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 a newly amended and therefore newly treated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The office argues on pages 11-12, the following:
Amended claim 1 provides that the oxidation catalyst is used to catalyze the reaction of oxygen with reductive components such as HC and CO, to consume most of the oxygen and also the reductive components such as HC and CO in the exhaust gas. The exhaust gas treated by the oxidation catalyst is further treated by the three-way catalyst at back end, and the three-way catalyst is used for the three-way conversion (for example, for the simultaneous conversion of HC,CO and NOx). During the treatment of using the three-way catalyst, there is less oxygen and reductive components such as HC and CO left in the exhaust gas, which can reduce the degree of combustion and prevent the three-way catalyst from being covered by combustion, thus ensuring the exertion of three-way catalytic conversion function thereof and avoiding too high temperature, so that the three-way catalyst carries out the three-way conversion reaction at a suitable reaction temperature (350-700°C) and at the same time, it can avoid the adverse effects of high temperature on the structure and performance of the three-way catalyst (such as pore collapse of porous matrix material, decreased activity of noble metal, functional attenuation of oxygen storage material, etc.), thereby improving the efficiency and durability of the three-way conversion reaction. Specially, as to the high-temperature-resistant oxidation catalyst, the first alumina- based material of the amended claim 1 can improve, for example, the high temperature resistance and stability of the oxidation catalyst, and further ensure its catalytic activity and service life.
In this regard, the present application provides a three-way catalytic conversion system for exhaust gas purification in stoichiometric operating engines. Amended claim 1 defines the specific combination of the oxidation segment (oxidation catalyst) and the three-way conversion segment (three-way catalyst), the position relationship of the catalysts, and the respective microstructures of the catalysts. Applicant respectfully notes that the synergistic combination of the oxidation catalyst and the three-way catalyst must be taken into account to achieve the aforementioned technical effects.
Shiegetsu involves suppressing the emission of unpurified exhaust gases (CO, HC) when the exhaust gas temperature is low and the catalyst is not fully activated (see paragraph [0002]). Specifically, Shiegetsu mainly discloses a CO oxidation catalyst that is provided upstream of the three-way catalyst in the exhaust gas flow and is active at a lower temperature with respect to CO oxidation than the three-way catalyst; and an HC trap catalyst that is provided downstream of the three-way catalyst in the exhaust gas flow, and the relatively large amount of CO emitted is efficiently purified by a CO oxidation catalyst with excellent low-temperature activity, and the heat generated by this process increases the temperature of the three-way catalyst, enabling it to be activated more quickly (see paragraphs [0016] and [0018]). Furthermore, regarding the three- way catalyst, paragraphs 45 and 63 of Shiegetsu disclose that: the three-way catalyst 32 is a honeycomb catalyst formed by forming a catalyst layer on the cell walls of a honeycomb carrier.
The catalyst layer preferably contains Pd/alumina, or the three-way catalyst 32 was a two-layer laminated honeycomb catalyst. The upper layer consisted of Rh/ZrLaO-alumina, Rh/OSC (OSC; CeZrNd composite oxide), Rh-supported ZrO₂-coated alumina, and a Zr binder. The lower layer consisted of Pd/alumina, OSC (CeO₂ and CeZrNd composite oxide), and a Zr binder.
Therefore, as previously discussed, Shiegetsu not only fails to disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features (2) and (3), but also fails to mention the distinguishing technical feature (1); that is, it does not disclose that "the oxygen storage material is filled in the porous matrix material, the rhodium is loaded on the oxygen storage material, and the noble metal except for rhodium is loaded on the porous matrix material or on the oxygen storage material." Consequently, Shiegetsu does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects; in fact, it provides the opposite technical teachings.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Applicant argues in the remarks above the method of using the catalyst, but the claims are a system-type claims. Therefore, 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 catalyst and same system would be effective if used the same way.
