium, or platinum and palladium supported on aluminum oxide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SCR catalyst and oxidation catalyst as taught by Quinet et al., since Quinet et al. states at Paragraphs [0002]- [0003] that such a modification would clean the exhaust gases of motor vehicles that are operated with lean-burn combustion engines, the aforementioned components must be converted to harmless compounds as completely as possible.
Regarding Claim 2, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1, wherein vanadium is present in the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition in an amount of at least 2 wt % on a V2O5 basis (Quinet et al. - Paragraph [0026] – 2 to 6 wt %).
Regarding Claim 3, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1 except for the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition further comprises antimony in an Sb:V molar ratio of greater than 0.5 . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the claimed Sb:V ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1 wherein cerium is present in the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition in a Ce:V molar ratio of 0.3 to 0.7 (Quinet et al. - Paragraphs [0016]-[0020] – or Ce:V ratio of 0.4-1.2).
Regarding Claim 5, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1, wherein the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition is provided as an extruded porous substrate or a washcoat on a porous substrate (Quinet et al. - Paragraph [0071] – ceramic flow through substrate with washcoat loaded).
Regarding Claim 6, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 5, wherein the extruded porous substrate or the porous substrate is a honeycomb monolith substrate (Quinet et al. - Paragraph [0044] – flow-through honeycomb body).
Regarding Claim 7, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1, wherein the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition comprises a titania-based catalyst support material (Quinet et al. – Paragraphs [0020] –[0021] – at least one oxide of titanium acts as carrier material (same as claimed support material)).
Regarding Claim 16, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1, wherein the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition and the one or more PGM-containing oxidation catalyst compositions are provided on separate substrates thereby forming a close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst article and one or more PGM-containing oxidation catalyst articles, wherein the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst article is spaced apart from the one or more PGM-containing oxidation catalyst articles (Ettireddy et al. – Figure 4, numerals 326 – SCR catalyst, 328 – DOC catalyst and 330 – DPF catalyst).
Regarding Claim 18, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1, further comprising a downstream SCR catalyst composition downstream of the one or more PGM-containing oxidation catalyst composition(s), optionally wherein the one or more PGM-containing oxidation catalyst composition(s) and the downstream SCR catalyst composition are in an SCRT® configuration (Ettireddy et al. – Figure 4, numeral 334 – SCR catalyst downstream from 328 – DOC).
Regarding Claim 20, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the combustion and exhaust treatment system, comprising: a lean burn combustion engine (Ettireddy et al. – Abstract and Figure 4); and the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1.
Claim(s) 8-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettireddy et al. (US 2016/0032803 A1) in view of Quinet et al. (US 2020/0276561 A1) and Chiffey et al. (GB-2546196 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1 except for the one or more downstream PGM-containing oxidation catalyst compositions are provided as an extruded porous substrate or a washcoat on a substrate. Chiffey et al. reference discloses an oxidation catalyst for treating an exhaust gas from a diesel engine and an exhaust system comprising: a first washcoat region 1 for oxidising carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HCs), wherein the first washcoat region comprises a first platinum group metal (PGM) and a first support material; a second washcoat region 2 for oxidising nitric oxide (NO), wherein the second washcoat region comprises platinum (Pt), manganese (Mn) and a second support material; and a substrate 3 having an inlet end and an outlet end; wherein the second washcoat region is a second washcoat zone disposed at an outlet end of the substrate and after contact of the exhaust gas with the first washcoat region (Abstract and Figures 1-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed oxidation catalyst having porous substrate or washcoat on a substrate as taught by Chiffey et al., since Chiffey et al. states at Page 2, Lines 31-34 that such a modification would provide good oxidising activity toward carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HCs) .
Regarding Claim 9, Ettireddy et al. and Quinet et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1 except for the one or more downstream PGM-containing oxidation catalyst composition(s) are provided on and/or in the same substrate as the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition forming a single catalyst article, wherein the substrate has an inlet end, an outlet end and an axial length. Chiffey et al. reference discloses an oxidation catalyst wherein the first washcoat zone and the second washcoat zone may be deposited on the substrate as a single layer (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form both SCR catalyst composition and PGM containing catalyst composition on the same substrate as taught by Chiffey et al., since Chiffey et al. states at Page 2, Lines 31-34 that such a modification would provide good oxidising activity toward carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HCs) .
Regarding Claim 10, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 9, wherein the close-coupled vanadium-containing SCR catalyst composition is arranged in a first region and the one or more downstream PGM-containing oxidation catalyst composition(s) is arranged in a second region (Chiffey et al. - Figure 1). However, Chiffey et al. does not disclose that the first region is spaced apart from the second region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a space in between two regions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 11, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 9, wherein the first region extends from the inlet end and wherein the second region extends from the outlet end, wherein the first region extends along between 10% and 90% of the axial length of the substrate, and the second region extends along between 10% and 90% of the axial length of the substrate (Chiffey et al. – Figures 1, 6, and 9, numerals 1 and 2). Also ,it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed two regions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 12, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 9, wherein the first and second regions do not overlap such that there is a gap along the axial length of the substrate between the first and second regions, wherein the first region is a first layer and wherein the second region is a second layer (Chiffey et al – Figure 5, numerals 1 and 2). Also ,it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed two regions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 13, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 12, further comprising a covering layer extending from the outlet end over at least part of the second region, wherein the covering layer comprises a SCR catalyst composition (Chiffey et al. – Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 9, wherein the first region is a first layer and wherein the second region is a second layer, wherein the first and second regions are spaced apart from each other by an intervening layer extending between the first and second layers, wherein the intervening layer comprises a SCR catalyst composition (Chiffey et al. – Figure 6). Also ,it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed two regions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 15, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 14, wherein the first layer overlaps with the second layer (Chiffey et al. – Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system claim 1, wherein the downstream PGM-containing oxidation catalyst composition(s) comprise an ASC composition and a DOC composition, wherein the ASC composition is upstream of the DOC composition (Chiffey et al – Page 33, Lines 31-37 – ammonia slip catalyst).
Regarding Claim 19, Ettireddy et al. , Quinet et al., and Chiffey et al. references disclose the exhaust gas treatment system of claim 1, wherein the one or more downstream PGM-containing oxidation catalyst composition(s) further comprise a Cu-zeolite, wherein the Cu-zeolite is a small-pore zeolite, preferably wherein the Cu-zeolite has a CHA or AEI-type framework structure (Chiffey et a; - Page 13, Lines 34-37 – Copper CHA zeolite and AEI zeolite).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, 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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights