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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US Pat.: 9993772) and in view Huang (US Pub.: 2011/0138776).
Gilbert describes a catalytic system (title) having a flow-through substrate and catalysts positioned on the substrate (abstract). The substrate can be considered the carrier of Claim 1. The substrate has an inlet, an outlet and an axial length (see figure 1-4 and abstract). The catalytic composition of the system of Gilbert can have several configurations (see Fig. 1-23). In some aspects, Gilbert shows that there is a upstream SCR (1st SCR), followed by a downstream oxidation catalyst, both deposited on the substrate (see Fig. 23) and then a second SCR deposited on top of the oxidation catalyst (DOC) (Fig. 23).
The binder features are optional. The first and the second SCR catalysts can either have the same or different composition (see col. 12, lines 32-54).
The substrate shown in the figures is the same.
Gilbert does not specifically state that the ratio of the first to the second SCR is from 1.1:1 to 2:1.
Huang describes an exhaust treatment system that employs a combination of an oxidation catalyst and a first and second SCR catalyst supported on a substrate (filter) (abstract). Their system employs an additional SCR downstream of the first SCR (in the form of the second SCR), which is used to reduce the backpressure of the first SCR (para. 10). The first SCR can have a higher catalytic loading (para. 10). As to the specific loading, Huang describes that the first SCR has a loading of 2-4 g/in3 (para. 12), which is about 122 g/L -244 g/L, and the second SCR has a loading of 0.5 to 1.2 g/inch3 (para. 12), which is from 20-73 g/L. The ratio of the first SCR to the second SCR is about 1.6-8.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a ratio of the first SCR to the second SCR in a range of 1.6-8, as taught by Huang for use with the two SCR catalysts of Gilbert because Huang explains that by adding a downstream SCR in the amount claimed reduces the backpressure on the system created by the first SCR by being able to reduce the loading of the first SCR.
As to Claim 23, Gilbert teaches that their SCR catalyst material can include a molecular sieve (col. 12, lines 32-36). As to the composition of each SCR, Gilbert explains that the first and second SCR composition can be the same or different (col. 11, lines 29-33).
As to Claim 24, Gilbert teaches that the SCR molecular sieve can be any one of the frameworks in col. 13, lines 47-67 to col. 14, lines 1-12).
As to Claim 25, Gilbert teaches that the zeolite used can have a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of 10-200 (col. 13, lines 27-30).
As to Claim 29, Gilbert describes that their oxidation catalyst can include a platinum group metal, such Pt and Pd (page 15, lines 10-15).
As to Claim 30, this feature of Claim 22 was optional since the binders are optional, the type of binders used in Claim 30 are also optional.
As to Claim 31, Huang describes that the first SCR has a loading of 2-4 g/in3 (para. 12), which is about 122 g/L -244 g/L, and the second SCR has a loading of 0.5 to 1.2 g/inch3 (para. 12), which is from 20-73 g/L. The ratio of the first SCR to the second SCR is about 1.6-8.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
The obviousness statement in Claim 22 is re-iterated here.
As to Claim 42, Gilbert teaches that exhaust gas generated in a lean-burn diesel engine (col. 1, lines 31-33) is known to be treated with a SCR (col. 1, lines 33-34). The system is used to remove NOx in an exhaust gas (col. 2, lines 44-45) with ammonia (col. 3, lines 18-19). The ammonia slip catalyst is used to remove ammonia from the exhaust gas stream (col. 1, lines 51-55). The system includes an ammonia slip catalyst downstream of the SCR (col. 2, lines 5-8).
Claim(s) 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert and Huang as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Beutel (US Pub.: 2011/0165052).
Gilbert teaches that the Cu is in the catalyst in an amount of 0.1 to 20wt% (col. 14, lines 65-67), but does not describe the Cu:Al ratio.
Beutel describes a process for making a Cu-molecular sieve (title) for use in an SCR system (para. 41). The reference explains that when adding Cu to the molecular sieve, a molar ratio of Cu:Al in the exchanged molecular sieve can range from 0.25-2 (para. 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper in the catalyst in an amount of 0.25:2 ratio with Al, as taught by Beutel for use in the catalyst of Gilbert and Huang because this amount would lead to predictable results for use in an SCR catalyst.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert and Huang as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Welsch (WO 2017/178575).
Gilbert explains that the metal used can be either Cu or Al in an amount of 0.1 to 20wt% (col. 14, lines 58-67), but does not describe the Fe:Al ratio.
Welsch describes an SCR catalyst (title) that is composed of a zeolite and modified with either Fe or Cu (page 5, para. 7). Fe in an amount of 0.5 to 10wt% (page 5, para. 5), to produce a Fe/Al ratio of 0.25 to 3 (page 5, para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Fe in an amount where there is a Fe/Al ratio of 0.25 to 3, as taught by Welsch for use with the catalyst of Gilbert and Huang because this ratio would achieve predictable and effective results for use in SCR catalysts.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert and Huang as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Wen (WO 2017191111).
Gilbert describes use of either Cu or Fe in the SCR, or both (col. 14, lines 21-22), but does not describe the Fe+Cu/Al ratio.
Wen describes an active SCR catalyst (title). The catalyst incorporates both Cu and Fe in a zeolite to give a Cu + Fe: Al ratio of 0.32 to 0.50 (page 5, para. 8). The metals can be added in the zeolite is an amount ranging from 0.2 to 3wt% (page 5, para. 5).
Therefore, since Gilbert teaches that both Cu and Fe can be incorporated into the SCR in an overlapping amount of 0.2 to 3wt%, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a Cu and Fe: Al ratio that is effective, such as one that is in the range of 0.32 to 0.5, as taught by Wen for use with the SCR of Gilbert and Huang because this range would lead to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert and Huang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (EP 2324904).
Gilbert teaches that the platinum group metal loading can range from 5 to 75 g/ft3 (col. 15, lines 10-17), but it does not describe the total oxidation catalyst loading.
Yamaguchi describes use of an oxidation catalyst (para. 22) to treat NOx gases with an SCR catalyst (para. 20) from exhaust gases (para. 32). For treating soot and particulate matter, Yamaguchi explains that an oxidation catalyst may be used to combust and remove these compounds (para. 81). As to the loading, Yamaguchi teaches that a loading range of 1 to 34 g/L is preferred because when the amount of the oxidation catalyst loading is below 1 g/L, the particular matter combustion performance is insufficient, while a level above 34 g/L, pores of the particular matter trapping layer may be clogged, and pressure loss may be increased (para. 147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an oxidation catalyst of 1-34 g/L, as taught by Yamaguchi for use with Gilbert and Huang because this loading effectively reduces particulate matter in exhaust gases, while maintaining the pressure in the system.
Claim(s) 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert and Huang as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Yamashita (JP 2020000982).
As to Claim 33, Gilbert teaches that the first SCR and the second SCR share a substrate (col. 7, lines 24-29). Under the second SCR, Gilbert teaches that there is an oxidation catalyst combined with an ammonia slip catalyst (see Fig. 11-23). The composition of the oxidation catalyst is found in the ammonia slip catalyst (see col. 15, lines 11-15, platinum group metal, found in the ammonia slip catalyst, col. 15, lines 40-45).
The references do not describe how much of the first SCR and the second SCR with the oxidation catalyst, which Gilbert describes as an ammonia slip catalyst (see col. 15, lines 40-43), but the reference does not teach how much this layer is coated on the catalyst. The catalysts are deposited on the same substrate and reach 100% of the entire substrate (see Fig. 14-23).
Yamashita describes an exhaust gas purification catalyst (title) that includes a first SCR at 10, followed by a second SCR, which is layered with an ammonia oxidation catalyst (page 3, para. 4 and Fig. 5J). In some embodiments, Yamashita teaches that the first SCR layer can have a length of 30-80% (page 4, para. 5) and that the second SCR layer, which is layered with the AMOX (see Fig. 5J), can have a length of 10-40% (page 4, para. 4). In some embodiments, the second SCR and the AMOX have the same length (see Fig. 5J).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the composition of Yamashita where the first SCR has a length of 30-80% and the second SCR with the underlying oxidation layer has a length of 10-40%, for use with the catalytic composition of Gilbert and Huang because Yamashita explains that these variations would have predictable and expected NOx reduction results.
As to Claim 34, Gilbert teaches that the ceramic substrate can include cordierite (col. 17, lines 50-55).
As to Claim 35 and Claim 38, Gilbert teaches that the substrate can be a flow-through substrate (col. 17, lines 28-31).
As to Claim 36, Gilbert teaches that the catalyst zones can be either on the same substrate or on different substrates (col. 7, lines 24-29).
As to Claim 37, Gilbert teaches that the ceramic substrate can include cordierite (col. 17, lines 50-55).
As to Claim 39, Gilbert teaches employing a reductant, such as urea or an ammonia, injected into the exhaust gas stream (col. 18, lines 61-67) and a catalyst, which includes an SCR, downstream of the ammonia injection (col. 19, lines 1-12).
As to Claim 40, Gilbert describes the system includes an oxidation catalyst (see Fig. 11-23). As to the method steps, the system features are not limited to these method features. Therefore, the same system and composition would be capable of performing the same process features.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert and Huang as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Izumi (US Pub.: 2017/0284264).
The references do not specifically teach the features of Claim 39.
Izumi describes a system shown in Fig. 5 that includes a DPF (30) with an oxidation catalyst at 40. The filter is immediately downstream of the oxidation catalyst (Fig. 5). Downstream of this filter is a reducing agent injector (Fig. 5, 60). The filter is upstream of the reducing agent injector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the catalyst system of Izumi, which has a DPF followed by an oxidation catalyst, followed by a reducing agent injector, for use with the catalyst of Gilbert and Huang because this system is known to effectively reduce NOx in an exhaust gas system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 December 11, 2025