Next, the remarks argue the following:
Going through the references in no specific order, starting first with Hoke, Hoke fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shiegetsu discussed above with respect to claim 1. Hoke relates to a zoned-coating oxidation catalyst for diesel engines (particularly advanced combustion diesel engines). As previously discussed, the pore volume values of the alumina-based material disclosed by Hoke do not correspond to the pore volume range of the second alumina- based material; therefore, Hoke does not disclose the distinguishing technical feature (2). Furthermore, Hoke does not disclose the noble metals and oxygen storage materials of a three-way catalyst, but merely involves oxidation catalysts focuses on the zoned arrangement of noble metals (Pt/Pd) on the support to optimize the oxidation efficiency of reductive pollutants (CO, HC); Hoke does not teach the combined use of oxidation catalysts and three-way catalysts. Therefore, Hoke does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects. Hence, Hoke also fails to provide any related technical hints.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Hoke was relied on for the limited teaching of using the gamma-form of alumina in the oxidation catalyst component with a known specific surface area. The other features, such as the pore range, was not relied upon in the rejection.
Next, the remarks argue the following:
Sung II relates to a two-layer diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) composite material for lean- burn engines (such as diesel engines), which primarily enhances the oxidation efficiency of nitrogen monoxide (NO) to nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) by optimizing the specific platinum and palladium distributions and ratios in the layers, while maintaining high conversion rates for carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC). Specifically, Sung II mentions parameters such as the specific surface area, porosity, and average pore diameter of the oxidizer, but does not provide numerical values for pore volume. Furthermore, paragraphs [0091], [0093], and [0096] of the specification of Sung II mention that "aging treatment was performed in a laboratory oven under conditions of approximately 800°C, 10% water vapor, for 16 hours" and that the NO₂ formation, CO conversion, and HC conversion performance on the regulated European NEDC drive cycle is reported in Table 3, but do not disclose the specific surface area after aging. Therefore, Sung II does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects. Hence, Sung II also fails to provide any related technical hints.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Sung II was relied upon for the limited teaching of adding 1-0.9% of Pd to the oxidation catalyst. Shiegetsu teaches use of Pd in the oxidation component of their catalyst, but does not describe the amount. 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 a known amount for use in the same oxidizing capacity.
Next, the remarks argue the following:
Brand relates to a flue gas purification process that integrates denitrification and desulfurization catalytic reactions within a single reactor. It completely eliminates ammonia leakage through a downstream oxidation catalyst and produces sulfuric acid as a byproduct, thereby simplifying the system and avoiding corrosion and solid waste issues. In describing the catalyst, Brand mentions only its appearance, chemical composition, macroscopic dimensions, and process parameters; however, Brand has no mention of microscopic parameters of pore structure, such as pore volume. Although high temperature aging treatment is mentioned, there is no mention of the catalyst's specific surface area after aging. Therefore, Brand does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects. Hence, Brand also fails to provide any related technical hints.
The remarks were not respectfully persuasive. Brand was relied upon for the limited teaching of the distance between the two catalyst segments. The other features of the claims are not relied upon in the rejection.
The remarks then argues the following:
Sakane relates to a method for manufacturing a porous adsorption catalyst, which involves adding a thermoplastic resin emulsion to an inorganic binder and subjecting the mixture to oxidative sintering at temperatures above 350°C to decompose the resin and create pores, thereby improving deodorization performance. In paragraph 14 of the description and Figure 1, Sakane discloses that the specific surface area increases with rising sintering temperature and tends toward saturation at temperatures above 350°C; however, nowhere in the entire document (including the figure legends) is aging treatment described, nor are specific values for the specific surface area after aging (e.g., m²/g), nor is the specific numerical range of pore volume mentioned. Therefore, Sakane does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects. Hence, Sakane also fails to provide any related technical hints.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Sakane was relied on for the limited teaching that silica get is known for use as an inorganic binder in oxidation catalysts to aid in shaping catalysts with different coatings.
The remarks argue the following:
Chiffey relates to a composite zoned oxidation catalyst for heavy-duty diesel vehicles, which employs a first coating containing barium platinum with a high platinum group metal loading at the support inlet end and a second coating downstream to enhance exothermic regeneration efficiency, reduce palladium usage, and improve resistance to phosphorus/zinc poisoning. Chiffey discloses parameters such as average pore diameter, specific surface area, and particle size distribution, as well as aging treatment; however, Chiffey does not mention the pore volume, and the treatment conditions described are different. Therefore, Chiffey does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects. Hence, Chiffey also fails to provide any related technical hints.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The reference describes Pd on a substrate for use in an oxidation catalyst, but does not describe the ratio of Pd to the substrate to be in a range of 3-50g:ft3. Chiffey describes a known amount of Pd: substrate loading of 5-60 g/ft3 for use in an oxidation catalyst. The other features of Chiffey are not relied upon in rejection.
The remarks then argue the following:
Hara relates to a three-way catalyst for exhaust gas purification and its manufacturing method, which uses a cerium oxide-zirconium oxide-based oxygen storage material with a specific large pore size as a support for loading platinum group metals, in order to significantly suppress catalyst sintering under high-temperature conditions and improve its durability and catalytic performance. Tables 1 and 3 of Hara disclose the total micropore volume (cm3/g) for Ce-Zr-based and Zr-based parent materials, respectively; however, these values refer to the pore volume of the oxygen-storage materials (Ce-Zr-based or Zr-based composite oxides) themselves, which are used as "base material particles." Furthermore, although paragraph [0130] of Hara mentions alumina powder, "a palladium nitrate solution equivalent to 0.8 parts by mass of Pd was measured, diluted with pure water, and loaded onto γ-alumina powder (BET specific surface area of 150 m²/g, pore size of 15 nm, and average particle size of D50 = 10 µm) at a loading of 39.8 parts by mass. This hydrated powder was calcined in air at 500°C for 1 hour, thereby preparing alumina powder loaded with 2.0 mass % Pd," it does not address the pore volume of the alumina powder. Furthermore, paragraph [0052] of Hara discloses, "During this aging treatment, the external atmosphere was repeatedly switched between an A/F = 12.8 mixture and an oxygen atmosphere, while heat treatment was conducted at 1050°C for 12 hours"; however, Hara does not mention aging treatment as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, Hara does not disclose the aforementioned technical features (1), (2), and (3), nor does it teach the aforementioned technical effects. Hence, Hara also fails to provide any related technical hints.
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Hara was relied upon to disclose use of alumina gel, silica gel or zirconia gel as a binder. The other features of Hara were not relied upon. Hara explains that these binders are known to be used as binder additives in exhaust purification catalysts.
The remarks argue on pages 15-16, the following:
Makino relates to an exhaust gas purification catalyst with a wall-flow structure for gasoline engine exhaust gas purification. It improves NOx purification performance while reducing pressure drop by separately arranging a first rhodium catalyst layer and a second palladium catalyst layer, both of which are limited in thickness and length, within a porous partition. Paragraph 28 of Makino mentions the porosity and average pore diameter of zone 16, but Makino does not address numerical values for pore volume. Makino also does not disclose the distinguishing technical feature (1) on the ground that Makino teahches the catalytic metals in both the first catalyst layer (preferably containing Rh) and the second catalyst layer (preferably containing Pd) are supported on a carrier, which includes metal oxides such as aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, cerium oxide, cerium-zirconium composite oxide (CeO₂-ZrO₂), and other metal oxides or their solid solutions, wherein the cerium-zirconium composite oxide may be used as an oxygen storage material, e. g., Rh is directly coating on the base-material. Therefore, Makino does not disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features (1), (2), and (3).
Shiegetu teaches that the catalyst includes an oxygen storage component, which can include CeZrO, but the use of Makino was for former Claim 13, which claims different features. They are now amended and therefore newly treated.
The remarks then argue the following:
Onuki relates to a three-way catalyst for automotive exhaust gas purification, whose core lies in the use of layered catalyst layers with a specific sequence (Pd-Rh-Pd) and composition, and in controlling the total coating weight of the catalyst layers (excluding precious metals) within the range of 110-225 g/L. This achieves rapid ignition, excellent purification performance, and strong resistance to poisoning while reducing the amount of platinum-group precious metals used. The full text of Onuki only mentions that the BET specific surface area of γ-alumina powder is 150 m²/g, but does not mention the pore volume value; furthermore, Example 1 states, "Thereafter, steady-state, deceleration, and acceleration cycling operations were repeated for 36 hours, with the temperature set to 950°C during the steady-state phase to conduct thermal durability treatment," without further addressing the specific surface area characteristics after aging. Therefore, Onuki also does not disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features (1), (2), and (3).
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Onuki was relied on to disclose use of an alumina with a specific surface area of 50-300 m2/g. The other features of Onuki are not relied upon in the rejection.
Next, the remarks argue the following:
Wang relates to a high-performance three-way catalytic converter (TWC) catalyst for automotive exhaust purification, the core of which lies in the use of a specially formulated alumina support with large pores, high pore volume (≥1.8 mL/g), high porosity (≥80%) to significantly enhance the catalyst's hydrothermal stability, precious metal dispersion, and reaction mass transfer efficiency, thereby achieving efficient and long-lasting catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Although Wang discloses the pore volume of the alumina support in the three-way catalyst, it actually provides the opposite technical teaching regarding a pore volume of >1.8 mL/g. Furthermore, Wang does not specifically disclose aging treatment or the specific surface area after aging. Therefore, Wang does not disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features (1), (2), and (3).
The remarks are not persuasive. Wang is relied upon to disclose adding a second alumina for use with the Pt component with a pore volume of 0.5-3 ml/g. Applicant argues that Wang discloses a higher pore volume, but the range contended in the remarks (greater than 1.8 ml/g) is not cited and was also not relied on in the rejection.
The remarks then argue the following:
Liu relates to a three-way catalyst with a layered structure that uses palladium and barium oxide in the lower layer and rhodium and strontium oxide in the upper layer, while employing alkaline earth metal oxide promoters to enhance the reducibility of platinum group metals, thereby improving catalytic activity and durability without increasing the amount of precious metals used. Paragraph 120 of Liu mentions that "particularly effective materials include metal oxide-based supports (including, but not limited to, supports consisting essentially of 100% cerium oxide), which retain a high proportion of their pore volume (e.g., approximately 95-100%) even after aging (e.g., 20 hours at approximately 850°C to approximately 1050°C in air containing 10% by volume ) for 20 hours," but the full text of Liu neither mentions specific pore volume values nor addresses the conditions involving aging treatment at 1000°C to 1500°C for at least 2 hours. Therefore, Liu does not disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features (1), (2), and (3).
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. Liu is relied upon to disclose the ratio of noble metal to substrate is from (3-50):1 ft3. The remarks above argue features not relied upon in the rejection.
The remarks then argues the following:
He relates to a three-way catalyst for automotive exhaust and its preparation method, which uses magnesium-modified alumina and a cerium-zirconium solid solution co-modified with samarium and yttrium as a support, and loads palladium and rhodium in separate layers to prevent high-temperature alloying between the two, improve precious metal utilization, and enhance catalytic activity as well as sulfur resistance and aging resistance. He focuses mainly on the composition and modification of the support and coating; however, He does not address characterization parameters related to pore structure and makes no mention of the support's pore volume. Similarly, in Example 4 of He, it involves that "the catalyst of Example 1 was aged for 5 hours at 1050°C in a mixture of water vapor and air, wherein the volumetric content of water vapor was 10%, to produce an aged catalyst for automotive exhaust." However, He does not mention the specific surface area after aging; therefore, He also fails to disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features (1), (2), and (3).
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. He is relied upon to disclose a mass ratio of rhodium to platinum of 4-6:1. The other features of the reference were not relied upon in the rejection.
The remarks then argue the following:
Kang relates to a three-way catalyst for gasoline vehicles that uses high-specific-surface- area γ-alumina (150-170 m²/g, ≥120 m²/g after aging at 1015°C for 4 hours) as a support. Through a dual-layer structure-with Pd coated on the lower layer and Pd/Rh (Pd content 1-5 wt%) on the upper layer-it significantly enhances the catalyst's thermal stability after high-temperature aging, as well as its CO and HC purification efficiency under rich-burn and stoichiometric conditions, while maintaining excellent NOx conversion performance. However, Kang discloses that the specific surface area of the alumina-based material after aging at 1015°C for 4 hours is not less than 120 m²/g, and further notes in the background section that the alumina used as a support for the oxidation catalyst suffers from insufficient specific surface area, resulting in poor precious metal adsorption efficiency and poor thermal stability (see the second paragraph of the Background). Therefore, Kang recommends using an alumina support with a higher specific surface area (Technical Solution, paragraphs 2-3). Based on this contrary teaching, a person skilled in the art would not consider a specific surface area value within the range of not less than 120 m²/g. Furthermore, Kang does not disclose any teachings regarding pore volume. Consequently, Kang cannot teach a person skilled in the art to arrive at the specific combination of the above distinguishing technical features (1), (2), and (3) of the present application.
The remarks are not persuasive. Kang was relied upon to disclose features of Claim 2. Sung discloses the BET surface area of the alumina, but does not disclose that this is after heating/aging. Kang describes use of an alumina carrier and explains that after aging, the alumina carrier has the claimed surface area. It also explains that this this is generally desirable because it has adequate thermal stability and absorption of precious metal efficiency.
The remarks then argue the following:
Regarding Sung, although Sung teaches a high-surface-area alumina support having a BET surface area of approximately 145 to 155 m²/g and a pore volume of 0.8 to 0.9 cc/g. Using a standard initial wet impregnation procedure, the alumina is impregnated with a palladium nitrate solution at a target Pd concentration of 2% by weight based on the total weight of the impregnated alumina carrier. The Pd-impregnated alumina is then dried at 120°C for 1 hour. The dried alumina/Pd mixture is then calcined at 500°C for 1 hour. It can thus be seen that Sung also does not simultaneously specify the pore volume ranges, aging treatment conditions, and specific surface areas of both the first alumina-based material and the second alumina-based material.
Looking then at the combinations of references, and specifically at the combination of Wang and Sung, the Office Action appears to take the position that the pore volume values in Wang and Sung can be combined to derive the pore volume ranges for the first and second alumina-based materials. This does not appear to be the case. The first alumina-based material and the second alumina-based material are explicitly defined as separate from one another, and neither Wang nor Sung provides any teaching or suggestion of having separate configurations of a first alumina-based material and a second alumina-based material. There is no motivation to combine these two references in order to obtain a teaching - the combined use of two different materials - not taught by either reference, and accordingly these references cannot be used to derive the aforementioned distinguishing technical feature (2).
The remarks are not persuasive. Sung is relied upon to disclose the pore volume of the first alumina. It is contended in this remark that Sung does disclose the claimed pore volume. The remarks argue that Sung does not disclose the Pd concentration, but this is not relied upon in the rejection.
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 1-20 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, lines 11-12 states that there is “a noble metal, in which the noble metal comprises platinum, rhodium and palladium”. Noble metal should be plural since claim 1 recites all three compounds.
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, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh (US Pub.: 2009/0158715) and in view of Sung (CN 109641196) and in view of JP (2018/517541) and in view of Swallow (CN 105683518) and further in view of Kang (KR 2008/0010018).
Stroh describes a system for treating exhaust gas (abstract) from an engine (Claim 1). The system includes a DOC followed by a LNT (lean NOx trap) (see Fig. 1). The DOC is downstream from the engine and the LNT is further downstream from the DOC (see Fig. 1). Stroh explains that sulfur that is stored in the LNT has detrimental effects on the LNT (para. 7). Therefore, the system employs an oxidation catalyst or DOC, which elevates the temperature of the exhaust (para. 8) that removes the sulfur (para. 7).
Stroh does not teach the composition of the DOC or the LNT.
As to the DOC composition, Sung describes a DOC catalyst (title). In the background, Sung explains that DOC are sometimes used with LNT (Background, para. 2). When the temperature of the system is low (light-off), sulfur poisoning of the PGM in the LNT can occur (Background, para. 3-4). As a solution to this, Sung describes adding a DOC catalyst to the system (page 3, “Invention”, para. 1). The system includes a PGM (Invention, para. 1) that is impregnated into a refractory metal oxide (page 3, “invention”, para. 1). The refractory metal oxide can include alumina (page 4, para. 4). The alumina can have a pore volume of 0.8 to 0.9 cc/g (see embodiment 1, para. 1).
As to the LNT composition, the references do not describe this feature.
JP ‘541 describes a NOX absorbent catalyst (title), also called a lean NOx trap (abstract). The composition of the LNT can include a Pt/Pd contained on alumina (page 6, para. 3). The LNT can also include ceria (page 6, para. 3). The ceria can be disposed within the alumina particles (page 6, para. 3). The catalyst may include Rh on a second carrier (page 6, last para). The second carrier material may include ceria (page 7, para. 2). The ceria can be considered an oxygen storage material. The alumina is porous (see sample 1.4, “porous alumina”, para. 1). In total, the catalyst may include a combination or Rh on ceria combined with Pt and Pd to an alumina slurry (see sample 1.10, para. 3).
Since ceria is blended with Pt and Pd, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that blending of Pt and Pd together with ceria would result in at least some Pt and Pd loaded on the ceria.
As to the combination of JP ‘541 with Stroh and Sung, since Stroh does not describe the specific composition of their LNT, 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 composition that includes ceria disposed within alumina particles, Rh on ceria and Pt and Pd added to ceria (supported on ceria), as taught by JP ‘541 for use with the catalyst of Stroh and Sung because this is a known composition for LNT catalysts.
The reference does not describe the pore volume of the alumina in the LNT.
As to the pore volume, Swallow teaches that it is preferable that a LNT comprise a carrier and that they can include those with just alumina compositions (page 4, para. 6) and have pore volumes of about 0.1-4 ml/g (page 4, para. 6). Since 1cc=1ml, the pore volume range overlaps the claimed range.
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.”
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 alumina carrier in the LNT catalyst with a pore volume of 0.1-4 ml/g, as taught by Swallow for use in the LNT of Stroh and Sung because Swallow explains that this pore volume range is a preferable range for use in these type of catalysts.
As to the specific surface area of the alumina in the DOC (the first alumina), Sung teaches that the DOC includes a refractory metal oxide support and that one of those compositions can include alumina (see above). The references do not disclose this feature.
As to the specific surface area of the alumina, Kang describes a catalyst for purifying waste gases from a vehicle (title) that employs a Pd supported on a gamma-alumina carrier (abstract). The gamma-alumina carrier is aged for 4 hours at a temperature of 1015 degrees C to produce an alumina carrier with a specific surface area of not less than 120 m2/g (abstract). In the background, Kang explains that alumina, which is used as a carrier for oxidation catalysts, has a problem in that the specific surface area is not sufficiently large so that the efficiency of absorbing precious metals is not good, and the thermal stability is poor (see Background, para. 2). As a solution to this, Kang explains using an alumina carrier that has a higher specific surface area (“tech-solution”, para. 2, 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 an alumina carrier with a high specific surface area after aging at 1015 degrees C for 4 hours of not less than 120 m2/g, as taught by Kang for use with the oxidation catalyst of Stroh and Sung because use of an alumina carrier in an oxidation catalyst with these features have improved thermal stability and has a higher precious metal absorbing efficiency.
As to the second catalyst being a TWC, although Stroh does not specifically teach that their LNT is a TWC, 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 effective in the same way.
As to the method steps in Claim 1, although the references do not describe the intended use of the catalyst components, such as use of the first catalyst segment in an oxidation reaction of reductive components in exhaust gas with oxygen and the adjusted air-fuel ratio, since the composition and devices are 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 system used the same way would be effective to produce the same results.
As to Claim 3, Sung teaches that the alumina can be gamma alumina (page 11, para. 3).
As to Claim 7, Sung teaches that the oxidation catalyst is coated on a substrate (see page 16, third to last paragraph “method for coating substrate”). The catalyst that is coated onto the substrate may have the composition shown in embodiment 1. The composition of embodiment can be considered a first active layer.
As to Claim 9, Sung teaches that the substrate can be made of a ceramic or metal (page 15, para. 2).
As to Claims 11 and 16, JP ‘541 teaches that the catalyst can include a first carrier with a NOx storage component (page 6, third to last para). The system includes a second support material (page 7, para. 2). The catalyst that includes the second support material includes the LNT, which may be disposed on a substrate (page 7, para. 5). The substrate can be one of a ceramic or metal composition (page 7, para. 5). The first carrier is deposited as a washcoat layer (page 6, last para and para. 3). Layered with that washcoat is another catalyst with another carrier (page 6, last para). Combined with that second support is other catalytic components (page 7, para. 2) that is then combined with the LNT (page 7, para. 5). As to the combination of JP ‘541 with Stroh and Sung, since Stroh does not describe the specific composition of their LNT, 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 composition that includes ceria disposed within alumina particles, Rh on ceria and Pt and Pd added to ceria (supported on ceria), as taught by JP ‘541 for use with the catalyst of Stroh and Sung because this is a known composition for LNT catalysts.
As to Claim 12, JP ‘541 teaches that the composition contains ceria additives (page 7, para. 2).
As to Claim 20, Stroh teaches that the system includes an engine that employ an oxygen content that is relatively high, of about 17% oxygen (para. 3).
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 103861652).
As to Claim 2, Kang teaches that the specific surface area of the alumina is from 150-170 m2/g (abstract), which Kang explains that after it is aged, has a surface area of not less than 120 m2/g (abstract). Kang does not teach that the aging is performed at a higher temperature range of 1200±100 degrees for 4±0.5 hr.
Zhang describes an oxidation catalyst (abstract) for use with engine tail gas (abstract). As to the alumina, Zhang teaches use of a gamma-alumina that has a specific surface area in the fresh state of 260 m2/g, but has a surface area of 180 m2/g after aging at 1150 degrees C for 24 hours (para. 21).
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 alumina that maintains a surface area of not less than 180 m2/g after aging at 1150 degrees C for 24 hours, as taught by Zhang for use with the alumina of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow and Kang because using of an alumina in an oxidation catalyst with these characteristics would lead to predictable and expected results.
As to Claim 4, Sung teaches that the alumina support can include just alumina and/or other alumina-based supports, such as lanthanum-alumina (page 11, para. 2). However, since in some embodiments the support can be just alumina, the mass of the rare earth metal in the support can be zero.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Zhang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sung (WO 2014/026203), Sung II.
Sung teaches that platinum metal can be in the oxidation catalyst in an amount of 0.1% based on the weight of the oxygen storage component. The references do not describe the amount of Pd used in terms of the entire catalyst.
Sung II describes an oxidation catalyst used in reducing pollutants, such as CO (abstract) by oxidation (para. 6). Their catalyst uses a top washcoat and a bottom washcoat (para. 6). The bottom washcoat can include a Pt and Pd element and the top washcoat can include just Pt (para. 6). The oxidation catalyst can be supported with a refractory metal oxide compound (para. 8). As to the amount of Pd used, Sung teaches that the bottom washcoat can include 1% Pd (para. 57) or 0.9% (para. 62) and the top washcoat can include no Pd (para. 59, 64). This lowers the potential for sintering/aggregation of the metals during use (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Pd in an amount of 1 or 0.9% with an amount of Pt, as taught by Sung II for use with the product of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Zhang because these amounts are effective for use in an oxidation catalyst for the reduction of pollutants.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Zhang as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Sung II (WO 2014/026203) and further in view of Brand (US Pat.: 4744967).
The references do not teach the features of Claim 6.
Sung II teaches use of two oxidation catalyst segments (a bottom washcoat and a top washcoat) (para. 6). This can be considered “at least two oxidation segments”. In one embodiment, the top washcoat can be placed on a carrier over the bottom washcoat (para. 60). Similarly, the bottom washcoat can also be placed on a refractory carrier (para. 58). This structure is superior because use of a single layer may produce sintering of the catalytic components and aggregation of the catalyst, which then reduces catalytic performance (para. 4).
Sung II does not describe the distance between the two segments.
Brand describes a system used treating pollutants in an exhaust gas (abstract and col. 1, lines 5-10). The catalyst can include an oxidation catalyst (col. 7, line 63).
