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 1-14 and 16, in the reply filed on May 7, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that,
“… US'090 discloses an exhaust gas treatment system that is directed to a system for generating ammonia upstream of the TWC for use as a reductant in NOₓ reduction, rather than a system specifically designed for reducing ammonia emissions at the tailpipe as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claimed combination constitutes a special technical feature that makes a contribution over US'090.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The recitation of the exhaust gas treatment system “for reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine” is directed to an intended use of the system. The exhaust gas treatment system of Xue et al. (see, for instance, FIG. 1; paragraph [0042]) would be capable of performing the intended use as claimed because any ammonia present in the emission from the gasoline engine 110, along with ammonia produced by the ammonia generating and hydrocarbon oxidation catalyst 120, ultimately flows downstream and is treated by the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst 140. The emission can also be treated by an ammonia oxidation (AMOx) catalyst downstream of the SCR catalyst, which removes any slipped ammonia from the SCR catalyst (see paragraph [0089]). Furthermore, the transitional term “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements of the apparatus (e.g., a further ammonia generating and hydrocarbon oxidation catalyst). See MPEP § 2111.03, I. Therefore, the technical feature shared by the inventions of Groups I and II is not considered a special technical feature, as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Xue et al. (US 2018/0156090 A1). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-14 and 16 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 limitation “comprising a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) or a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter” (at lines 2-3) is unclear. In particular, it is unclear as to whether an exhaust gas treatment system which only comprises “a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC)” (but none of the other elements after the word “or”) meets the limitation. It is also unclear as to whether applicant is attempting to recite that the system comprises “a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) with a particulate filter” OR “a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter”. Furthermore, the recitation of “a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter” is unclear because, as best understood, a FWC catalyst is a particulate filter that has been coated with a TWC catalyst. In particular, the specification (at page 6, lines 18-20) states, “When a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) is combined with an additional particulate filter function, the resulting catalyst is termed a so-called “four-way conversion catalyst” (FWC).” Thus, it is unclear as to whether the “particulate filter” of the limitation refers to another particulate filter, or the particulate filter on which the TWC catalyst was coated to form the FWC catalyst.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “the catalytic washcoat” (at lines 3-4), which refers to one washcoat, is unclear because the claim sets forth “at least one catalytic washcoat” (at line 3), which refers to one washcoat or a plurality of washcoats.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) is coated on the particulate filter to form the four-way conversion catalyst (FWC)” is unclear for the same reasons under claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the particulate filter is positioned downstream of the three-way conversion catalyst (TWC)” is unclear for the same reasons under claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 10, the relationship between “a wall flow filter substrate” (at line 2) and “a particulate filter” in claim 1 is unclear.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. (US 2018/0156090 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xue et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system 100 (see FIG. 1; paragraph [0042]) capable of reducing ammonia emissions from a gasoline engine 110, comprising: a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) 130, characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a SCR catalyst 140.
Alternatively, Xue et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system 500 (see FIG. 5; paragraph [0114]) capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine 510, comprising: a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) 530 or a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter (i.e., the TWC catalyst 530 “can be one a filter” so as to defined a FWC catalyst; see end of paragraph [0114]), characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) 540 and/or an ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOx) 550 (i.e., an optional catalyst 550 can be further provided, wherein the catalyst 550 can comprise “an ammonia oxidation catalyst disposed downstream of the SCR catalyst to address any slipped ammonia”; see beginning of paragraph [0114]).
Alternatively, Xue et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system 600 (see FIG. 6; paragraph [0115]) capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine 610, comprising: a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) 630 or a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter (i.e., a wall flow filter 650 having a second three-way conversion (TWC) catalyst thereon, so as to define a FWC catalyst), characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) 640.
Regarding claim 2, Xue et al. discloses that the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst comprises a substrate and at least one catalytic washcoat present on said substrate (see paragraph [0092]), wherein the catalytic washcoat comprises at least one precious metal or platinum group metal (PGM), an oxygen storage compound and a refractory metal oxide (see paragraphs [0067]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 4, Xue et al. discloses that the TWC catalyst is coated on the particulate filter (i.e., in FIG. 5, the TWC catalyst 530 “can be one a filter”, see end of paragraph [0114]; alternatively, in FIG. 7, the wall flow filter 650 has the second three-way conversion (TWC) catalyst disposed thereon, see paragraph [0115]), so as to form the FWC catalyst.
Regarding claim 6, Xue et al. discloses that the ammonia abatement catalyst (in FIG. 1, the SCR catalyst 140; in FIG. 5, the SCR catalyst 540 and/or the AMOx catalyst 550; or in FIG. 6, the SCR catalyst 640) is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst (in FIG. 1, the TWC catalyst 130; in FIG. 5, the TWC catalyst 530 on a filter; or in FIG. 6, the TWC catalyst 630 or the wall flow filter 650 coated with a second TWC catalyst).
Regarding claim 9, Xue et al. discloses that the ammonia abatement catalyst comprising the SCR catalyst 140, 540, 640 and/or the AMOx catalyst 550 is configured as a stand-alone catalyst (i.e., as a separate catalyst unit; see FIG. 1, 5, 6).
Regarding claim 10, Xue et al. discloses that the substrate is a wall flow filter substrate (i.e., a wall flow filter 650 having the TWC catalyst thereon; see FIG. 6, paragraph [0115]).
Regarding claim 11, Xue et al. discloses that the SCR catalyst lacks any precious metal or platinum group metal (i.e., the SCR catalyst can comprise a molecular sieve promoted with copper and/or iron, which are not precious or PGM metals; see end of paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Xue et al. discloses that the SCR catalyst comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (i.e., the SCR catalyst can comprise a molecular sieve promoted with one or more of copper or iron; see end of paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 16, Xue et al. discloses that the SCR catalyst comprises an iron-promoted or copper-promoted zeolite (i.e., the SCR catalyst can comprise a molecular sieve promoted with one or more of copper or iron, and the molecular sieve can be a zeolite; see paragraph [0075] and end of paragraph [0086]).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 2009/0193796 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system 2 (see FIG. 1A, paragraphs [0035]-[0036]) capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine 4, comprising: a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) 8 with a particulate filter 12 characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) 20 and/or an ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOx) (i.e., the SCR 20 can also function as an ammonia oxidation catalyst because the suitable SCR catalyst compositions “… can also promote the oxidation of excess NH3 with O2, especially for those compositions having higher promoter concentrations”, see paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Wei et al. discloses that the TWC catalyst 8 comprises a substrate (i.e., a substrate such as a monolithic carrier; see paragraph [0040]) and at least one catalytic washcoat present on said substrate, the catalytic washcoat comprising at least one precious metal or platinum group metal (PGM) (i.e., TWC catalyst that exhibit good activity and long life, such as one or more platinum group metals; see paragraph [0040]), an oxygen storage compound (i.e., the TWC catalyst can be formulated to include an oxygen storage component, such as ceria; see paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0044]) and a refractory metal oxide (i.e., a refractory metal oxide support, such as alumina; see paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the particulate filter 12 is not coated by the TWC catalyst 8 and is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst 8.
Regarding claim 6, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the ammonia abatement catalyst (i.e., SCR catalyst 20) is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst 8.
Regarding claim 8, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the particulate filter 12 is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst 8 and upstream of the ammonia abatement catalyst comprising the SCR catalyst 20 and/or AMOx catalyst.
Regarding claim 9, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the ammonia abatement catalyst comprising the SCR catalyst 20 and/or AMOx catalyst is configured as a stand-alone catalyst (i.e., as a separate catalyst unit connected in the treatment system via a line 18).
Regarding claim 11, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 lacks any precious metal or platinum group metal (i.e., a suitable SCR catalyst composition includes one or both of an iron and a copper promoter present in a zeolite; see paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (i.e., one or both of an iron and a copper promoter present in a zeolite, wherein a zeolite is a molecular sieve; see paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 comprises an iron-promoted or copper-promoted zeolite (see paragraph [0064]).
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, 6, 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2009/0193796 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system 2 (see FIG. 1A, paragraphs [0035]-[0036]) capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine 4, comprising: a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) 8 with a particulate filter 12 characterized in that the system also comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) 20 and/or an ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOx) (i.e., the SCR 20 can also function as an ammonia oxidation catalyst because the suitable SCR catalyst compositions “… can also promote the oxidation of excess NH3 with O2, especially for those compositions having higher promoter concentrations.” see paragraph [0064]).
Wei et al. (at paragraph [0035]) further discloses, “In an embodiment when the particulate filter is not otherwise coated, the TWC can be coated onto the particulate filter.”
Wei et al. also discloses another embodiment of the exhaust gas treatment system 3 (see FIG. 1B; paragraph [0037]), wherein the system comprises a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) coated on a particulate filter (i.e., as a TWC-coated particulate filter 13).
As defined by applicant (see specification, at page 6, lines 18-20), “When a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) is combined with an additional particulate filter function, the resulting catalyst is termed a so-called “four-way conversion catalyst” (FWC).” Thus, Wei et al. discloses that the exhaust gas treatment system can also comprise a FWC catalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the TWC catalyst on the particulate filter, so as to provide a FWC catalyst in the exhaust gas treatment system of Wei et al., because, by coating the TWC on the particulate filter, a comparable conversion of the emissions can be achieved without unduly crowding the exhaust pipe (see Wei et al., at paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, in the modified system of Wei et al., the FWC catalyst comprises a substrate (i.e., the particulate filter) and at least one catalytic washcoat present on the substrate (i.e., a washcoat of the TWC catalyst, now coated on the particulate filter); wherein a suitable catalytic washcoat comprises at least one precious metal or platinum group metal (i.e., platinum group metals; see paragraph [0040]), an oxygen storage compound (i.e., an oxygen storage component, such as ceria; see paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0044]) and a refractory metal oxide (i.e., a refractory metal oxide, such as alumina; see paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, as commented above, the modified system of Wei et al. comprises the TWC catalyst coated on the particulate filter, so as to form the FWC catalyst.
Regarding claim 6, in the modified system of Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A), the ammonia abatement catalyst (i.e., SCR catalyst 20) would be positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst or FWC catalyst (i.e., the TWC catalyst, now coated on the particulate filter 12).
Regarding claim 9, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the ammonia abatement catalyst comprising the SCR catalyst 20 and/or AMOx catalyst is configured as a stand-alone catalyst (i.e., as a separate catalyst unit).
Regarding claim 10, in the modified system of Wei et al., the substrate of the FWC is a wall flow filter substrate (i.e., the particulate filter, on which the TWC catalyst is now coated, comprises a wall flow filter substrate 50; see FIG. 3-4; paragraph [0049]-[0050], [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 lacks any precious metal or platinum group metal (i.e., a suitable SCR catalyst composition comprises one or both of an iron and a copper promoter present in a zeolite; see paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (i.e., one or both of an iron and a copper promoter present in a zeolite, wherein a zeolite is a molecular sieve; see paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 comprises an iron-promoted or copper-promoted zeolite (see paragraph [0064]).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2009/0193796 A1) in view of Brinkman et al. (US 2010/0107605 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) suggests that the TWC catalyst 8 is in the close-coupled (CC) position (i.e., the position of the TWC catalyst 8 is closest to exhaust outlet of the gasoline engine 4). Wei et al., however, does not specifically state that TWC catalyst is disposed in the close-coupled (CC) position.
Brinkman et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system (i.e., an aftertreatment system 70; see FIG. 1; paragraph [0035]) comprising a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) with a particulate filter (i.e., a catalytic device 48, such as a particulate filter combined with a TWC (PF/TWC) 48; see FIG. 6, paragraphs [0038], [0058]) and an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) (i.e., an ammonia-selective catalytic reactor (NH3-SCR) device 50; see FIG. 6, paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0058]); wherein the three-way conversion catalyst 48 is in the close-coupled (CC) position (i.e., preferably, the catalytic device 48 is close-coupled to the exhaust manifold 39 of the engine 10; see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst in the close-coupled (CC) position in the system/modified system of Wei et al. because the close-coupled position was considered a preferred location for the TWC catalyst in terms of providing a suitable operating temperature range for performing the TWC reactions, as taught by Brinkman et al. (see paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Wei et al. (see FIG. 1A) discloses that the ammonia abatement catalyst (i.e., SCR catalyst 20) is positioned at a distance from the TWC catalyst 8. Wei et al., however, does not specifically state that the position is the underfloor (UF) position.
Brinkman et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment system (i.e., an aftertreatment system 70; see FIG. 1; paragraph [0035]) comprising a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) with a particulate filter (i.e., a catalytic device 48, such as a particulate filter combined with a TWC (PF/TWC) 48; see FIG. 6, paragraphs [0038], [0058]) and an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) (i.e., an ammonia-selective catalytic reactor (NH3-SCR) device 50; see FIG. 6, paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0058]); wherein the ammonia abatement catalyst 50 is in underfloor position (i.e., preferably, the NH3-SCR device 50 is located in an underfloor location; see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the ammonia abatement catalyst (SCR) in the underfloor position in the system/modified system of Wei et al. because temperatures which are greater than 600 °C can cause reductants to breakthrough and degrade the SCR catalyst (see paragraph [0011]), and the underfloor position was considered a preferred location for the SCR catalyst in terms of providing a suitable operating temperature range for performing the ammonia-SCR reactions (see paragraphs [0035], [0039]), as taught by Brinkman et al.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2009/0193796 A1) in view of Caudle et al. (US 2010/0111796 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wei et al. (see paragraph [0064]) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 can also function as an AMOx catalyst because the suitable SCR catalyst compositions, such as iron-promoted and/or copper-promoted zeolite, “… can also promote the oxidation of excess NH3 with O2, especially for those compositions having higher promoter concentrations.” Wei et al., however, fails to disclose that the AMOx catalyst comprises a precious metal or platinum group metal at a total loading of precious metal or platinum group metal from about 0.1 g/ g/ft3 to about 10 g/ft3, calculated as the total weight of precious metal or platinum group metal of the volume of the AMOx catalyst.
Caudle et al. discloses an ammonia abatement catalyst (see FIG. 1(b), 2) comprising a SCR catalyst (i.e., an upstream SCR zone 140 comprising a SCR composition 300, such as an iron and/or copper promoted molecular sieve; see paragraphs [0048], [0075]) and an AMOx catalyst (i.e., a downstream AMOx zone 130 comprising the SCR composition 300 and also an AMOx component 200; see paragraphs [0056], [0075]). Specifically, the AMOx catalyst comprises a precious metal or platinum group metal at a total loading of precious metal or platinum group metal from about 0.1 g/ft3 to about 10 g/ft3, calculated as the total weight of precious metal or platinum group metal of the volume of the AMOx catalyst (see TABLE 1, showing catalyst compositions having a total Pt loading from 3.99 g/ft3 to 5.43 g/ft3; see also TABLE 2, showing a catalyst P comprising an AMOx catalyst with a total Pt loading of 5.31 g/ft3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the AMOx catalyst of Caudle et al. in the ammonia abatement catalyst in the system/modified system of Wei et al. because the AMOx catalyst was effective to convert ammonia under a wide range of temperatures to prevent ammonia slip from the SCR catalyst, and minimal nitrogen oxide byproducts and N2O would be produced, as taught by Caudle et al. (see, e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0090], [0092]-[0093], FIG. 10-12; conversion and selectivity data from TABLE I and II).
Regarding claim 14, Wei et al. (see paragraph [0064]) discloses that the SCR catalyst 20 can also function as an AMOx catalyst because the suitable SCR catalyst compositions, such as iron-promoted and/or copper-promoted zeolite, “… can also promote the oxidation of excess NH3 with O2, especially for those compositions having higher promoter concentrations.” Wei et al., however, fails to disclose that the AMOx catalyst comprises a total precious metal or platinum group metal loading from about 0.01 wt. % to about 2 wt. %, based on the weight of the dry AMOx catalyst component.
Caudle et al. discloses an ammonia abatement catalyst (see FIG. 1(b), 2) comprising a SCR catalyst (i.e., an upstream SCR zone 140 comprising a SCR composition 300, such as an iron and/or copper promoted molecular sieve; see paragraphs [0048], [0075]) and an AMOx catalyst (i.e., a downstream AMOx zone 130 comprising the SCR composition 300 and also an AMOx component 200; see paragraphs [0056], [0075]). Specifically, the AMOx catalyst comprises a total precious metal or PGM loading from about 0.01 wt. % to about 2 wt. %, based on the weight of the dry AMOx catalyst component (see TABLE 1, showing AMOx catalysts having a 0.58 or 0.57 Pt wt %; see also TABLE 2, showing an AMOx catalyst having a 0.58 Pt wt%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the AMOx catalyst of Caudle et al. in the ammonia abatement catalyst in the system/modified system of Wei et al. because the AMOx catalyst was effective to convert ammonia under a wide range of temperatures to prevent ammonia slip from the SCR catalyst, and minimal nitrogen oxide byproducts and N2O would be produced, as taught by Caudle et al. (see, e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0090], [0092]-[0093], FIG. 10-12; conversion and selectivity data from TABLE I and II).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-29 of copending Application No. 19/140,212 (hereafter “App. ‘212”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, App. ‘212 (see ref. claim 16) claims an exhaust gas treatment system for reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine comprising a three-way conversion (TWC) catalyst with a particulate filter (GPF) characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) and an ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOx).
Regarding claim 3, App. ‘212 (see ref. claim 18) claims that the TWC catalyst is in close-coupled (CC) position.
Regarding claim 4, App. ‘212 (see ref. claim 17) claims that a TWC catalyst is coated on the particulate filter (GPF), and thereby forming a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC).
Regarding claim 12, App. ‘212 (see ref. claim 24) claims that the SCR catalyst comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (i.e., a metal-promoted zeolite).
Regarding claim 16, App. ‘212 (see ref. claim 24) claims that the SCR catalyst comprises an iron-promoted or copper-promoted zeolite.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,450,918 B2 (hereafter US ‘918). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US ‘918 claims an exhaust gas treatment system capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine, comprising a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) or a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter (i.e., a TWC catalyst, see ref. claim 1; or the TWC catalyst on a wall flow filter, thereby defining a FWC catalyst, see ref. claim 14) characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) (i.e., an ammonia selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, see ref. claim 1) and/or an ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOx) (see ref. claim 16).
Regarding claim 2, US ‘918 claims that the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst comprises a substrate (see ref. claims 4, 14) and at least one catalytic washcoat present on said substrate, the catalytic washcoat comprising at least one precious metal or platinum group metal (PGM), an oxygen storage compound and a refractory metal oxide (see ref. claim 17).
Regarding claim 4, US ‘918 claims that the TWC catalyst is coated on the particulate filter, so as to form the FWC catalyst (see ref. claim 14).
Regarding claim 6, US ‘918 claims that the ammonia abatement catalyst (SCR catalyst) is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst (see ref. claims 1 and 14).
Regarding claim 10, US ‘918 claims that the substrate is a wall flow filter substrate (see ref. claim 14).
Regarding claim 12, US ‘918 claims that the SCR catalyst comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (see ref. claims 6, 11).
Regarding claim 16, US ‘918 claims that the SCR catalyst can comprise an iron- or copper-promoted zeolite (i.e., a Cu and/or Fe promoted molecular sieve material, wherein the molecular sieve material is selected from zeolite framework types AEI, CHA, and AFX; see ref. claims 6, 8, 9, 11)
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,173,087 B2 (hereafter US ‘087). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US ‘087 claims an exhaust gas treatment system capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine, comprising a three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) or a four-way conversion catalyst (FWC) with a particulate filter (i.e., “a catalyzed particulate trap having a three-way conversion catalyst”; see ref. claim 1) characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a selective catalytic reduction catalyst (SCR) and/or an ammonia oxidation catalyst (AMOx) (i.e., “an SCR trap… located downstream of the catalyzed particulate trap”; see ref. claim 7).
Regarding claim 2, US ‘087 claims the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst comprises a substrate (i.e., the particulate trap; see ref. claim 1) and at least one catalytic washcoat present on said substrate (see ref. claims 2-6), the washcoat comprising at least one precious metal or platinum group metal (PGM) (see ref. claims 2, 4, 6), an oxygen storage compound (see ref. claims 2-6), and a support (see ref. claims 2, 4, 6). While US ‘087 does not specifically claim that the “support” comprises a refractory metal oxide, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a refractory metal oxide for the support in the exhaust gas treatment system of US ‘087 because the examiner takes Official notice that the use of refractory metal oxides for catalyst supports was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, US ‘087 claims that the TWC catalyst is coated on the particulate filter (see ref. claims 1, 2, 4, 6), so as to form the FWC catalyst.
Regarding claim 6, US ‘087 claims that the ammonia abatement catalyst (i.e., SCR catalyst) is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst (see ref. claim 7).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,473,471 B2 (hereafter US ‘471). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US ‘471 claims an exhaust gas treatment system capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine, comprising a TWC catalyst or a FWC catalyst with a particulate filter (i.e., a TWC catalyst, ref. claim 21; or a TWC catalyst on a filter, which defines a FWC, ref. claims 20, 23) characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a SCR catalyst (i.e., an ammonia selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst; see ref. claim 1, 18, 19) and/or an AMOx catalyst (see ref. claim 25).
Regarding claim 4, US ‘471 claims that the TWC catalyst is coated on the particulate filter to form the FWC catalyst (see ref. claims 20, 23).
Regarding claim 6, US ‘471 claims that the ammonia abatement catalyst (i.e., the SCR catalyst; see ref. claim 20) is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst or the FWC catalyst.
Regarding claim 12, US ‘471 claims that the SCR catalyst comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (see ref. claim 17).
Regarding claim 16, US ‘471 claims that the SCR catalyst can comprise an iron- or copper-promoted zeolite (i.e., a Cu and/or Fe promoted molecular sieve, wherein the molecular sieve is selected from zeolite framework types AEI, CHA, and AFX; see ref. claims 14, 15, 17).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,253,667 B2 (hereafter US ‘667). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, US ‘667 claims an exhaust gas treatment system capable of reducing ammonia emission from a gasoline engine, comprising a TWC catalyst (ref. claim 1) with a particulate filter (i.e., a particulate filter of a platinum-containing catalytic article; see ref. claims 1, 3, 4) characterized in that the system comprises an ammonia abatement catalyst comprising a SCR catalyst (see ref. claim 1) and/or an AMOx catalyst (see ref. claim 8).
Regarding claim 5, US ‘667 claims that the particulate filter is not coated by the three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) (i.e., it is coated by a platinum-containing catalyst; see ref. claim 3) and positioned downstream of the three-way conversion catalyst (TWC) (see ref. claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, US ‘667 claims that the ammonia abatement catalyst (SCR catalyst) is positioned downstream of the TWC catalyst (see ref. claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, US ‘667 claims that the particulate filter (i.e., the particulate filter of the platinum-containing catalytic article; see ref. claim 1, 3) is downstream of the TWC catalyst and upstream of the ammonia abatement catalyst comprising the SCR catalyst and/or AMOx catalyst (see ref. claims 1, 8).
Regarding claim 12, US ‘667 claims that the SCR catalyst comprises a metal-promoted molecular sieve (see ref. claims 1, 12, 20-22).
Regarding claim 16, US ‘667 claims that the SCR catalyst comprises an iron-promoted or copper-promoted zeolite (see ref. claims 13-19 and 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Klingmann et al. (US 2015/0107228 A1) and Cravillon et al. (WO 2018/024547 A1) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art. Also, Dumbuya et al. (US 2026/0208105 A1) is the PG-PUB for App. Serial No. 19/140,212.
* * *
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