DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0162346 to Girard et al. (Girard) in view of US 2018/0008973 Gramiccioni et al (Gramiccioni)
In Reference to Claim 1 and 15
Girard discloses:
A particulate filter 22 for the treatment of exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine, wherein
the particulate filter comprises a functional material layer 52 (catalyst loading), and the amount of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis 84 (Zone E) of the particulate filter and accounts for 11.1 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter [Emphasis added, Girard does not disclose specifically 11.1%] , is in the range from 13 to 40 wt.%, based on the total weight of the functional material layer, see paragraph [0058-0059].
Girard is silent on “accounts for 11.1 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter”.
However in paragraph [0062-0063], teaches that Zone E can be roughly 20% and vary “as desired” in addition teaches “it should be understood that in practice the number of locations and/or zones can vary as desired” which means that the Zones can be more or less than 5.
Accordingly, because changing the number of zones achieves the recognized result of a change in of changing the % volume of the zone per total volume, The Volume is determined to be a results effective variable. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the number of zones to achieve a 11.1% volume, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to “the functional material layer comprises at least one inorganic material, and the inorganic material is in the form of a particulate, the inorganic material has a D90 of 0.1 to 50 micron” Girard discloses the porosity however does not disclose Inorganic material is in particulate form.
Gramiccioni discloses catalyst component which refers to a catalyst material that promotes a reaction, see paragraph 0053, the washcoat containing said catalyst component having a particle size ranging overlapping of D90 of 0.1 to 50 micron and D10 0.5 to 2.2 micron, see paragraph [0083]. Further the catalyst component is “inorganic” as the component when used in filters such as CSF, see paragraph [0092].
At the time claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to include particulate form inorganic material in a size of D10 which and D90, combine the teachings of Gramiccioni with Girard, since this would enable the practitioner of the primary reference to practice the advantage of improving the emission and reaction of emission by the filter of Girard.
Girard further discloses:
wherein the particulate filter (substrat) further comprises a catalytic washcoat disposed on the particulate filter, the functional material layer being disposed on the catalytic washcoat, wherein the catalytic washcoat comprises one or more of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), a three-way conversion (TWC) catalyst, an AMOx catalyst, a NOx trap, a NOx absorber catalyst, a hydrocarbon trap catalyst, claim 10 (“SCR TWC DOC CSF”) and see paragraph [0109].
In Reference to Claim 2 and 16
Girard discloses:
wherein the amount of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 11.1 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter, is in the range from 15 to 30 wt.%, based on the total weight of the functional material layer see paragraph [0058-0059].
In Reference to Claim 3
Girard discloses:
wherein the amount of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 25 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter, is in the range from 28 to 60 wt.%, , based on the total weight of the functional material layer see paragraph [0058-0059].
In Reference to Claim 4
Girard discloses:
wherein the amount of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 44.4 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter, is in the range from 40 to 90 wt.%, based on the total weight of the functional material layer see paragraph [0058-0059].
In Reference to Claim 5
Girard discloses:
wherein the content of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 11.1 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter is higher than the content of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 25 vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter see paragraph [0058-0059].
In Reference to Claim 6
Girard discloses:
wherein the content of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 25vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter is higher than the content of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 44.4vol. % of the total volume of the particulate filter see paragraph [0058-0059].
In Reference to Claim 7
Girard discloses:
wherein the content of the functional material layer in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 44.4vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter is higher than the content of the functional material layer in the remainder region of the particulate filter see paragraph [0058-0059].
In Reference to Claim 8
Girard discloses:
wherein the filter has an inlet side and an outlet side; and the functional material layer is coated onto the inlet side, the outlet side, or both sides of the particulate filter; see paragraph [0048]-[0050].
In Reference to Claim 9
Girard discloses:
the average loading of the functional material layer is in the range from0.5 to 20gIL; see paragraph [0055]-[0056].
In Reference to Claim 10
Girard discloses:
wherein functional material layer comprises at least one inorganic material, , the inorganic material is selected from inorganic oxide and inorganic salt, see paragraph [0035].
In Reference to Claim 11
Girard discloses:
wherein the inorganic material is selected from alumina, zirconia, ceria, silica, titania, magnesium oxide, zincoxide, manganese oxide, calcium oxide, silicate zeolite, alumino silicate zeolite, a rare earth metal oxide other than ceria, a mixed oxide comprising two or more of Al, Zr, Ti, Si, and Ce, cerium zirconium mixed oxide, hydrated alumina, calcium carbonate and zinc carbonate; see paragraph [0035].
In Reference to Claim 13
Girard discloses:
wherein the particulate filter further comprises a catalytic washcoat, wherein the catalytic washcoat comprises one or more of a selective catalytic reduction(SCR) catalyst, a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), a three-way conversion(TWO) catalyst, an AMOx catalyst, a NOx trap, aNOx absorber catalyst, a hydrocarbon trap catalyst; see paragraph [0005].
In Reference to Claim 14
Girard discloses:
wherein the catalytic washcoat is applied to the particulate filter prior to application of the functional material layer; see paragraph [0040].
In Reference to Claim 17
Girard discloses:
wherein the cover is placed coaxially onto said side of the filter.
In Reference to Claim 18
Girard discloses:
The particulate filter is a particulate filter according to any of claims 1 to 14.
In Reference to Claim 19
Girard discloses:
Method for the treatment of exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine, which comprises flowing the exhaust gas from the engine through the particulate filter according to claim 1
In Reference to Claim 20
Girard discloses:
wherein the exhaust gas comprises unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, see paragraph [0004].
In Reference to Claim 21
Girard discloses:
The inorganic material has a D10 of 0.5 to 2.2micron, see claim 1 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues:
Girard does not disclose or suggest applying a catalytic washcoat to a particulate filter first and then subsequently applying a separate functional material on top of the catalytic washcoat as recites in the amended claim 1.
Examiner Response:
Girard discloses in paragraph [0109] discoses a additional washcoat that can be used on top of the layer of wash coat layer 14. The Additional washcoat layer 16 comprising a second layer with a second catalytic component. As such the prior art Girard discloses the claim limitation.
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 ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO whose telephone number is (571)270-3452. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Mark III Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY AYALA DELGADO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights