DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-11 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Language inconsistency.
Claim 4 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 4 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 5 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 5 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 6 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 7 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 7 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 8 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 8 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 9 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 9 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 10 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 10 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 11 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume…” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 11 as reciting: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume…”
Claim 21 recites: “…wherein the catalyst material substantially does not touch the filtration particles”. Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 21 as reciting: “…wherein the catalytic material substantially does not touch the filtration particles”.
Claim 22 recites: “…wherein the catalyst material does not touch the filtration particles”. Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 22 as reciting: “…wherein the catalytic material does not touch the filtration particles.”
Claim 23 recites: “…wherein at least some of the catalyst material is disposed within the walls.” Language inconsistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion. Claim 1 recites a catalytic material.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 23 as reciting: “…wherein at least some of the catalytic material is disposed within the walls.”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing space.
Claim 8 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to200g/L of catalyst material…” A space is missing between the preposition “to” and number “200”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-26 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 recites: “…wherein the catalytic material is disposed in the porous filter walls and/or on the second surfaces of the porous filter walls, and the catalyst material has a bulk density (BD) in (g/m3 of filter matrix volume)…” There is no mention of a catalyst materials previously in claim 1. Therefore, there insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 1 as reciting: “…wherein the catalytic material is disposed in the porous filter walls and/or on the second surfaces of the porous filter walls, and the catalytic material has a bulk density (BD) in (g/m3 of filter matrix volume)…”.
Claim 1 recites: “…wherein the filter body has a clean filtration efficiency at 0.0 particulate loading of greater than 80% normalized to a reference filter body having a reference cell density of 300 cells per square inch and a reference average wall thickness of 8 mils.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. It is unclear as to what “a reference filter body” is since it is not specified in terms of structure.
Claim 2 recites: “…wherein the filter body has a normalized clean filtration efficiency of greater than 85% at 0.0 particulate loading.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result.
Claim 3 recites: “…wherein the filter body has a normalized clean filtration efficiency of greater than 90% at 0.0 particulate loading.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result.
Claim 4 recites: “…wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 92%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 2.81kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 5 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.24kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 6 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.60kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 7 recites: “…wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.24kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 8 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 94%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 2.6kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 9 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 90%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.02kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 10 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.40kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 11 recites: “…wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L at less than 3.0kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. There is no upper limit for the catalyst loading. Therefore, it is unclear how the clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading at less than 3.0kPa is obtainable over a whole claimed range greater than 350g/L.
Claim 11 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.0kPa.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 12 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 92%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 115% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 13 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 92%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 115% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 14 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 120% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 15 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 125% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 16 recites: “…wherein the catalytic material is present at a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of filter matrix volume, wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 125% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. There is no upper limit for the catalyst loading. Therefore, it is unclear how the pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 125% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading is obtainable over a whole claimed range greater than 350g/L.
Claim 16 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 125% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 17 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 94%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 110% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 18 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 90%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 115% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 19 recites: “…the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 120% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading. This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. It appears that applicant is intending to claim subject matter in terms of results to be achieved without providing technical features necessary for achieving this result. Furthermore, it is unclear to what the pressure drop is normalized to. Is it normalized to the reference filter body?
Claim 5 recites:“…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.24kPa.”
Furthermore, claim 9 recites: “…the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalyst material per filter matrix volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 90%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L of less than 3.02kPa.”
It is unclear how the filter body in these two dependent claims have identical catalyst loadings but have different normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and different normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0g/L. Therefore, it is unclear as to which efficiency or pressure drop applies for the filter body with the claimed catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L.
Similar unclarity issue applies to claims 4 and 8, and claims 6 and 10, respectively.
Claims 20-26 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0124974, hereinafter Li).
In regards to Claim 1, Li discloses a filter body (#30) comprising a porous honeycomb structure comprised of porous filter walls (#14), filtration particles (#24) supported by the porous filter walls (#14), and catalytic material (#22) (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0040]),
wherein the structure comprises a matrix of the filter walls (#14) having an average wall thickness WT (in mils) and configured as a cellular honeycomb structure comprised of cells having a cell density of CD (cells per square inch), wherein surfaces of the filter walls (#14) define channels comprising inlet channels (#16) and outlet channels (#18) extending from an inlet end to an outlet end of the filter structure, wherein the filter body (#30) has an effective diameter D (in inches) and a length L (in inches) extending in an axial direction from the inlet end to the outlet end, wherein the filter structure (#30) comprises a first group of plugs (#13) disposed within and sealing the inlet channels (#16) at or near the outlet end and a second group of plugs (#12) disposed within and sealing the outlet channels (#18) at or near the inlet end, wherein the porous filter walls (#14) comprise opposing first and second wall surfaces (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0039]-[0040]),
wherein the filtration particles (#24) are disposed in the filter walls (#14) and/or on the filter walls at or near the first wall surfaces (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041]),
wherein the catalytic material (#22) is disposed in the porous filter walls (#14) and/or on the second surfaces of the porous filter walls (#14), and the catalyst material (#22) has a bulk density (BD) in (g/m3 of filter matrix volume) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
wherein the second surfaces define the outlet channels (#18) (see figures 1-3 and paragraph [0039]), and
wherein the filter body (#30) has a clean filtration efficiency at 0.0 particulate loading of greater than 80% normalized to a reference filter body having a reference cell density of 300 cells per square inch and a reference average wall thickness of 8 mils.
Examiner notes that although Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst material has a bulk density in g/m3 of filter matrix volume, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s catalyst material will reasonably have a bulk density in g/m3 of filter matrix volume, as it has been held that chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable, and also as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.
Examiner notes that although Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body (#30) has a clean filtration efficiency at 0.0 particulate loading of greater than 80% normalized to a reference filter body having a reference cell density of 300 cells per square inch and a reference average wall thickness of 8 mils, Li discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 2, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1. Although Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body has a normalized clean filtration efficiency of greater than 85% at 0.0 particulate loading, Li discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 3, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1. Although Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body has a normalized clean filtration efficiency of greater than 90% at 0.0 particulate loading, Li discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 20, Li discloses wherein the filter body (#3) has a cell density of 300 cells per square inch and an average wall thickness of 8 mils (see paragraph [0054]; Li discloses wherein the honeycomb structure may be about 100 to 400 cells per square inch and wall flow substrates typically have a wall thickness between 0.002 and 0.015 inches (50.8 to 381 micrometers), which overlaps the claimed value of 300 cells per square inch and 8 mils, respectively, thereby making the claimed values prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
In regards to Claim 21, Li discloses wherein the catalyst material (#22) substantially does not touch the filtration particles (#24) (see paragraph [0040]; Li discloses in one embodiment, the platinum and palladium containing washcoat (#22) permeates the porous walls while the zeolite and alumina containing washcoat (#24) is disposed on the surface of the porous walls. In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the catalyst material substantially does not touch the filtration particles, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regards to Claim 22, Li discloses wherein the catalyst material (#22) does not touch the filtration particles (#24) (see paragraph [0040]; Li discloses in one embodiment, the platinum and palladium containing washcoat (#22) permeates the porous walls while the zeolite and alumina containing washcoat (#24) is disposed on the surface of the porous walls. In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the catalyst material does not touch the filtration particles, as claimed by the applicant.).
In regards to Claim 23, Li discloses wherein at least some of the catalyst material (#22) is disposed within the walls (see figure 1-3 and paragraph [0040]).
In regards to Claim 24, Li discloses wherein the filtration particles (#24) are disposed in the filter walls (#14) and/or on the filter walls (#14) at or near the first wall surfaces (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
In regards to Claim 25, Li discloses wherein the filtration particles (#24) are disposed on the filter walls (#14) at or near the first wall surfaces (see figure 1-3 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
In regards to Claim 26, Li discloses wherein the catalyst loading is disposed predominantly in-wall within the filter walls (#14) (see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deibel et al. (DE102018108346A1, rejection relied on US equivalent Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0318447, hereinafter Deibel).
In regards to Claim 1, Deibel discloses a filter body comprising a porous honeycomb structure comprised of porous filter walls, filtration particles (dry particles) supported by the porous filter walls, and catalytic material (catalytically active material coating) (see paragraphs [0017], [0019] and [0021]-[0022]).
wherein the structure comprises a matrix of the filter walls having an average wall thickness WT (in mils) and configured as a cellular honeycomb structure comprised of cells having a cell density of CD (cells per square inch), wherein surfaces of the filter walls define channels comprising inlet channels and outlet channels extending from an inlet end to an outlet end of the filter structure, wherein the filter body has an effective diameter D (in inches) and a length L (in inches) extending in an axial direction from the inlet end to the outlet end, wherein the filter structure comprises a first group of plugs disposed within and sealing the inlet channels at or near the outlet end and a second group of plugs disposed within and sealing the outlet channels at or near the inlet end, wherein the porous filter walls comprise opposing first and second wall surfaces (see paragraphs [0019] and [0021]-[0022]),
wherein the filtration particles (dry particles) are disposed in the filter walls and/or on the filter walls at or near the first wall surfaces (see paragraphs [0022] and [0024]-[0025]; Deibel discloses a wall-flow filter is coated with catalytically active materials, and the wall-flow filter already carrying the catalytically active materials is impinged with the dry particles (powder/gas aerosol),
wherein the catalytic material (catalytically active material coating) is disposed in the porous filter walls and/or on the second surfaces of the porous filter walls, and the catalyst material has a bulk density (BD) in (g/m3 of filter matrix volume) (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses a wall-flow filter is coated with catalytically active materials, wherein the coating is carried out by applying a corresponding suspension of the catalytically active materials, also referred as a washcoat, into the wall of the wall-flow filter).
wherein the second surfaces define the outlet channels (see paragraphs [0019], [0022] and [0025]), and
wherein the filter body has a clean filtration efficiency at 0.0 particulate loading of greater than 80% normalized to a reference filter body having a reference cell density of 300 cells per square inch and a reference average wall thickness of 8 mils.
Examiner notes that although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the catalyst material has a bulk density in g/m3 of filter matrix volume, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s catalytic material will reasonably have a bulk density in g/m3 of filter matrix volume, as it has been held that chemical compositions and their properties are inseparable, and also as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.
Examiner notes that although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body (#30) has a clean filtration efficiency at 0.0 particulate loading of greater than 80% normalized to a reference filter body having a reference cell density of 300 cells per square inch and a reference average wall thickness of 8 mils, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 2, Deibel discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1. Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body has a normalized clean filtration efficiency of greater than 85% at 0.0 particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 3, Deibel discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1. Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body has a normalized clean filtration efficiency of greater than 90% at 0.0 particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 4, Deibel discloses the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which overlaps the claimed range of from 150 to 200g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 92% and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 2.81kPa, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 5, Deibel discloses the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which overlaps the claimed range of to 200 to 350g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88% and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.24kPa, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 8, Deibel discloses the filter body has a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which overlaps the claimed range of to 150 to 200g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 94% and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 2.6kPa, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 9, Deibel discloses the filter body has a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which overlaps the claimed range of to 200 to 350g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 90% and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.02kPa, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 12, Deibel discloses wherein the catalytic material is present at a catalyst loading of 40 to 50g/L of the filter body (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which falls overlaps the claimed range of 40 to 50g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 92%, wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 115% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0 g/L particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 13, Deibel discloses wherein the catalytic material is present at a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of the filter body (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which falls overlaps the claimed range of 150 to 200g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 92%, wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 115% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0 g/L particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 14, Deibel discloses wherein the catalytic material is present at a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of the filter body (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which falls overlaps the claimed range of 200 to 350g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 120% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0 g/L particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 17, Deibel discloses wherein the catalytic material is present at a catalyst loading of 150 to 200g/L of the filter body (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which falls overlaps the claimed range of 150 to 200g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 94%, wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 110% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0 g/L particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 18, Deibel discloses wherein the catalytic material is present at a catalyst loading of 200 to 350g/L of the filter body (see paragraph [0022]; Deibel discloses the catalytic coated filter has a loading of 20 to 200g/L, which falls overlaps the claimed range of 200 to 350g/L, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
Although Deibel does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 90%, wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5g/L particulate loading which is less than 115% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0 g/L particulate loading, Deibel discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Deibel’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 6-7, 10-11, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Schoenhaber et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0306693, hereinafter Schoenhaber).
In regards to Claim 6, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.60kPa.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which overlaps the claimed range of from 350 to 580g/L, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of from 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.60kPa, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 7, Li discloses wherein the walls of the matrix are configured to define 300 cells per square inch in an axial cross section of the honeycomb structure,, and the filter walls (#14) have an average wall thickness of 8 mils (see paragraph [0054]; Li discloses wherein the honeycomb structure may be about 100 to 400 cells per square inch and wall flow substrates typically have a wall thickness between 0.002 and 0.015 inches (50.8 to 381 micrometers), which overlaps the claimed value of 300 cells per square inch and 8 mils, respectively, thereby making the claimed values prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.). Li fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.24kPa.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which is so close to the claimed value of greater than 350g/L, as claimed by the applicant, that one skilled in the art would have expect them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.24kPa, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 10, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.40kPa.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which overlaps the claimed range of from 350 to 580g/L, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of from 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.40kPa, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 11, Li discloses wherein the walls of the matrix are configured to define 300 cells per square inch in an axial cross section of the honeycomb structure,, and the filter walls (#14) have an average wall thickness of 8 mils (see paragraph [0054]; Li discloses wherein the honeycomb structure may be about 100 to 400 cells per square inch and wall flow substrates typically have a wall thickness between 0.002 and 0.015 inches (50.8 to 381 micrometers), which overlaps the claimed value of 300 cells per square inch and 8 mils, respectively, thereby making the claimed values prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.). Li fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.0kPa.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which is so close to the claimed value of greater than 350g/L, as claimed by the applicant, that one skilled in the art would have expect them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.0kPa, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 15, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5 g/L particulate loading which is less than 125% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which overlaps the claimed range of from 350 to 580g/L, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of from 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5 g/L particulate loading which is less than 125% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 16, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.60kPa.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which is so close to the claimed value of greater than 350g/L, as claimed by the applicant, that one skilled in the art would have expect them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of greater than 350g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 85%, and the filter body exhibits a normalized clean pressure drop at 0.0 g/L of less than 3.60kPa, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
In regards to Claim 19, Li discloses the filter body as recited in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the filter body has a catalyst loading of 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter max volume, the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5 g/L particulate loading which is less than 120% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading.
However, Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter for the removal of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from exhaust gas of combustion engines. The three-way catalytic converter comprises a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure. The loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), which overlaps the claimed range of from 350 to 580g/L, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the filter body as disclosed by Li by further adjusting the catalyst loading of the filter body with the catalytic material to have a catalyst loading of from 350 to 580g/L of catalytic material per filter matrix volume, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Schoenhaber teaches a three-way catalytic converter comprising a filter body having a porous honeycomb structure composed of porous filter walls, having parallel flow channels and a catalytically active material coating is located on the walls in the channels of the honeycomb structure, wherein the loading of the substrate with the catalytic coating is in total 100g/L to 350g/L based on the volume of the filter body, thereby obtaining a filter body having improved catalytic conversion efficiencies (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Examiner notes that although Li, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized clean filtration efficiency at 0.0g/L particulate loading of greater than 88%, and wherein the filter body exhibits a normalized pressure drop at 0.5 g/L particulate loading which is less than 120% of its normalized pressure drop at 0.0g/L particulate loading, Li, as modified above, discloses substantially the same filter body as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that Li’s filter body is capable of functioning in the same manner as claimed, as it has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights