DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 2, “at least one precursor of such an agent” should read “at least one precursor of the reducing agent”.
In Claim 2, line 2, “the reducing agent of the precursor of the reducing agent” should read “the at least one reducing agent and/or the at least one precursor of the reducing agent”.
In Claim 4, line 2, “the surfactant or surfactants are selected from” should read “the at least one surfactant is selected from”.
In Claim 5, line 2, “the surfactant or surfactants are selected from” should read “the at least one surfactant is selected from”.
In Claim 6, line 2, “the surfactant or surfactants are present” should read “the at least one surfactant is present”.
In Claim 7, line 1, “The composition according claim 1” should read “The composition according to claim 1”.
In Claim 8, lines 3-4, “m a number” should read “m is a number”.
In Claim 11, line 2, “the antifoaming additive or additives are present” should read “the at least one antifoaming additive is present”.
In Claim 12, lines 2-3, “50 to 90 by weight, preferably from 60 to 80 by weight” should read “50 to 90% by weight, preferably from 60 to 80% by weight” or the like.
In Claims 13-15, “characterised in that it includes at least one step” should read “comprising at least one step”.
In Claim 13, line 2, “the outlet” should read “an outlet”.
In Claim 14, lines 2-3, “the pipe that conveys the exhaust gases from the outlet” should read “a pipe that conveys exhaust gases from an outlet”.
In Claim 14, line 3, “a device for the selective catalytic reduction” should read “a device for selective catalytic reduction”.
In Claim 15, line 4-5, “the pipe that conveys the exhaust gases from the outlet” should read “a pipe that conveys the exhaust gases from an outlet”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “more preferentially the reducing-agent precursor is urea” in lines 3-4. The phrase "more preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “preferably from 30% to 40% by weight, more preferentially from 31 to 35% by weight and better still from 32% to 33% by weight… and more preferentially still of 32.5 ± 0.7% by weight”. The phrases "preferably”, “more preferentially", “better still” and “more preferentially still” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably from non-ionic surfactants” in line 3. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “preferably C8-C30, even more preferentially C10-C24”, “preferably -(O-CH2-CH2)-“, and “preferably from 1 to 30, more preferentially from 1 to 20, better from 3 to 15, even better from 5 to 12”. The phrases "preferably”, “even more preferentially”, “more preferentially", “better” and “even better” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “preferably from 50 to 5,000 ppm by weight, more preferentially from 100 to 2,500 ppm by weight and better still from 200 to 1,000 ppm by weight”. The phrases "preferably”, “more preferentially", and “better still” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “preferably the polyoxyalkylene chains are selected from polyoxyethylenes (EO), polyoxypropylenes (PO), and the chains formed by oxyethylene units and oxypropylene units (EO/PO), and more preferentially still from the chains formed by oxyethylene (OE) units and oxypropylene (OP) units with a ratio… preferably lying in the range from 0.2 to 2, more preferentially from 0.3 to 1.3”. The phrases "preferably”, “more preferentially still”, and “more preferentially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “preferably from 1% to 2%” in line 3. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “preferably from 2 to 100 ppm by weight, more preferentially from 3 to 50 ppm by weight, better from 4 to 25 ppm by weight and better still from 5 to 15 ppm by weight”. The phrases "preferably”, “more preferentially", “better”, and “better still” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the water content thereof” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “preferably from 60 to 80 by weight, and better still from 65 to 70% by weight”. The phrases “preferably” and “better still” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “preferably a diesel engine” in line 2. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Collin et al. (WO 2018/178592 A1), Knott et al. (US 2020/0377640 A1), and Nishi et al. (US 2023/0227684 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
With regard to Claim 1, Collin teaches an aqueous composition comprising urea, which is a NOx reducing agent, and one compound selected from non-ionic surfactant ethers and esters (Abstract; at least one compound chosen among: - the hydrocarbyl and mono- or polyalkylene glycol ethers, - hydrocarbyl and polyol ethers, - fatty acid and mono or polyalkylene glycol esters, - fatty acid and mono- or polyglycerol esters, - and mixtures of these compounds).
Collin teaches an antifoaming additive comprising an aqueous siloxane-based solution (Paragraph 0277 of translation).
Collin is silent to the antifoaming additive selected from copolymers comprising a polydimethylsiloxane backbone with a mean number of dimethylsiloxane units in the range from 150 to 300, grafted by polyoxyalkylene chains.
Knott teaches SiOC-linked, linear polydimethylsiloxane-polyoxyalkylene block copolymers (Abstract) for defoaming aqueous media (Paragraph 0009). However, Knott does not disclose polydimethylsiloxane-polyoxyalkylene block copolymers having a mean number of dimethylsiloxane units in the range from 150 to 300, instead disclosing a range of 3 to 100 units (Claim 1; Paragraph 0040).
Nishi teaches a powder dispersion comprising polyoxyalkylene-modified polydimethylsiloxane (Abstract) and a defoamer (Paragraph 0132). However, Nishi does not disclose polyoxyalkylene-modified polydimethylsiloxane having a mean number of dimethylsiloxane units in the range from 150 to 300, instead disclosing a range of 2 to 100 units (Paragraph 0017).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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.
/A.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights