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 Interpretation
In claim 1 the term “mainly” relating to coating F, is considered to mean more than 50% of the total mass of the coating F is located on the surfaces OE (See instant Spec Para [0054]).
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation " the dry wall-flow filter substrate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swallow et al. US 20130149220.
Swallow teaches an exhaust system treatment filter comprising a NOx trap with a catalyzed substrate (Abstract). The reference teaches that the filter substrate has two catalytic zones containing a different catalyst composition deposited on the substrate (Para [0024]). The first zone convers 10-90percent of the total length of the substrate and the second zone would cover the rest of the length. The reference also discloses an embodiment with a wall-flow monolith filter with one zone being deposited in the inlet channels and the other zone may be deposited in the outlet channels, effectively separating the first and second zones (Para [0024]).
Regarding claim 1, The reference teaches a wall flow filter with two zones where first zone is loaded on an inlet and a second zone is loaded on the outlet (Para [0023]-[0024]). The inlet is considered read on channel A as claimed. The outlet channel of the filter in the reference is considered as the channel E as claimed. The channels are alternately blocked only allowing gas to permeate and capturing the particulates (Para [0023]). Thus the reference teaches parallel channels where the inlet channels are closed on one end and the outlet channels are closed at a second end and are separated by a porous wall where particulates were captured and gases pass through. The surfaces of the inlet are considered as OA and the surfaces of the outlet are considered as OE. The catalytic coating on the substrate which makes the first zone is considered to read on coating Z as claimed and the coating in the second zone on the outlet is considered as coating F as claimed. The reference teaches that the first zone (coating Z) comprises palladium on cera-zirconia mixed oxide (Para [0049]). The second zone (coating F) comprises iron oxide and copper on zeolite (Para [0050]). The second zone in this embodiment does not have noble metals and the zeolite is considered as a membrane. The reference teaches that the outlet section is where gas exits (Para [0023]). This porous coating is applied by a wash coat and then calcined in a layer (Para [0017]). This indicates that the second zone comprises a membrane (layer). The reference teaches the weights of the zone 1 and zone 2 coatings in Example 1 (See Para [0049]). Here the mass ratio can be calculated in view of the mass listed for each component. Coating Z : Coating F can be calculated as 0.88 (based on weights per liter recited in Para [0049] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, based on the method of making in example 1 of Swallow et al. 100% of the mass of coating F is on the second zone (See Para [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, the Swallow et al. reference teaches that the zeolite (considered as part of the membrane) comprises aluminum oxide or silicon oxide (Para [0026]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16 the catalytic wall flow filter of Swallow is used in an exhaust gas purification system used for treating exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine (Abstract).
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) 2, 7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow et al. US 20130149220.
Regarding claim 2, the Swallow et al. reference teaches a loading length for the first zone to be 10-90% (Para [0024]). The claimed range of 50-90% is narrower.
However, overlapping, similar or approaching ranges are considered obvious. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) See MPEP §2144.05 I. The end point of 90% is common in both ranges.
Regarding claim 11, the Swallow et al. reference teaches that the second zone has particles 90% of the particles are of a size less than 10 microns (Para [0050]). These particles are milled before being loaded onto the catalytic filter (Para [0038]). Thus a varying size distribution of particles will be present.
Overlapping ranges are considered prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05 I. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been with the skill of a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a suitable or optimal particle sizes to include in the membrane. The particle size would directly relate to the surface area of the catalytic filter. Thus the particle size can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, the Swallow et al. reference teaches that the zeolite (considered as part of the membrane) comprises aluminum oxide or silicon oxide (Para [0026]). The reference also teaches that generally inorganic oxides are used as the support and include ceria, zirconia or mixtures or mixed oxides of these metals (Para [0021).
However, the reference is silent on the amounts of these components. ‘
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a suitable or optimal amount of the metals such as alumina or titania on the mixed metal oxide support. The amount of the catalytic metals would directly control the activity of the oxidation/reduction reaction. Thus making it a result effective variable which can be optimized.
Regarding claim 12, the Swallow et al. reference teaches an embodiment where the second zone comprises an additional component containing platinum, palladium or rhodium (Para [0026]). This additional component is considered to read on coating Y since the second zone is on the outlet and is considered as the surfaces OE, as discussed above (See discussion regarding claim 1).
The reference does not exclude rhodium. However the reference teaches that platinum is preferred when oxidation function is desired and rhodium is selected for reduction function (Para [0012]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to select platinum as the metal in coating Y. One would be motivated to select platinum and exclude rhodium when oxidation is desired instead of reduction in the exit section in channel E. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP §2144.07).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow et al. US 20130149220 in view of Forester et al. DE102018127955 (cited from English equivalent US20210396167).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the Swallow et al. reference does not teach the coating Z has lanthanum stabilized aluminum oxide or rare earth metal oxides. Swallow et al. teaches palladium and rhodium in the coating (Para [0024]).
Forester et al. teaches discloses (Abstract, Para [0014]; figures 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8; example 1) a wall flow filter for removing particles from the exhaust gas of internal combustion engines, which comprises two coatings which are different from each other, wherein the first coating (X, Z) is located in the porous walls and/or on the surfaces of the exit side, not on the surfaces of the entry side, and wherein the second coating (P) is located in the surfaces of the entry side, not on the surfaces of the exit side. The reference further teaches using lanthanum stabilized aluminum oxide with cerium/zirconium/rare earth mixed metal oxides as the support for precious metals such as palladium and rhodium (Para [0023] and [0024]). This is advantageous due to the high surface area particularly desirable for carrying precious metals (See Para [0023] “ As carrier materials for the precious metals, all materials familiar to the person skilled in the art for this purpose can be considered. Such materials are in particular metal oxides with a BET surface area of 30 to 250 m2/g, preferably 100 to 200 m2/g… Lanthanum-stabilized aluminum oxide is advantageously used”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the high surface area components of Forester in the coating Z of Swallow, where the precious metals are present. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the Forester reference teaches that the porosity and wall thickness directly influence the filtration property for particulates (See Forester Para [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person or ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a suitable or optimal wall thickness or the porosity. These variables directly control the filtration property as shown by Forester. Thus the wall thickness and porosity can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, the Forester reference teaches that the d50dimater of the coating is smaller than the pores of the wall filter to efficiently deposit the coating on the filter (Para [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, the Swallow et al. reference does not teach the coating Z has lanthanum stabilized aluminum oxide or rare earth metal oxides. Swallow et al. teaches palladium and rhodium in the first coating Z (Para [0024]). The reference teaches the weights of the zone 1 and zone 2 coatings in Example 1 (See Para [0049]). Here the mass ratio can be calculated in view of the mass listed for each component. Coating Z : Coating F can be calculated as 0.88 (based on weights per liter recited in Para [0049] and [0059]). The first zone convers 10-90 percent of the total length of the substrate and the second zone would cover the rest of the length. The reference also discloses an embodiment with a wall-flow monolith filter with one zone being deposited in the inlet channels and the other zone may be deposited in the outlet channels, effectively separating the first and second zones (Para [0024]).
The range for length of the first and second zones are overlapping the claimed length rage for the coatings Z and F. Overlapping ranges are considered prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Forester et al. teaches discloses (Abstract, Para [0014]; figures 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8; example 1) a wall flow filter for removing particles from the exhaust gas of internal combustion engines, which comprises two coatings which are different from each other, wherein the first coating (X, Z) is located in the porous walls and/or on the surfaces of the exit side, not on the surfaces of the entry side, and wherein the second coating (P) is located in the surfaces of the entry side, not on the surfaces of the exit side. The reference further teaches using lanthanum stabilized aluminum oxide with cerium/zirconium/rare earth mixed metal oxides as the support for precious metals such as palladium and rhodium (Para [0023] and [0024]). This is advantageous due to the high surface area particularly desirable for carrying precious metals (See Para [0023] “ As carrier materials for the precious metals, all materials familiar to the person skilled in the art for this purpose can be considered. Such materials are in particular metal oxides with a BET surface area of 30 to 250 m2/g, preferably 100 to 200 m2/g… Lanthanum-stabilized aluminum oxide is advantageously used”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the high surface area components of Forester in the coating Z of Swallow, where the precious metals are present. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP §2144.07).
A further difference is that the Swallow reference does not teach the layer thickness of the coating F.
The Forester reference teaches that the porosity and wall thickness directly influence the filtration property for particulates (See Forester Para [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person or ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a suitable or optimal wall thickness or the porosity. These variables directly control the filtration property as shown by Forester. Thus the wall thickness and porosity can be optimized without undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow et al. US 20130149220 in view of Tsuji et al. US 20060287193.
Regarding claim 14, the Swallow et al. teaches the wall flow filter of claim 1. However does not teach the method of making the filter utilizing the steps of first pumping the coating F into channel E the suctioning it off against the pumping direction with a first pulse and then inverting the wall flow filter and suctioning off the coating F in the pumping direction with a second pulse where the ratio of the first and second pulses is in the range of 0.1-1.
Tsuji et al. teaches a method for producing coated wall flow filters is known, in which a wall flow filter substrate is coated with a coating such that a suspension containing the components of the coating is first pumped into a channel, then suctioned against the pumping direction by a first suction stroke and then, after turning the wall flow filter substrate, is suctioned in the pumping direction by a second suction pulse. The suction impulses following each other are of an equal size and have a negative pressure of 10 kPa. The suction strokes being the same sizes indicates that the ratio of first and second pulses would be 1. This is within the claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to use the method of making of Tsuji to make the catalytic wall flow filter of Swallow. One would be motivated to do so in an effort to produce a flow filter which does not result in porosity blockages and a reduction of pressure-loss resulting from deposition of particulates causing blockages (See Tsuji Para [0028]).
Relevant Art
Goffe US 9764287 teaches a wall flow filter for treating exhaust gases (Abstract). The filter includes plugged sections separating inlet and outlet channels which are coated with catalytic components (See Col. 7, lines 22-35 and Fig. 5). The catalytic components included mixed metal oxides including yttria-stabilized zirconia and ceria with precious metals such as palladium (Col. 11, lines 58-Col. 12, line 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736