The carrier used for the oxidation catalyst has the dimensions of 150mm x 150 mm x 150mm (col. 7, lines 64-66). Further, Brand explains that the distance between identical catalysts was fixed at 160mm and when using two different catalysts, the distance is 200mm (col. 8, lines 1-2). Therefore, since the two oxidation catalysts are different and they are on refractory carriers known to be about 150mm3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that use of these known carriers on each oxidation catalysts would produce a distance of at least 150mm to 200mm.
Furthermore, 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 carrier for use with the oxidation catalyst that has the dimensions 150mm x 150 mm x 150 mm, as taught by Brand for use with the oxidation catalyst of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Zhang using two layers, as taught by Sung II, which would produce a distance of 150mm between the catalysts because Sung II explains that use of layers reduces aggregation and sintering the catalyst particles.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow and Kang as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sakane (JP H09108567).
The reference describes use of a binder (see Sung, page 16, second to last para that describes use of alumina binders), but does not describe use of a aluminum gel and/or a silica gel.
Sakane discusses the prior art and explains that oxidation catalysts are known to be combined with inorganic binders, such as silica gels, which can be used to shape the catalyst into a variety of shapes of coatings (para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include silica gel, as taught by Sakane for use with the oxidation catalyst of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow and Kang because silica gel is a known and effective binder for use in shaping oxidation catalysts to the desired shape and dimensions.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang, Zhang and Sung II as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chiffey (WO 2020/260669).
The references describe use of Pd supported on alumina (see above), but they do not describe a ratio of Pd to the substrate is a range of 3-50g:1 ft3.
Chiffey describes an oxidation catalyst (title) for use in treating exhaust gases (abstract). The catalyst includes a platinum group metal loaded on a substrate in an amount of 5-60 g/ft3 (col. 32, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the platinum group metal of over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang, Zhang and Sung II in an amount of 5-60 g per 1 ft3, as taught by Chiffey because this amount is known to be effective for use in an oxidation catalyst.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow and Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US Pub.: 2013/0274096).
The references teach use of ceria, but not CeZrO.
Wu teaches that pure ceria is the best oxygen storage material, but has poor thermal stability (para. 5). Zirconia stabilizes ceria to improve the material’s thermal stability (para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a zirconia stabilizer to the ceria, as taught by Wu to the ceria of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang because Wu explains that zirconia is known to stabilize ceria at high temperatures.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Wu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kuwashima (JP 2011/220123).
The references do not teach that the ratio of noble metal by mass to the volume of the substrate is from (3-50)g: 1ft3.
Kuwashima describes an exhaust purification catalyst (abstract). The catalyst system includes a NOx catalyst (page 5, para. 5), which can include a noble metal supported on an alumina substrate (page 5, para. 6). As to the ratio, in catalyst example 1, the amount of Pt is 0.67g, the amount of Pd is 0.33g and the amount of cordierite is about 1 L (example 1). The ratio amount of 1g of Pt and Pd in ratio with about 0.035 ft3 of cordierite substrate is about 28 g/ft3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the noble metal in an amount of 28 g/ft3, as taught by Kuwashima for use with the NOx catalyst of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Wu because a ratio of these two in this amount is known to have predictable and expected catalytic results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Wu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sasaki (CN 113318736).
The reference does not teach that the mass ratio of Rh to Pt is 1-15 or that a mass ratio of Rh to Pd is 1:2-15.
Sasaki describes a LNT (title) that contains a rhodium component as well as a platinum and palladium content (see page 3, para. 4). Sasaki explains that the ratio of Pt/Rh is from 2:1 to 10:1 (page 13, para. 4). As it relates to the Rh to Pt ratio, this range is from 1:2 to 1:10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Rh in ratio to Pt in an amount of 1:2 to 1:10, as taught by Sasaki for use with the LNT of Stroh, Sung, JP ‘541, Swallow, Kang and Wu because this ratio is known to lead to predictable and expected LNT catalysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is allowable because it depends from Claim 14.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Kawabata (JP 2006/263581). Kawabata teaches a catalyst (title) that includes an aged alumina (see comparative example 2) at 1100 degrees C for 24 hours (see comparative example 2). However, the specific surface area is from 61-102 (see Fig. 9).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights