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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Kondo et al. (US 2002/0042344 A1) fails to disclose or teach the technical feature shared by the inventions of Groups I-III. Applicant (at page 2, second to last paragraph) argues that Kondo et al. at least fails to disclose or teach a ceramic catalyst body that is a particulate filter.
The argument is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, the restriction requirement based on a lack of unity between the inventions of Groups I-III is maintained because the shared technical feature is not considered a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Rigaudeau (US 2006/0144039 A1) and Onoe et al. (US 2017/0297005 A1), for the reasons detailed in the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the average loading” (at lines 3 and 5), “the region” (at line 3), “the whole central axis” (at line 4), “the total volume”, and “the remaining part” (at lines 5-6) lack positive antecedent basis. It is suggested that “the” be replaced with --a-- or --an--.
Regarding claim 5, the relationship between “a catalyst material layer comprising at least one platinum group metal” (at lines 2-3) and “a catalyst material layer comprising at least one platinum group metal” previously set forth in claim 1 (at lines 2-3) is unclear.
Furthermore, the recitation of “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” (at lines 3-5) renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 already defines said region as accounting for “20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter” (at lines 3-5), and “11.1 vol.%” also lies outside of the prior claimed range of “20 to 70 vol.%”.
Furthermore, the recitation of “the remaining part of the particulate filter” (at lines 8-9) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the remaining part refers to: i) “the remaining part” set forth in claim 1 (which represents 30 to 80 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter, depending on the volume percent of said region that accounts for 20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter), or ii) a remaining part that accounts for 88.9 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter (i.e., 100 minus 11.1 equals 88.9).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the limitations are unclear for the same reasons set forth under the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “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” (at lines 1-3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis because claim 1 has defined said region as accounting for “20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter” (at lines 3-5).
Furthermore, the recitation of “the remaining part of the particulate filter” (at lines 7-8) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the remaining part refers to: i) “the remaining part” set forth in claim 1 (which represents 30 to 80 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter, depending on the volume percent of said region that accounts for 20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter), or ii) a remaining part which accounts for 75 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter (i.e., 100 minus 25 equals 75).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 32.3 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter” (at lines 2-3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis because claim 1 has defined said region as accounting for “20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter” (at lines 3-5).
Furthermore, the recitation of “the remaining part of the particulate filter” (at lines 7-8) is renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the remaining part refers to: i) “the remaining part” set forth in claim 1 (which represents 30 to 80 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter, depending on the volume percent of said region that accounts for 20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter), or ii) a remaining part which accounts for 67.7 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter (i.e., 100 minus 32.3 equals 67.7).
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “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” (at lines 2-3) lacks proper positive antecedent basis because claim 1 has defined said region as accounting for “20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter” (at lines 3-5).
Furthermore, the recitation of “the remaining part of the particulate filter” (at lines 7-8) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the remaining part refers to: i) “the remaining part” set forth in claim 1 (which represents 30 to 80 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter, depending on the volume percent of said region that accounts for 20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter), or ii) a remaining part which accounts for 55.6 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter (i.e., 100 minus 44.4 equals 55.6).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation is unclear for the same reasons set forth under the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation is l unclear for the same reasons set forth under the rejection of claim 9.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigaudeau (US 2006/0144039 A1) in view of Onoe et al. (US 2017/0297005 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rigaudeau discloses a particulate filter (i.e., a particle filter 7 exhibiting both oxidation and filtration functions; see FIG. 1, 3, 4; paragraph [0050]) for the treatment of exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine 1, wherein the particulate filter 7 comprises a catalyst material layer comprising at least one platinum group metal (i.e., a catalyst material layer comprising an oxidation catalyst carried by a washcoat of oxide, wherein the oxidation catalyst may be a group VIII metal, such as platinum, palladium, or rhodium, or a mixture thereof; see paragraphs [0017]-[0019], [0050]).
Rigaudeau (see FIG. 3-4; paragraphs [0063]-[0066]) also discloses that the particulate filter 7 defines a region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter (i.e., an inner region 26 situated about a longitudinal axis of the particle filter 7) and a remaining part of the filter (i.e., an outer region 25 which surrounds the inner region 26); wherein the region 26 accounts for 20 to 70% of the area of the cross-section of the particulate filter 7 (see paragraph [0065]). In this embodiment, the region 26 extends the entire length of the particulate filter 7, such that the region 26 accounts for 20 to 70% of the total volume of the particulate filter.
Rigaudeau (see paragraphs [0060]-[0061]; with emphasis) further discloses,
“In a preferred variant of the invention, the particle filter 7 is not homogeneously impregnated with the oxidation catalyst. The amount of catalyst is increased in the regions of the particle filter 7 where thermal condition are the most favorable and where there are the greatest gas flows, in order to accentuate the conversion of the CO and the hydrocarbons there and in order to prevent catalytic aging of the filter in regions of greater thermal stress.
… When the particle filter 7 is installed in the exhaust line, the trajectory of the gaseous flows coming from the combustion chamber causes a flowrate gradient within the particle filter 7. The magnitude of this gradient depends on the engine operating conditions and on the shape of the cone connecting the main exhaust line and the particle filter 7. The phenomenon is reflected in higher gas velocities at the centre of the particle filter 7, whereas the gas flowrates are significantly reduced in the radial direction towards the periphery of the particle filter 7. This phenomenon has the consequence that the temperatures at the centre of the particle filter 7 are higher than those at its periphery…”.
Therefore, the region 26 which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter comprises a “higher impregnation” amount of the platinum group metal, while the remaining part 25 of the particulate filter is “less strongly impregnated” by the platinum group metal (see paragraphs [0063]-[0065]).
In particular, Rigaudeau (at paragraph [0065]; with emphasis) discloses,
“The region of higher impregnation typically represents from 20% to 70% of the area of the cross-section of the particle filter 7. In this region, the quantity of catalyst is typically of the order of 1.5 to 5 times that in the less strongly impregnated regions.”
Thus, Rigaudeau discloses that the “quantity” of platinum group metal in the region 26 which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 20 to 70 vol% of the total volume of the particulate filter can be 1.5 to 5 times the “quantity” of platinum group metal in the remaining part 25 of the particulate filter.
Rigaudeau, however, does not specifically state that the “average loading” of platinum group metal in the region 26 which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 20 to 70 vol% of the total volume of the particulate filter is 1.5 to 5 times the “average loading” of platinum group metal in the remaining part 25 of the particulate filter.
Applicant (see specification, at page 8, lines 24-29) defines the average loading of platinum group metal (PGM) in a region as equal to the “amount of PGM in said region / volume of said region”. Thus, the “average loading” has been interpreted to mean the average density of platinum group metal in said region.
Onoe et al. (see FIG. 1-2, 9) discloses an exhaust gas purification catalyst 10 provided with a substrate 1 for the treatment of exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine 12, wherein the substrate 1 comprises a catalyst material layer comprising at least one platinum group metal (i.e., a catalyst material layer containing a catalyst metal that functions as an oxidation catalyst, such as noble metals of the platinum group; see paragraphs [0042]-[0044]).
Onoe et al. also discloses that the substrate 1 defines a region which is around the whole central axis of the substrate (i.e., an inner region that comprises a high density section 6 situated about a longitudinal axis of the substrate) and a remaining part of the filter (i.e., an outer region that comprises a low density section 8 which surrounds the high density section 6).
Onoe (see paragraph [0047]) further discloses,
“…The catalyst metal is supported at relatively high density in the high density section 6. The high density section 6 is a portion in which the exhaust gas flow rate is relatively high during warm-up of the internal combustion engine 12.”
Onoe et al. (see paragraph [0048]) further discloses,
“… The catalyst metal is supported in the low density section 8 at a lower density than in the high density section 6. The low density section 8 is a portion in which the exhaust gas flow rate is relatively low during warm-up of the internal combustion engine 12. The catalyst metal can be used effectively by reducing thus the catalyst metal density in a portion where the exhaust gas flow rate is low.”
Onoe et al. (see paragraph [0049]) further discloses,
“The low density section 8 is formed in the outer peripheral portion of the high density section 6. As described above, heat dissipates readily in a portion close to the outer periphery of the exhaust gas purification catalyst 10, and the temperature in that portion tends to be lower than that in the central portion. Accordingly, the effect of enhancing the warm-up property can be brought out yet better by providing the high density section 6 at an inner portion (center side of the leading end section 1a) that heats up relatively readily. The catalyst metal may be incorporated into the low density section 8 at a lower density than in the high density section 6, as in the present embodiment…”.
In particular, Onoe et al. (at paragraph [0050]; with emphasis) discloses,
“… The ratio of the catalyst metal density (average density) between the high density section 6 and the low density section 8 may be set to be substantially comparable to, or higher than, the corresponding ratio of gas amount during warm-up of the internal combustion engine 12. As an example, the catalyst metal density (average density) of the high density section 6 may be about 1.5 times or more, typically 1.7 times or more, preferably 2 times or more, for instance 3 times or more, and particularly 3.3 times or more, that of the low density section 8. Within the above ranges the exhaust gas purification performance can be better enhanced in particular during warm-up of the internal combustion engine 12.”
Onoe et al. (at paragraph [0051]; with emphasis) further discloses,
“The amount of the catalyst metal in the high density section 6 is preferably not too large, in terms of reducing the use amount of the catalyst metal and cutting costs… The catalyst metal density (average density) of the high density section 6 may be about 10 times or less, typically 8 times or less, preferably 7 times or less, and for instance 6.7 times or less, that of the low density section 8. Within the above ranges it becomes possible to suppress growth (sintering) and alloying of the catalyst metal particles, and to stably achieve a desired catalytic activity.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the average loading (average density) of platinum group metal in the region 26 which is around the whole central axis and accounts for 20 to 70 vol% of the total volume of the particulate filter to be from 1.1 to 10 times the average loading (average density) of platinum group metal in the remaining part 25 in the particulate filter 7 of Rigaudeau because, by providing a ratio of the average loadings (average densities) within this range, the exhaust gas purification performance can be better enhanced, in particular, during warm-up of the internal combustion engine, it would be possible to suppress growth (sintering) and alloying of the catalyst metal particles, and a desired catalytic activity could be stably achieved, as taught by Onoe et al.
Furthermore, the specific ratio of the average loadings is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize said ratio in the particulate filter of Rigaudeau to obtain the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau and Onoe et al. apply.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the average loading (average density) of platinum group metal in the region 26 which is around the whole central axis and accounts for 20 to 70 vol% of the total volume of the particulate filter to be 1.2 to 8 times the average loading (average density) of platinum group metal in the remaining part 25 in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau because, by providing a ratio of the average loadings (average densities) within this range, the exhaust gas purification performance can be better enhanced, in particular, during warm-up of the internal combustion engine, it would be possible to suppress growth (sintering) and alloying of the catalyst metal particles, and a desired catalytic activity would be stably achieved, as taught by Onoe et al.
Furthermore, the specific ratio of the average loadings is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. It is also noted that the present specification (see page 9, lines 32-36) sets forth that the claimed ratio is, at best, a preferred limitation. As such, without more, the claimed ratio cannot be considered “critical”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize said ratio in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to obtain the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau and Onoe et al. apply.
Rigaudeau also discloses a further embodiment of the particulate filter 7 (see FIG. 5; paragraph [0067]), wherein the region 27 of higher impregnation of platinum group metal is present over only a portion of the length of the particulate filter, typically from 10% to 50% or even 60% of the length of the particulate filter, starting from the inlet face 28. The remainder of the particulate filter 7 comprises the less strongly impregnated region 29. Rigaudeau notes that the temperature of the particulate filter 7 tends to fall strongly towards the periphery and over the length of the particulate filter (see paragraph [0061]).
Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the region of higher average loading of platinum group metal in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to only extend across, for instance, 1/3 (33%) of the length of the particulate filter, starting from its inlet face. As such, when the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau is evenly divided into three subregions along the whole central axis (with each subregion having a length of 1/3 (33%) of the total length of the filter), the average loading of platinum group metal in one subregion, namely, the inlet subregion proximate the inlet face of the particulate filter, would be between 1.5 to 15 times the average loading of platinum group metal in the remaining downstream subregions. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Rigaudeau discloses that the catalyst material layer comprises at least one refractory metal oxide (i.e., oxides, such as Al2O3, and, optionally, further oxides such as cerium oxide and/or mixed cerium and zirconium oxide, see paragraph [0050]).
Claims 3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigaudeau (US 2006/0144039 A1) in view of Onoe et al. (US 2017/0297005 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rigaudeau et al. (US 2006/0201140 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rigaudeau and Onoe et al. fails to disclose or teach that the difference in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between said region around the whole central axis and accounting for 20 to 70% of the total volume of the particulate filter and the remaining part of the particulate filter is no more than 25%, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer. Here, the “catalyst material layer” is interpreted to include the platinum group metal and also oxides, such as alumina (Al2O3), of the washcoat used for carrying the platinum group metal (see paragraph [0050]).
Rigaudeau et al. (see FIG. 1, 5, 6) discloses a particulate filter 7 comprising a catalyst material layer comprising at least one platinum group metal (i.e., a catalyst selected from group VIII, such as platinum, palladium, or rhodium, or a mixture thereof; see paragraphs [0024]-[0025]); wherein the quantity or amount of platinum group metal in a region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter (i.e., in a “more strongly impregnated” central region 35) is typically 1.5 to 5 times the quantity or amount of platinum group metal in a remaining part (i.e., in a “more weakly impregnated” outer region 34) of the particulate filter (i.e., “… it is preferable to favor the most central modules 35 for impregnation by the metal catalyst in order to convert the hydrocarbons and CO preferentially where the thermal and flow conditions are most favorable to this effect. Once again, the more strongly impregnated regions may typically contain from 1.5 to 5 times more metal catalyst than the more weakly impregnated regions,” see paragraph [0077]).
Rigaudeau et al. (at paragraphs [0062]-[0064]; with emphasis) further discloses,
“The platinum and/or palladium and/or rhodium may either be merely deposited on a washcoat of Al2O3, or it may be mixed with the washcoat or with the OSC composition.
The washcoat deposited on the particle filter may consist of alumina (constituting a catalyst support of large surface area) to which cerium oxide (CeO2) and/or mixed cerium and zirconium oxide (CexZryO2) is or are added in variable proportions, which oxide(s) may be intimately bonded to the alumina. The quantity of washcoat may vary from a few grams per liter (g/l) to a few tens of g/l.
The precious metals must be sufficiently dispersed and stable to remain accessible and effective for converting the pollutants. The quantity of precious metals depends on the quantity of washcoat and may vary from a few tenths of a gram to several grams over the whole of the particle filter, depending on the function of the precious metals. Several grams are generally necessary for treatment of exhaust gases.”
Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the washcoat at “a few tens of g/l” in each of the region 35 and the remaining part 34, and to provide “several grams” of the platinum group metal, such as 1.5 grams of the platinum group metal within the region 35 and 1 gram of the platinum group metal within the remaining part 34, such that the amount of platinum group metal in the region 35 was 1.5 times the amount of platinum group metal in the remaining part 34. As such, a difference in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between the region 35 and the remaining part 34 would be no more than 25%, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the difference in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between said region around the whole central axis and accounting for 20 to 70 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter and the remaining part of the particulate filter to be no more than 25%, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau. Furthermore, the specific percent difference is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent different would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent difference in the average loading of the catalyst material between said region and said remaining part in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 5-7, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau, Onoe et al., and Rigaudeau et al. apply. Therefore, the specific amount of the platinum group metal in weight percent (i.e., from 12 to 35 wt.%, or from 12.5 to 30 wt.%) 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, based on the total weight of the platinum group metal in the particulate filter, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise amount, in weight percent, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize said amount of the platinum group metal, in weight percent, 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 in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specific percent difference (i.e., of no more than 25%, or no more than 15%) in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between said region accounting for 11.1 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter and the remaining part of the particulate filter, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent different would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent difference in the average loading of the catalyst material between said region and said remaining part in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau, Onoe et al., and Rigaudeau et al. apply. Therefore, the specific amount of the platinum group metal in weight percent (i.e., from 27 to 60 wt.%) 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, based on the total weight of the platinum group metal in the particulate filter, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise amount, in weight percent, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize said amount of the platinum group metal, in weight percent, 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 in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specific percent difference (i.e., of no more than 25%) in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between said region accounting for 25 vol.% of the total volume of the filter and the remaining part of the filter, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent different would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent difference in the average loading of the catalyst material between said region and said remaining part in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to obtain the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau, Onoe et al., and Rigaudeau et al. apply. Therefore, the specific amount of the platinum group metal in weight percent (i.e., from 34 to 80 wt.%) in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 32.3 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter, based on the total weight of the platinum group metal in the particulate filter, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise amount, in weight percent, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize said amount of the platinum group metal, in weight percent, in the region which is around the whole central axis of the particulate filter and accounts for 32.3 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specific percent difference (i.e., of no more than 25%) in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between said region accounting for 32.3 vol.% of the total volume of the filter and the remaining part of the filter, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent different would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent difference in the average loading of the catalyst material between said region and said remaining part in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau, Onoe et al., and Rigaudeau et al. apply. Therefore, the specific amount of the platinum group metal in weight percent (i.e., from 47 to 85 wt.%) in the region which is around the whole central axis of the filter and accounts for 44.4 vol.% of the total volume of the filter, based on the total weight of the platinum group metal in the filter, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise amount, in weight percent, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize said amount of the platinum group metal, in weight percent, in the region which is around the whole central axis of the filter and accounts for 44.4 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specific percent difference (i.e., of no more than 25%) in the average loading of the catalyst material layer between said region accounting for 44.4 vol.% of the total volume of the filter and the remaining part of the filter, based on the lower average loading of the catalyst material layer, is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise percent different would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the percent difference in the average loading of the catalyst material between said region and said remaining part in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to achieve the desired exhaust gas purification performance, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau, Onoe et al., and Rigaudeau et al. apply. In particular, Rigaudeau discloses a further embodiment of the particulate filter 7 (see FIG. 5; paragraph [0067]), wherein the region 27 of higher impregnation of platinum group metal is present over only a portion of the length of the filter, typically from 10% to 50% or even 60% of the length of filter, starting from the inlet face 28.
Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the region accounting for 11.1 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter and having the higher average loading of platinum group metal in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to only extend across, for instance, 1/3 (33%) of the length of the particulate filter, starting from its inlet face. As such, when the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau is evenly divided into three subregions along the whole central axis (with each subregion having a length of 1/3 (33%) of the total length of the particulate filter), the average loading of platinum group metal in one subregion, namely, an inlet subregion proximate the inlet face of the particulate filter, would be from 1.5 to 15 times the average loading of platinum group metal in the remaining downstream subregions. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the same comments with respect to Rigaudeau, Onoe et al., and Rigaudeau et al. apply. In particular, Rigaudeau discloses a further embodiment of the particulate filter 7 (see FIG. 5; paragraph [0067]), wherein the region 27 of higher impregnation of platinum group metal is present over only a portion of the length of the filter, typically from 10% to 50% or even 60% of the length of the filter, starting from the inlet face 28.
Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the region accounting for 32.3 vol.% of the total volume of the particulate filter and having the higher average loading of platinum group metal in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau to only extend across, for instance, 1/3 (33%) of the length of the particulate filter, starting from its inlet face. As such, when the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau is evenly divided into three subregions along the whole central axis (with each subregion having a length of 1/3 (33%) of the total length of the particulate filter), the average loading of platinum group metal in one subregion, namely, an inlet subregion proximate the inlet face of the particulate filter, would be from of 1.5 to 15 times the average loading of platinum group metal in the remaining downstream subregions. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rigaudeau and Onoe et al. fails to disclose or teach that the average loading of the platinum group metal of the particulate filter is in the range from 2 to 50 g/ft3.
The same comments with respect to Rigaudeau et al. apply. In particular, Rigaudeau et al. (at paragraph [0063]) discloses,
“The precious metals must be sufficiently dispersed and stable to remain accessible and effective for converting the pollutants. The quantity of precious metals depends on the quantity of washcoat and may vary from a few tenths of a gram to several grams over the whole of the particle filter, depending on the function of the precious metals. Several grams are generally necessary for treatment of exhaust gases.”
Thus, the specific average loading of the platinum group metal of the particulate filter (i.e., from 2 to 50 g/ft3) is not considered to confer patentability to the claim since the precise average loading would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely optimize the average loading of the platinum group metal of the particulate filter in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau in order to obtain a sufficient and stable dispersion of the platinum group metal that was accessible and effective for the treatment of exhaust gas, as taught by Rigaudeau et al., and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rigaudeau and Onoe et al. fails to disclose or teach that the average loading of the catalyst material layer of the particulate filter is in the range from 2 to 50 g/ft3.
The same comments with respect to Rigaudeau et al. apply. In particular, Rigaudeau et al. discloses that the catalyst material layer of the particulate filter may comprise “several grams” of the platinum group metal and “a few tens of g/l” of the washcoat (see paragraphs [0063]-[0064]). (for unit conversion, 1 liter is approximately 61.02 in3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an average loading of the catalyst material layer of the particulate filter in the range from 0.2 to 3 g/in3 in the modified particulate filter of Rigaudeau because an average loading within this range would be considered suitable for achieving an effective treatment of the exhaust gas, as suggested by Rigaudeau et al., and, furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Choi (US 2012/0288416 A1) and Ettireddy et al. (US 2016/0201537 A1) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art.
* * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights