DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 3-9 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a U.S. national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2021/082911 filed November 25, 2021, which claims priority benefit to Germany Patent Application No.102020131366.7 filed on November 26, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 05/11/2023, 08/26/2024, 03/03/2025, and 12/04/2025, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-9) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative Dennis C. Rodgers on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-9 are under examination on the merits.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 is drawn to a stoichiometrically operated spark-ignition engine comprising an exhaust-gas system, wherein the exhaust-gas system has a three-way catalyst close to the engine and a gasoline particulate filter installed in the under-floor. On the one hand, claim 1 defines the claimed spark-ignition engine comprises (contains) an exhaust-gas system. However, on the other hand, claim 1 defines the exhaust- gas system has a three-way catalyst close to the engine and a gasoline particulate filter installed in the under-floor, which suggests the three-way catalyst of the exhaust-gas system and a gasoline particulate filter are not part of the engine. It is not clear whether or not the exhaust-gas system is part of spark-ignition engine. In addition, it is also not clear whether or not the oxidation catalyst is part of spark-ignition engine. Metes and bounds of claim 1 are not clear. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-9 depending on claim 1 are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2018/0038252 (“the `252 publication”) to Yang et al. evidenced by US2020/0368727 (“the `727 publication”) to Svhmitz et al.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a stoichiometrically operated spark-ignition engine comprising an exhaust-gas system for reducing harmful exhaust gases resulting from fuel combustion, wherein the exhaust- gas system has a three-way catalyst close to the engine and a gasoline particulate filter installed in the under-floor, wherein the exhaust gas coming from the three-way catalyst close to the engine is passed through an oxidation catalyst before filtration, said oxidation catalyst being capable of oxidizing NO to NO2 in the presence of excess air, at temperatures of 250°C - 500°C; characterized in that the oxidation catalyst comprises platinum group metals on a temperature-resistant metal oxide with a large surface area, and the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst coating has an average pore volume (Q3 distribution) of 0.7 ml/g - 2 ml/g.
The `252 publication [0049] discloses an exhaust gas treatment system for treatment of a gasoline engine exhaust gas stream containing Nox, particulate matter, and sulfur illustrated in FIG. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
514
1039
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the engine exhaust system 200 comprises one or more catalytic articles 220 selected from a TWC catalyst, a LNT, or an integrated LNT-TWC catalyst downstream from a gasoline engine 210 via an exhaust conduit 215, a platinum-containing catalytic article 230 downstream from the one or more catalytic articles 220 via an exhaust conduit 225, and one or more SCR catalytic articles 240 immediately downstream from the platinum-containing catalytic article 230 via an exhaust conduit 235. The `252 publication [0080] discloses the platinum-containing catalytic article 230 (in FIG. 2) is on a flow through substrate, coated on a particulate filter, wherein the particulate filter can be selected from a gasoline particulate filter or a soot filter. As used herein, the terms “particulate filter” or “soot filter” refer to a filter designed to remove particulate matter from an exhaust gas stream such as soot. Particulate filters include, but are not limited to honeycomb wall flow filters, partial filtration filter, a wire mesh filter, wound fiber filters, sintered metal filters, and foam filters. The `252 publication [0081] also discloses the particulate filter is a platinum-containing catalyzed soot filter (CSF), the platinum-containing CSF comprises a substrate coated with a wash-coat layer containing platinum for burning off trapped soot and/or oxidizing NO2, and the platinum-containing CSF is coated with platinum and one or more high surface area refractory oxide metal oxide supports (e.g., alumina, silica, silica alumina, zirconia, zirconia alumina, and ceria-zirconia) for the combustion of unburned hydrocarbons and, to some degree, particulate matter. It is also well-known that an exhaust gas treatment system for treatment of a gasoline engine exhaust gas stream locates in the under-floor of a vehicle. The `252 publication [0047] teaches regeneration of a sulfated SCR catalyst requires temperatures of approximately 500° C in rich cycles, and for lean GDI engine applications, which runs lean only at temperatures of about 250° C. In addition, the `252 publication [0059] teaches “refractory metal oxide support” refers to the underlying high surface area material upon which additional chemical compounds or elements are carried, and high surface area refractory metal oxide supports can be utilized, e.g., alumina support materials, which typically exhibit a BET surface area in excess of 60 m2/g, often up to about 200 m2/g or higher.
The `252 publication does not disclose the specific pore volume of the high surface area of the metal oxide. Instead, the `252 publication [0060] discloses that pore volume can be determined using BET-type N2 adsorption or desorption experiments. However, the claimed limitation of “the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst coating has an average pore volume of 0.7 ml/g - 2 ml/g” of claim 1 is further disclosed, evidence by the `727 publication [0210] in “Example 1 drawn to FWC Catalyst with in-Wall Coating and Inlet On-Wall Coating Comprising Alumina”, wherein high surface area gamma-alumina having BET specific surface area=149 m2/g; total pore volume=0.535 ml/g. From this disclosure, the refractory metal oxide supports (e.g., alumina support materials) typically exhibiting a BET surface area in excess of 60 m2/g, often up to about 200 m2/g or higher disclosed by the `252 publication [0059], should be concluded to include total pore volume of 0.535 ml/g, which reads on the claimed limitation of “the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst coating has an average pore volume of 0.7 ml/g - 2 ml/g”. Therefore, the `252 publication evidenced by the `727 publication anticipates claim 1.
Alternatively, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as following:
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the `252 publication in view of the `727 publication, and US2019/0105636 (“the `636 publication”) to Wang et al.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `252 publication [0049] discloses an exhaust gas treatment system for treatment of a gasoline engine exhaust gas stream containing Nox, particulate matter, and sulfur illustrated in FIG. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
514
1039
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the engine exhaust system 200 comprises one or more catalytic articles 220 selected from a TWC catalyst, a LNT, or an integrated LNT-TWC catalyst downstream from a gasoline engine 210 via an exhaust conduit 215, a platinum-containing catalytic article 230 downstream from the one or more catalytic articles 220 via an exhaust conduit 225, and one or more SCR catalytic articles 240 immediately downstream from the platinum-containing catalytic article 230 via an exhaust conduit 235. The `252 publication [0080] discloses the platinum-containing catalytic article 230 (in FIG. 2) is on a flow through substrate, coated on a particulate filter, wherein the particulate filter can be selected from a gasoline particulate filter or a soot filter. As used herein, the terms “particulate filter” or “soot filter” refer to a filter designed to remove particulate matter from an exhaust gas stream such as soot. Particulate filters include, but are not limited to honeycomb wall flow filters, partial filtration filter, a wire mesh filter, wound fiber filters, sintered metal filters, and foam filters. The `252 publication [0081] also discloses the particulate filter is a platinum-containing catalyzed soot filter (CSF), the platinum-containing CSF comprises a substrate coated with a wash-coat layer containing platinum for burning off trapped soot and/or oxidizing NO2, and the platinum-containing CSF is coated with platinum and one or more high surface area refractory oxide metal oxide supports (e.g., alumina, silica, silica alumina, zirconia, zirconia alumina, and ceria-zirconia) for the combustion of unburned hydrocarbons and, to some degree, particulate matter. It is also well-known that an exhaust gas treatment system for treatment of a gasoline engine exhaust gas stream locates in the under-floor of a vehicle. The `252 publication [0047] teaches regeneration of a sulfated SCR catalyst requires temperatures of approximately 500° C in rich cycles, and for lean GDI engine applications, which runs lean only at temperatures of about 250° C. In addition, the `252 publication [0059] teaches “refractory metal oxide support” refers to the underlying high surface area material upon which additional chemical compounds or elements are carried, and high surface area refractory metal oxide supports can be utilized, e.g., alumina support materials, which typically exhibit a BET surface area in excess of 60 m2/g, often up to about 200 m2/g or higher.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between instant claim 1 and the `252 publication is that the `252 publication does not disclose the specific pore volume of the high surface area of the metal oxide. Instead, the `252 publication [0060] discloses that pore volume can be determined using BET-type N2 adsorption or desorption experiments.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instant claim 1 would have been obvious over the `272 publication because the claimed limitation of “the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst coating has an average pore volume of 0.7 ml/g - 2 ml/g” is further taught and/or suggested by the `727 publication [0210] in “Example 1 drawn to FWC Catalyst with in-Wall Coating and Inlet On-Wall Coating Comprising Alumina”, wherein high surface area gamma-alumina having BET specific surface area=149 m2/g; total pore volume=0.535 ml/g. From this disclosure, the refractory metal oxide supports (e.g., alumina support materials) typically exhibiting a BET surface area in excess of 60 m2/g, often up to about 200 m2/g or higher disclosed by the `252 publication [0059], should be concluded to include total pore volume of 0.535 ml/g, which reads on the claimed limitation of “the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst coating has an average pore volume of 0.7 ml/g - 2 ml/g”. One ordinary skilled in the art, it would have been obvious to combine the two references as a whole toward Applicant’s invention.
In terms of claim 2, wherein the Pt:Pd weight ratio in the oxidation catalyst is > 1, the `252 publication [0117] teaches the platinum-containing catalytic material contained platinum and palladium in a ratio of 10:1, see Example 1.
In terms of claim 3 wherein the oxidation catalyst is designed as a two-layer catalyst in which, in the lower layer, Pd and an oxygen storage material are deposited on the temperature-resistant metal oxide with a large surface area and, in the upper layer, Pt is deposited on the temperature-resistant metal oxide with a large surface area, the `636 publication [0016] teaches the catalyst coating is a layered coating, the coating comprises a first layer comprising a first catalyst component in the form of the catalyst composition according to any of the preceding claims, optionally in combination with an additional catalyst component selected from the group consisting of a second PGM component impregnated into a second refractory oxide support, a base metal oxide, or a combination thereof, and a second layer comprising rhodium impregnated on a third refractory oxide support. In addition, the `636 publication [0027] teaches the PGM on porous alumina can be in any of the catalyst layers present on the substrate, such as in an amount of about 0.25-1.5 g/in3; the PGM on porous alumina (e.g., Pd on porous alumina) can be located in any layered or zone configuration, such as wherein the Pd on the porous alumina is located in a front portion of the coated substrate in a zoned catalyst coating; still further, the Pd on porous alumina can mixed with other Pd/porous support materials, such as other refractory oxides (e.g., lower porosity alumina, Pr—ZrO2, La—ZrO2, and the like) supporting Pd or other PGM components.
In terms of claim 4, wherein the temperature-resistant metal oxide with a large surface area is selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, aluminum dioxide, zeolite, cerium oxide, cerium/zirconium oxide, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, mixed oxides, composite materials and mixtures of the aforementioned, the `252 publication [0081] also discloses the particulate filter is a platinum-containing catalyzed soot filter (CSF), the platinum-containing CSF comprises a substrate coated with a wash-coat layer containing platinum for burning off trapped soot and/or oxidizing NO2, and the platinum-containing CSF is coated with platinum and one or more high surface area refractory oxide metal oxide supports (e.g., alumina, silica, silica alumina, zirconia, zirconia alumina, and ceria-zirconia) for the combustion of unburned hydrocarbons and, to some degree, particulate matter.
In terms of claim 5, wherein the loading with platinum group metals in the oxidation catalyst is 0.035 - 4.0 g/L, the `252 publication [0117] teaches a total platinum group metal loading of 25 g/ft3, or 0.88 g/L (1ft3 = 28.32 L).
In terms of claim 6, wherein the oxidation catalyst is arranged as a separate component before the catalytically coated or uncoated gasoline particulate filter, the `252 publication [0049] discloses an exhaust gas treatment system illustrated in FIG. 2, wherein the engine exhaust system 200 comprises one or more catalytic articles 220 selected from a TWC catalyst, a LNT, or an integrated LNT-TWC catalyst downstream from a gasoline engine 210 via an exhaust conduit 215, a platinum-containing catalytic article 230 downstream from the one or more catalytic articles 220 via an exhaust conduit 225, and one or more SCR catalytic articles 240 immediately downstream from the platinum-containing catalytic article 230 via an exhaust conduit 235, wherein the catalytic articles 220, 230, and 240 are oxidation catalyst which are placed as a separate component in front of gasoline particulate filters.
In terms of claim 7, wherein the oxidation catalyst is designed as a coating on and/or in the gasoline particulate filter, the `252 publication [0080] discloses the platinum-containing catalytic article 230 (in FIG. 2) is on a flow through substrate, coated on a particulate filter, wherein the particulate filter can be selected from a gasoline particulate filter or a soot filter. As used herein, the terms “particulate filter” or “soot filter” refer to a filter designed to remove particulate matter from an exhaust gas stream such as soot. Particulate filters include, but are not limited to honeycomb wall flow filters, partial filtration filter, a wire mesh filter, wound fiber filters, sintered metal filters, and foam filters. The `252 publication [0081] also discloses the particulate filter is a platinum-containing catalyzed soot filter (CSF), the platinum-containing CSF comprises a substrate coated with a wash-coat layer containing platinum for burning off trapped soot and/or oxidizing NO2, and the platinum-containing CSF is coated with platinum and one or more high surface area refractory oxide metal oxide supports (e.g., alumina, silica, silica alumina, zirconia, zirconia alumina, and ceria-zirconia) for the combustion of unburned hydrocarbons and, to some degree, particulate matter.
In terms of claim 8, wherein the average pore volume (Q3 distribution) of the metal oxides used in the oxidation catalyst increases in the direction of the exhaust-gas flow, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have the exhaust-gas system having oxides used in the oxidation catalyst increases in the direction of the exhaust-gas flow in order to increase NOx oxidation capability since the TWC-LNT catalyst (220) is not primarily used for NOx oxidation, but the Pt-catalyst (230) and SCR catalyst (240).
In terms of claim 9, wherein the that the ratio of the average pore volume (Q3 distribution) of the metal oxide of the three-way catalyst close to the engine to the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst is 0.25 – 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to set the ratio of the average pore volume (Q3 distribution) of the metal oxide of the three-way catalyst close to the engine to the metal oxide of the oxidation catalyst is 0.25 – 1 because it is obvious-to-try to improve the NOx elimination capability when the pore volume has been disclosed in the metal oxide catalysts in both the `252 publication and the `727 publication.
Conclusions
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731